Hossa 'investigation' too little too late

The NHL won’t look into the Henrik Zetterberg contract because if they do, a woodwork of Detroit fans will scream that an anti-Red Wings agenda is indeed at work. :P

Supporter of the Sergei Berezin "Give and Go" - You give me puck, then you go to hell

by bkblades on Jul 31, 2009 12:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

From the very first time a GM signed a player to a front-loaded contract and said the words “this longer term allows us to reduce our cap hit each year for the term of the contract” this kind of thing was obvious. Once it was clear that this was a good managerial tactic to enable a team to keep the players they wanted to keep and at a number for salary that was cap-friendly for the team so they wouldn’t have to gut their roster, more and more GMs were going to do the same thing.

To investigate now is a waste of time and a way for those involved to look busy without actually putting in all that much effort. Of course they probably discussed retirement informally, but if they actually left any trail that could be followed later on they were stupid. Things like that should always be discussed quietly and with nothing written down to maintain plausible deniability later. A team in Chicago of all places should have a better sense of the politics of negotiation than that – how disappointing.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 6:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This would all be solved if they just made the cap hit the actual value of the contract.

Can anyone give me a good reason this isn’t the case anyways?

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because you could backload contracts and fit everyone and their mother on your team this year? You know how great NHL GMs are with ignoring the future.

by Malurous on Jul 31, 2009 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait

Sure you could do that, but players are the same as GM’s, they want their money now. How many would play for $1M now for the possibility of $7M in 5 years?

Any agent that let his client sign that deal should be fired, since every player has the risk of career ending injury etc that would force them to be in retirement.

I can see where this might cause the same problem, because as the NHL and world continually shows us, there’s no shortage of supposedly smart people making crappy financial decisions, but I think there could be an easy provision that eliminates that. Maybe the value of the contract can’t change by more than 10% per year.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure you could do that, but players are the same as GM’s, they want their money now. How many would play for $1M now for the possibility of $7M in 5 years?

It could easily become another wink and a nod type arrangement to the effect of, “Hey, we both know you’re worth 2.5 million a year but we’re up against the cap. How about signing this four year deal where you get 1.5 million for the first two years and 4.5 million for the last two year. Do us this favor and you come out ahead!”

Any agent that let his client sign that deal should be fired, since every player has the risk of career ending injury etc that would force them to be in retirement.

True, but every player should have an insurance policy too.

by David M. Getz on Jul 31, 2009 9:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I understand it

That money would be guaranteed. Period (except for suspensions). And I don’t believe any player with a valid contract can be forced into retirement, regardless of their injury status.

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jul 31, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This

That money is guaranteed to the player as soon as the contract is signed. If he gets hurt, he gets the money. If he sucks, he gets the money. The only way to not get the money is to retire. All a guy has to do is not retire, and just keep working on rehabbing or making a comeback, to keep getting his check.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Jul 31, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the buyout too.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My speculation, since this was written into the CBA as an extra complication in the first place (because a cap hit equivalent to the salary in that year would make everyone’s math much easier) is that some teams were planning on taking advantage of stretching out a contract over a longer term and reducing the salary in some years to make the overall cap hit lower from the beginning.

They just all thought that they might be the first to do it and beat out all the other teams.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if they actually left any trail that could be followed later on they were stupid

Assumptions of Dave Tallon’s competence in simple matters have been shown to be not-that-well-placed…

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jul 31, 2009 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, but what about his brother Dale?

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think Dave’s his evil twin who handles contract offers… um, yeah…

I've been looking at the sky

by Back In Black on Jul 31, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fix it in 2011 by negotiating limitation in. Live with the mistake until then. Wear it as a hat.

I hope that’s not the only option available. The NHL & PA must have a way to close a loophole such as this. 2 more years of these types of contracts is ridiculous. Although, with GMs looking out for number 1 and players who must be loving these contracts, it’s pretty doubtful that’ll happen.

by Gusinabox on Jul 31, 2009 7:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s in the contract that both parties agreed to. When a contract is signed, if one side doesn’t like some of the provisions after operating under it for a few years, they can’t just change it to their liking – why bother having a damn contract in the first place, then?

Everyone is playing under the same rules now. If one team is taking better advantage of it than another, then don’t blame the team using their rules to their advantage – blame the teams that are slower on the uptake and not using all the rules to their advantage.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone is playing under the same rules now. If one team is taking better advantage of it than another, then don’t blame the team using their rules to their advantage – blame the teams that are slower on the uptake and not using all the rules to their advantage.

