Luongo
- Thread starter slapshot
- Start date
Kush said:
That could cut both ways.
One might argue rushing to slap together a playoff roster with Luongo in the wake of this season is doing what they've done for the last 45 years: mortgaging their (cap) future for the present.
And one might argue that Scrivens has progressed and Reimer hopefully will be recovered such that they're not the same goalies of last season.
Or one might go out and grab a UFA vet with less contract than Luongo - which would also be different.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik? said:
Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if the $16M range is increased to avoid such situations.
caveman said:
Playoffs - yes
Playoffs - no
bustaheims said:
If I had to put money on one definite change in the next CBA it'll be the floor.
How many of these things are the owners actually going to get?
According to the posters here they want to put tighter restrictions on retirement deals, stop AHL contracts coming off the cap, lower floor, lower revenue split to the players.
I can't see the PA just rolling over and taking all this.
The owners will have to prioritize what they want.
According to the posters here they want to put tighter restrictions on retirement deals, stop AHL contracts coming off the cap, lower floor, lower revenue split to the players.
I can't see the PA just rolling over and taking all this.
The owners will have to prioritize what they want.
bustaheims said:
In 2006, the cap was $39 mil. In 2013, the cap is roughly $70 (before new CBA). The cap has risen 79% over that time.
The floor is a fixed $16 mil less then the cap. In 2006, the floor was $23 mil. In 2013, the floor is $54 mil. Players salaries for small market floor teams have risen 134%.
League revenues overall have gone up around 57% in that time (from around $2.1 bil to $3.3 bil). League payroll has gone from about $1.134 bil to $1.881 bil, a rise of 66%.
Even with revenue sharing, the fixed $16 mil gap between the cap and the floor has put tremendous financial pressure on the small market clubs who have experienced heavier proportional payroll expense each year. They should tie the floor to a formula that weights % of revenue growth to some extent like the cap to provide small market teams some proportional relief from this fixed $16 mil as revenues increase.
And remember, this doesn't materially make a dime of difference to the players. Even if the cap was a buck, the players currently get around 57% of the $3.3 billion league revenues for 2013 proportionally divided up based upon their relative salaries.
I understand why they went with the fixed $16 mil => it was a way for the big market teams to put financial pressure on the small market teams to work at increasing their revenue so the big market teams didn't do all the heavy revenue lifting. But I think it's proven to be too harsh and they probably need to find some middle ground. More or less, this was known going into the deal so it's not a gigantic surprise.
Knocking the players share down to levels of other pro sports teams, bumping the revenue sharing some and providing some relief of this fixed $16 mil will go a long way to helping the small market clubs. And when they're a little more solvent, they can afford better marketing to help grow their revenues.
I suspect that's the gist of where they'll go with the new CBA.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
I doubt the PA fights too hard about the cap floor, if at all. The players' share of revenue is fixed at whatever percentage they negotiate to, regardless of where team payrolls are at. It really won't matter to them all that much (from a CBA negotiation standpoint) if one team has a payroll of $30M and another has one of $70M as long as, as a group, they're getting every penny they're entitled to. The PA has also essentially agreed to tightened restrictions on retirement deals with the Kovalchuk rule.
The only really contentious issue you raise there is the lower revenue split, which will likely be the only serious obstacle in these negotiations. Unfortunately, it's significant enough an issue that it could result in a work stoppage of some kind if neither side is willing to budge on it.
Deebo said:
First of all, if this was such a terrible deal for the players, they could have got out of it two years ago.
Secondly, there are enough of them around from the last time who remember what losing a years salary was like and how much it cost them.
Thirdly, the NHLPA and NHL have an independent 3rd party auditor who has been checking the numbers. So we can't have a situation like last time with Goodenow crying and howling about how the league numbers by Levitt were bogus as time and their own 3rd party auditor have proven otherwise. So this time, they're haggling with mutually known and proven accounting facts.
What the cap ceiling and floor is or how the revenue sharing gets split up doesn't do much for the players because no matter what those things are, their payroll is a % of overall league revenues. And that will be the major thing they'll argue about - bringing that % down closer in line with the other major league team sports.
Largely what Bettman promised in the previous CBA came to pass. This time around, the divide isn't nearly as great and the facts are better known. They'll make plenty of noise, take it down to the wire and maybe even sit out a few games trying to get the best deal they can. That's just union negotiating stuff. But I don't see it being nearly as difficult to get something done this time around.
Kin
New member
Deebo said:
Most of them, probably. If there's one thing we've seen from the last round of labour negotiations in the other major sports it's that a reigning principle of modern player unions is that missing paychecks is a major no-no. Whatever might be lost by future players seems largely immaterial so long as existing players lose as little salary as possible. Even the MLBPA was willing to sign a deal significantly worse for draft picks
So long as Owners know that and are willing to take advantage of that players have basically no leverage. It's why even a ridiculously profitable enterprise like the NFL was able to cut salaries last go-round.
My guess? The players will do what the NBAPA did. They'll stay locked out so the league risks losing a big event(The national Christmas games for the NBA, the Winter Classic for the NHL) and get some minor concessions and then sign a deal not much different than the one offered in the Summer.
It's not Don Fehr's fault. We saw what happened when an Executive Director doesn't take his lead from the players in 04-05. As long as the players aren't willing to lose paychecks they'll never "win" a negotiation no matter what owners want.
Nik? said:
I'm sure it was a factor but the much bigger factor by far was #1. Much of what Bettman said would happened did. Much of what Goodenow said would happen didn't.
If the deal was so terrible and not working out close to what was promised, they could stop it and haggle for something better. They'd have the audited numbers to prove their case. When revenues went up, so did their contracts. And when the revenues went up, so did their piece of the revenue pie.
And when they looked around and saw that other pro sports team leagues were getting less than their 56-57% of revenues, why the heck would they want to tear up the deal? They already had a pretty good deal - better than the other leagues, plain and simple and they knew it. That had plenty to do with delaying what is about to take place => their share of the revenue pie is very likely to get smaller this time around to bring them closer to in line with the other leagues.
Kin
New member
cw said:
Sure. They could also go home and light their paychecks on fire. But if they're at all pragmatic, and I'm willing go out on a limb and say that idealism is in limited supply here, they'll only do what does the best for themselves.
Opting out of a deal is entirely about the future, not the past. Alex Rodriguez' 2001 deal did better by him than any deal had done for any player in any sport in history and he opted out of it ASAP.
As long as they weren't willing to miss paychecks they weren't going to do any better.
bustaheims said:
I disagree, I think the NHLPA will fight quite hard for the cap floor. After all if more teams have to spend up to a higher minimum team salary level, it will mean more money in the pockets of individual players who otherwise would get a lot less. Ideally I would suppose that the extra cash would be spread among non star players but experience shows that it tends to mean larger contracts to star players (up to the maximum allowed, that is).