Most teams aren’t “slower on the uptake”, they just plain can’t afford contracts like this. With the exception of Detroit, Philly, Toronto, Montreal, and the Rangers, teams operate by a cash cap based on what salaries are actually paid out.

You really think that Buffalo or Carolina or Calgary hasn’t considered using this? I’m sure they have, but they can’t just pay one player $10 million with a cap hit of half of that (Kevin Lowe notwithstanding – wonder why he signed Vanek to that deal?). It’s not in their budgets.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But lower revenue team will always be at a disadvantage – smaller businesses have a tough time competing against big box stores, the local corner grocery can’t compete on the same terms with a Meijer down the street, a little shop selling handmade candies won’t be able to compete with an aisle full of bags and bags of chocolate from Hershey. On a strict dollar basis, the only way to make everyone dead even would be to put all revenues from all thirty teams in a pool – ticket sales, merchandise, television contracts, sponsorships, everything – and divide it by 30, giving one portion to each team.

That will be their allowance for coaching, travel, player salary, scouting staff, sticks, uniforms, advertising, everything.

Short of that, a team in New York will have more opportunity to get corporate sponsors than a team almost anywhere else, a team with the fan loyalty of Toronto will be able to get more in ticket revenues than most other markets, and a team with the classic colors and design of the Montreal sweater will be able to pull in more in merchandise sales than a team that changes their colors and logo every 20 minutes. In every other business smaller companies or firms can’t compete on pure dollars for anything so they have to be inventive. Smaller companies can’t offer the highest salaries to employees, so they need to be more flexible in work schedules, for example. Small colleges can’t offer professors the same large salaries, so they need to sell their teaching environment to get good staff. Same way that they can’t compete for students on a pure financial basis with large universities. I don’t think that in society a true level playing field exists anywhere – and sports is no different.

Revenue sharing is an attempt to help out the teams at a disadvantage because of market size, but I don’t see a way to completely counteract it.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, the competitive advantage for richer teams will always exist, but the goal of the cap is lessen that effect and you can make the case it’s not doing it as effectively as it could be because of these types of contracts.

by David M. Getz on Jul 31, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baroque points out that smaller businesses in a sea of big fish need to be inventive and smart to keep up. These long term contracts would be an example of the creativeness that teams like Buffalo need to have.

I don’t understand this issue with “we can’t pay 10M to someone for a cap hit of 6M”. If the Sabres are going to spend, say, 45M on salary, then they’re going to spend 45M on salary. If 10M of that is going to a star player, or being split between two other guys, either way, the money is being spent, so its less an “i cant” issue, and more of an “i wont” issue. But if you only pay the guy 10M the first year or two and then the hit starts falling significantly, thats doable. The first year or two of the contract is going to be a little rough, but as the money gets to a more manageable level, thats your true window of opportunity to win with that guy on your roster. Now that Star Player’s salary has gone down some, you can afford to give more money to other guys (you were gonna spend it anyways, remember), and bam, you’re putting together a contending team.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Jul 31, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buffalo in particular puzzles me. I understand that the market is very small, but they sell a ton of jerseys in all of their six different colorways, they have tremendous fan support, they play a style of hockey that is quite enjoyable to watch – they should have less trouble with money than some other teams. Not an unlimited budget, obviously, but they should be okay financially, I would think.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that they have an owner who runs the team too much like a business. They don’t want to spend money because the return on spending the money (a long playoff run) isn’t guaranteed.

So what they do is take the safe route, pay just enough money in salaries to try and finish in 8th place, get the playoff revenue, and make a small profit. Without making the playoffs, sure, they’re “okay”, but it’s not like they’re piling in tens of millions and not spending it. They also try to make sure they stay in the revenue-sharing zone, and overspending will prevent that from happening. That’s probably the biggest thing.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, that is depressing, but it does make more sense. I just saw the tremendous support and couldn’t see why they were pinching pennies without ever, every taking a chance just once. They shouldn’t spend like the proverbial drunken sailors every year, of course, but it would be nice to see them extend themselves just a little once in a while.

The Buffalo fans seem pretty sharp. I’m sure if they understood that the Sabres weren’t going to go for it every year but only once in a while, interspersed by seasons where they cut back a little to build their cash reserves back up, they might be fine with that. It’s better than being in a continual state of building toward something that never happens.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well that’s what is currently so frustrating as a Sabres fan – two straight 10th place finishes, followed by the company line of “well, we were only 4 points out of the playoffs, if Player X wasn’t hurt and Player Y wasn’t hurt, we’re a playoff team!”, which isn’t very comforting.

They use that excuse to justify not making a big splash or significant trade to not only improve the team, but to get rid of the complacency in the locker room that comes from “well, even if we fail, management won’t hold us accountable anyways”. Sad part is, I think Darcy Regier gets it. It’s just the people above him who don’t give him the leeway to make said moves.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And yes, going for it over a 1 or 2 year span and failing is a better option to most Sabres fans than the current situation.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what they do is take the safe route, pay just enough money in salaries to try and finish in 8th place, get the playoff revenue, and make a small profit.

In the modern world of Sports Business, you could argue this is the smartest way to run a franchise. 30 teams in this league, and only 1 of them wins. Only 2 of them get to play in sweaters with the cool “Stanley Cup Finals” logo.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jul 31, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then your fanbase turns on you because you refuse to TRY to win.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly. But fanbase turning on you in spirit, and not supporting the team financially is another thing. The Rangers “tried to win” for years, and one once in 54 years. The fanbase stayed true to the team the entire time. Maybe in other markets, where the teams are not as tied to corporate ticket sales as much as the NYR are it would be more fickle. But even then, all you need to do to justify ticket prices in the league these days is make the playoffs – so you can offset any small scale “revolt” through the other fans. You need years and years of mismanagement, it seems, to really affect the fanbase.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jul 31, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that the goal of the cap? I thought it was cost certainty?

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cost certainty is actually something separate from the cap and is guaranteed via the escrow payments players have to make.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 31, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not all that separate. You can’t have the escrow system and a defined percentage of revenues going to the players without a cap, or something like it. If the players get a fixed percentage of the revenues without a cap, then the amount of money players nominally sign for would rapidly escalate to infinity. If you sign for anything less, you’ll end up with whatever is the minimum. I can map out the game theory if needed.

by J. Michael Neal on Jul 31, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meijer!!!! Haven’t seen one of those in a couple years.

http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.

by IAmJoe on Jul 31, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love my local Meijer. :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not disputing that. I simply think these contract go against the “spirit” of a salary cap (idealist, I know), and I, for one, would like to think that all parties want the loophole closed.

As I mentioned though, I doubt that’s the case.

by Gusinabox on Jul 31, 2009 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would players want the loophole closed?

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 31, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And why would the high-revenue teams want it closed-it’s one of the only advantages they have, other than burying guys in the minors.

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

However, high-revenue teams are not a majority in this league. So in case of negotiations, the owners would probably be in favor of closing the loophole, in majority.

by Habs on Jul 31, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that’s right, based on anecdotal evidence.

Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com

by James Mirtle on Jul 31, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

However, if the big revenue owners and the players are on the same side on an issue covered by collective bargaining, it becomes a lot more difficult for the small revenue owners to force it through.

by J. Michael Neal on Jul 31, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree, sort of

I agree with you in a sense. The loophole has been exposed, and it’s other team’s faults for not taking advantage of it better.

at the same time in Every contract/negotiation/ or "law"there’s a bunch of unforeseen consequences (or seen but the impact is minimalized). I don’t think it’s all that unreasonably to open up negotiations to fix these.

I know that’s not going to happen because the NHLPA is in no way legally mandated to do so, and this seems to benefit the players, but it is most certainly a way to circumvent the salary cap. And it’s completely offsetting the point of the cap, which is to allow small market teams to compete financially with the bigger clubs.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. So much for levelling the playing field. It was good while it lasted.

by Malurous on Jul 31, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was leveling the playing field really the goal of this cba?

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was how it was sold to the paying public, because they needed fans to open their wallets again after a year without hockey. It was really more than anything about the owners being able to contain their costs and prevent players from getting too high a percentage of the revenues since so many teams had no restraint when it came to spending.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

But the cost certainty was to help the smaller market teams compete with the big boys. So in a way it was competitive balance.

and the problem was that only a few teams had no restraint when it came to spending.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That and getting rid of Bob Goodenow as the head of the PA.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jul 31, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course not, but I found it a nice, if short-lived side effect.

by Malurous on Jul 31, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

at the same time in Every contract/negotiation/ or "law"there’s a bunch of unforeseen consequences (or seen but the impact is minimalized). I don’t think it’s all that unreasonably to open up negotiations to fix these.

I agree with this if both parties to the agreement are willing. If it is just one side that says “we had no idea that this wouldn’t work out” and the other side is fine with it, either players or owners, then the other party in the agreement shouldn’t feel any obligation to open the agreement out of the goodness of their hearts to help their negotiating partner fix their previous mistake.

Especially since if the players wanted something changed the owners would laugh in their face and tell them that if they weren’t happy with the agreement, they could try to change it in the next one – or strike to get it changed. The owners got what they wanted, and if it doesn’t work out the way they envisioned it, then work on that later. I have zero sympathy for them.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

well i agree with you. The owners would never open negotiations back up for the players. I don’t feel sorry for the owners one bit.

I think what bothers me is that this is clearly a loophole that violates the spirit of the agreement. Kudos to the teams for taking advantage of it, but it’s time to fix it.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if it really does violate the spirit of the agreement, though – considering that the owners clearly had different aims than the good of the game in mind, it might have been 100% in the spirit of the agreement that they had in mind (as opposed to the fictional agreement that they spoke of in public).

Either way, better luck next time owners (not really – if the money is going to anyone, I’d rather more go to the guys who actually take pucks to the face and risk concussions than the suits).

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The owners, the majority of them, wanted a way to maximize smaller teams profits. They were trying to save themselves from themselves at the cost of the players…(IMO) I think this violates that.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here’s what really burns. Over and over, people have asked “why did we have a lockout?” and regardless of the absurdity of contracts handed out, apologists said that the cap was necessary to ensure cost certainty. That the NHL needed to ensure that teams did not spend too high a proportion of league revenues on players salaries.

This loophole effectively allows teams to spend more than the allotted percentage of league revenues that should go to players.

by Gusinabox on Jul 31, 2009 8:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No it doesn’t – that’s what escrow is for. What the loophole does allow is for teams to award large contracts to players without any concerns for how it will affect them, because if the dollars awarded to players are too high the excess just gets clawed back in the form of escrow, so an $8 million salary is converted to $6 million or so. The owners as a whole are fine – they are still guaranteed to get their percentage of revenues, regardless of the actual numbers on the contracts the players sign.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://sportsjudge.blogspot.com/2009/07/hossa-contract-under-review-by-nhl.html

“Only 1.06% of NHL forwards in league history have retired after the magic age of 38 referenced above. For a player with numerous knee injuries in his past and who last week underwent shoulder surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff, my money won’t be on Hossa to land in that 1.06%.”

by SportsJudge on Jul 31, 2009 8:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Bear in mind that you could count on one hand the number of guys who played past 40 ever up until about ten years ago. Conditioning, rehab, and training principles have improved dramatically even since Hossa arrived in the League. Sure, with his injury history, 41 seems unreasonable, but I don’t think you can cite historical data for average retirement age when we’re in the middle of such a massive shift.

SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there)

by Doogie2K on Jul 31, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True enough. And even if a player at 40 can’t play the same minutes as he used to, he can still be a valuable contributor in a smaller and possibly more specialized role.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

SportsJudge, do you know what the percentage is of goalies who played past the same age at which DiPietro’s deal expires? I remember hearing that something like 7 goalies in history did…might be even less.

DiPietro’s cap hit is the same throughout the length of his deal, for whatever that’s worth.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jul 31, 2009 9:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

His salary is the same, not cap hit, sorry.

by Bosc Ulrich on Jul 31, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two points. The first, as mentioned above, is that the players are probably fine with this. If the owners want to close the loophole, they’re going to have to negotiate. They’ll have to give something up. If I’m the players’ association, I want restricted free agency to actually have some meaning.

The other point, which is hinted at above, is that there is no way to build a salary cap that doesn’t have a loophole. You can’t do it. Just on this issue, here are the alternatives I see:

1) Current system, where the cap hit is the average contract value.
2) Above proposal of the cap hit being the amount paid in each year. This leads to back loading.
3) Mandate that a contract be for the same amount in each year. What are you going to do about signing bonuses?

And so on. Look, folks, you wanted a cap system. I hope you’re happy.

by J. Michael Neal on Jul 31, 2009 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

2) Above proposal of the cap hit being the amount paid in each year. This leads to back loading.

I guess i say to this… so what.

Right now, with front loaded contracts, this makes it easier for a cheap team to get buy doing the bare minimum. They trade for a 45 year old Hossa, and get above the salary cap floor, yet they still don’t spend much actual money on the team.

Backloading contracts pretty much guarantee’s that they have just made that player un-tradeable when they are older. So as long as he doesn’t retire the cap hit stays.

A rule that says that the lowest base salary and the highest base salary can’t be more than 20-25% apart. Any bonuses are assessed the year they are actually paid out.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right now, with front loaded contracts, this makes it easier for a cheap team to get buy doing the bare minimum. They trade for a 45 year old Hossa, and get above the salary cap floor, yet they still don’t spend much actual money on the team.

But wouldn’t that help a struggling team? If a team has a roster of young players who are still cheap, so they don’t reach the mandated salary floor, benefit by reaching the floor as required by the CBA but also not spend a lot of actual money if they have a very tight budget, and take on a shorter term committment so they are prepared for a year or two or three down the road when their young players need new expensive contracts? It seems that a low-budget team could benefit from the same rules the higher-budget team could by taking on the same contract at a different stage in the player’s career.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But the only problem with that is it turns those struggling teams into dumping grounds, like how they’re already being used. Pay Hossa for 8 years and 95% of the actual money, then dump him to Atlanta who isn’t going to use the cap space anyways!

That’s the exact kind of circumvention that is the issue here. Then the cycle repeats, and the “haves” can continue to sign their whole all star roster.

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I mean I think Baroque’s situation is still a possibility, but it’s far less likely that a struggling team would rather take on a contract and crappy player to get above the salary bar, than just sign a useful free agent to that contract.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my thinking

Was what if a team didn’t have a free agent that would be useful that would sign to a short-term contract? If they were in a position (similar to cap-strapped teams now, but in reverse) where all they needed was a one-year-reach-the-salary-floor-stopgap because their young players were going to need large contracts after one more season, it would be a better option for them to have that short-term option instead of trying to get a free agent at the same salary cap level to sign for just one year if he is looking for a longer committment.

//sigh

Maybe instead of a team salary cap the league should have just gone to individual player caps – a rookie can make a maximum of X dollars, just forget the percent of cap stuff and say “no player can make more than $7 million each year” and if a team wants 10 $7 million dollar players, let them. At least players won’t jump from one team to another if their current team is willing to pay them the max salary, because they won’t get a better deal anywhere else, no matter how much money the Ranger or the Leafs or whoever has.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even scale the individual max salary to the revenues so as the sport grows it does as well – and the number that is acceptable for a contract is whatever the effective maximum is at the time the player signs. Ten $7 million players or none, it will be the choice of the team. Even set it at $5.5 million or $6 million or something. It will limit the stupidity of each individual contract, but a GM can still be stupid in the aggregate.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even scale the individual max salary to the revenues so as the sport grows it does as well

Pretty sure that’s already done.

So you’re just saying that should be lowered from $11.35 million (20% of 56.7 million) to say, 15% or $8.5 million?

by Afino on Jul 31, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much, but set it at some fixed number – even lower that $8.5 million in the future, maybe – there is a rookie max already, but have broad scales for other players; like a maximum of $4 million a year until a player has five years experience, $5 million a year until ten years, $6.5 million after that, something.

Instead of limiting how much each team can spend total limit how much they can spend on each player, period, and if they want to spend the max of $6.5 on ten players, fine – but they will be an expensive team and it won’t guarantee anything. Setting the individual maximum low-ish enough that even smaller market teams could afford a player or two at that price point would allow smaller markets to keep some of their stars, because no one else could offer them more.

Say the maximum salary that Rick Nash could possibly make was $6.5 million each year. Columbus could afford to pay one or two players that – Toronto could afford to spend that much on each of ten players and already had nine on the roster at that price point. They could afford to throw the maximum at him – but so could Columbus. Money would be taken entirely out of the calculation for the best players because if they were making the maximum for their price slot, the only way to make more would be to play until they crossed into the next pay classification. He would look at $6.5 million for hypothetically six years from Columbus, the identical contract from Toronto, and decide that he’d rather stay in Columbus.

It wouldn’t matter how much cap space a team had cleared out because they wouldn’t have to fit players under a cap, just within their own budget. But it wouldn’t be the same as pre-cap times, because then players could keep increasing their demands since they were better than this other guy making $5 million a year so they should get $6 million – now it would be a case of who would get the maximum salary, and no one would get any more than than no matter how much better they thought they were.

The players might go for it if the cap was also eliminated. The best players would make less than they would otherwise, but there would be more money available for the next tier of players and teams could afford reasonably priced veterans that they are losing now and wouldn’t have to rush players to the NHL from the minors.

The small markets are always going to be at a disadvantage – I’d just like all teams to be able to pick a few players they want to build a team around, and not have to worry about losing them to another team purely for reasons of money. I think it’s more fun to cheer for a team when a few guys are around for a long, long time and give it a feeling of stability.

The league has a required minimum salary – I don’t see why they couldn’t figure out a maximum, too.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The other point, which is hinted at above, is that there is no way to build a salary cap that doesn’t have a loophole. You can’t do it. Just on this issue, here are the alternatives I see:

1) Current system, where the cap hit is the average contract value.
2) Above proposal of the cap hit being the amount paid in each year. This leads to back loading.
3) Mandate that a contract be for the same amount in each year. What are you going to do about signing bonuses?

I think the best solution to close the loophole would be to implement the same stipulations that NHL applies to contracts signed by 35+ year old players to any player signing a contract that takes him past 40 years old. GMs will be less inclined to chance it if the contract is guaranteed.

by Gusinabox on Jul 31, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This would work too, but i would make it above 38 years old even.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I like the idea of making it less complex by using the actual salary as the cap number. Less complexity is usually a good thing, despite what accountant’s like to think.

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As an accountant, I’m all in favor of simplicity. As soon as you do that, though, someone finds a creative way to produce bogus income numbers. The complexity is there for a reason.

by J. Michael Neal on Jul 31, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

bogus income numbers are illegal.. no?

The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 31, 2009 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

“We want to know if the possibility of player retirement was ever discussed or even contemplated. We are also investing claims that the color of the sky is indeed blue.”

Are we sure the NHL isn’t a scientific experiment to see if a sports league can be run by chimpanzees?

by Snap Wilson on Jul 31, 2009 10:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Chimpanzees are very intelligent! Mentally deficient gibbons, I will grant you that. :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hooray for opposable thumbs. And down with revisionist rules. Is there any chance that the league is looking into the Hossa contract because of the way it was criticized by the media/fans?

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Listen to the fans? Perish the thought.

Although … just in case anyone is listening … do not ever, ever, EVER go to the shootout or gimmicky crap of any kind in playoff overtimes. Leave them as is – it’s a badge of honor for a hockey fan to drag a tired butt into work the next day after watching hockey until three in the morning. Do NOT take that away from us! :)

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was doing some digging and I came across this tidbit: One of the owners proposals during the lockout wanted to limit the overall length of player contracts to no more than 3 years. I don’t remember that being a big issue at the time, but if it was on the owners list then, and the owners gave that up as a concession, and the current means of structuring contracts is the “result”, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them raise it again in the next round of CBA talks.

Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.

http://glensathersucks.com/
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo

by poploser on Jul 31, 2009 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be against limiting contract length as part of the next CBA. IMO 3 years is a bit short, but something like 5-6 years would handle a lot of problems.

by Habs on Jul 31, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What concerns me about that is how some players are negatively affected by contract negotiations and that is an additional reason they want longer ones as well. They aren’t robots, and with a three-year maximum they just finish negotiating one contract and the agent has to start thinking about the next one. It’s like a polical campaign – never ending and mentally exhausting.

Some players like shorter contracts and aren’t distracted by the negotiations – no one forces them to sign for seven years if they want a two year deal. If someone wants a longer deal and the team is fine with it as well, I don’t see the problem. No one is forcing anyone to sign anything – if a team doesn’t like contracts longer than three years, then don’t negotiate any longer than three years.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And then players don’t sign with them because some other team is offering a longer term. It’s difficult to hold on to team policies if it leads to you not attracting UFAs and losing all of your own stars (case in point: Sabres losing guys for their “no negotiations during the season” policy). That’s why stuff like that has to be in the CBA if it’s to be applied (and I’m not necessarily saying I want contract length limited, just speaking in general terms).

by Malurous on Jul 31, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But all of these suggestions end up hurting players’ earning potential. I would rather the people who are wrecking their bodies end up with the lions’ share of the money. I’d suggest that some team policies are not so bright. I mean if you’re not attracting UFA’s and are losing your own stars perhaps you should look at changing the way you do business.

by yrmom on Jul 31, 2009 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. Let me clarify: with “It’s difficult to hold on to team policies if” etc. I meant that you can’t rely on team policies to keep contracts sane. Because such policies will just end up hurting your team building because other teams don’t follow them.

As for the players’ share, stuff like this doesn’t affect it one cent. As long as the cap remains the way it is, the same percentage will go to the players. Other contract issues just move money from one guy to another, players as a whole get the same amount.

by Malurous on Jul 31, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs