juskay Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 600,000,000 divided by 10 years of the deal (as I posted) is 60,000,000 per year. Divided by 720 players is 85,000 not 850,000. And the part I am having trouble communicating is that the players pay for the big contracts that get bought out anyway, because they count against the cap going forward. This is a one time buy out and DOES NOT count against the cap going forward. So any increase in revenue goes towards the new cap. I am really not looking for an argument here, just playing with numbers, the 600 million was a fictional number. I am suggesting that it's better for the average plyer to have one player bought out to get down to the new cap, versus every player taking a pay cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Start the hunting party to find a pitchfork his rear end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I see a couple things that are wrong with your statement, or i don't understand them as well as i think I do. First off: all the teams will still have a roster of 23 players..i don't think any team will simply cut back to 18 guys. If this happens it will be very very rare. In fact, lowering the cap is to ensure the viability of the worst off teams so that they will stay open and employ their 23 players for the foreseeable future, instead of folding and laying off 23 players each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The salaries are being rolledback, wouldn't the cap hits be rolledback aswell, how can they rollback salaries then drop the cap limit and not rollback cap hits aswell? It seems like completing on 2 of 3 steps then calling it a done process. As for candidates you have to consider what each player brings, and also that this is only a one time thing, there is only 1 Buyout over the entire duration of the CBA of you have to use it at the right time, these are pretty valuable. Likely buyout candidates? These are my best guesses that would get the teams under a $60 mil cap with no other additions. Ana - None/Under Bos - None/Under Buf - Leino Cal - Bouwmeester Car - None/Under Chi - Frolik Col - None/Under Clb - None/Under Dal - None/Under Det - None/Under Edm - Horcoff/Hemsky/Whitney Fla - None/Under LA - None/Under Min - Heatley Mtl - Gomez Nas - None/Under NJ - None/Under NYI- None/Under NYR - None/Under ( But still need to sign Del Zotto) Ott - None/Under Phi - Briere??? - If not counting Pronger the Flyers only need to shed approx $ 2mil but do not have full roster Pho - None/Under Pit - Martin SJ - Havlat Stl - None/Under TB - Ohlund Tor - Komisarek Van - Ballard + ??? Was - Ward & ??? Win - None/Under What a cursory look at the numbers shows that the Canucks are one of the few teams, along with Wash and Philly, that likely cannot get compliant with a single move but that the $60 mil cap seems highly doable for most teams. The guys who will suffer the most are the RFAs who have not signed with their team yet. ie. Subban, Del Zotto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexx Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 i think the league probably realizes just like with the make-whole, that they will have to pay for a portion of the amnesty buyouts. They did say there were things that could be "traded-off" or modified in this agreement. i would assume this is one of the areas they would be willing to budge a bit more in order to secure the 10% variance and 6-7year contracts & 10 year CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 That averages around $850k taken away from each player on average via escrow... that is a huge number. Realistically there would probably only be 15-20 guys bought out, but a couple of huge ones like Luongo and Lecavalier are $85 million just between the two of them (almost $120k for each of the 720 other players). Can you imagine how pissed off you would be as a plugger with a 4 year career giving up that cash for guys who get paid top dollars anyways AND who get to re-sign again for smaller contracts on another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Record profits yet teams are in bankrupt states...that doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Wille is correct. Let me attempt some math. Assume each team buys out one player who has 20 million remaining on his contract. 30 teams times 20million each is 600 million dollars. Spread out that 600 million over ten years of the new CBA deal = 60 million per year that the players will lose from their 50/50 revenue split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yea, and they're getting that money by reducing the players share to 50%. The league is not giving up nearly as much as they'd like you to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Maybe the league just isn't in as good a shape as everyone would like to think. The issue's are deeper than just getting 7% from the players, it won't fix the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Grange on CBA: An uncertain future After months of fighting about sins of the past, the make-or-break issue in the NHL lockout may emerge to be the immediate future -- in particular the 2013-14 season. If and when the NHLPA makes its counter-offer to the league after digesting the NHL's 300-page proposal that arrived in the union's inbox on Thursday night don't be surprised if they look for a higher cap in 2013-14 than the $60 million the league wants. But that might just be delaying the pain. They are expected to meet in New York on Sunday to clarify issues in the league's offer, and a counter offer from the players might not come until Monday. Those details aside, with the current season pretty much a write-off already, the chickens of labour unrest will come home to roost a year from now, when the league gets back to a full 82-game schedule. That is the year that the league wants the salary cap to fall to $60 million, down from $70 million (pro-rated) in 2013. Naturally, there is some anxiety in the players camp at the prospect of such a steep drop -- and likely among some of the league's more ambitious owners too. Clubs like Boston, Philadelphia and Vancouver have been loading up on contracts to deliver themselves a reasonable window to contend for a Stanley Cup. The result is a lot of guaranteed money on the books. If the cap comes down to $60 million, filling out a 23-man becomes a challenge. The Vancouver Canucks already owe $60.7 million to just 13 players in 2013-14 (figures provided by capgeek.com); Philadelphia owes $59 million to 16 players and Boston will be trying to find seven players with just $2.9 million to spend. Obviously the use of a one-time compliance buyout should ease the logistics -- getting rid of Roberto Luongo and Ilya Bryzgalov alone should ease the pressure in Vancouver and Philadelphia respectively, for example. Each of them would be 'made whole' to the tune of $53 million and $45 million combined, and still be able to look for work. Not a bad deal. But what will the effect of the entire league trying to get under a tighter cap (and lower floor) have on the market for their union brethren? Supply and demand would suggest the summer of 2013 would be a less-than-ideal time to be looking for work as an NHL player. Not only would every team have less money to spend, a good number of them would be feeling the sting of having bought out high-priced players on long-term deals so that they can go about filling out their rosters. The market would be further chilled by the presence of those very same players in the free-agent pool and the fact that they would most likely be put there by the big-spending teams that usually drive demand. The league's $300-million 'make whole' provision is a useful tool to make sure that the players under contract over the next three years can expect to get paid close to the dollar amount they are supposed to be getting on their deals as the league transitions from spending 57 per cent of HRR on players salaries to 50 per cent. But it doesn't fix everything. There are about 420 players under contract for 2013-14, which means that there will be about 270 roster spots available. The easiest way for NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr to help serve the interests of those members who will be looking for a work less than a year from now is to seek a higher cap for 2013-14 -- say $67.5 million. But will that really help? Remember that the NHLPA also wants to avoid seeing their members fork over loads of their pay to escrow -- money the league sets aside to cover shortfalls if the players' aggregate salaries exceed their share of HRR. But if the cap stays relatively high escrow will almost certainly rear its head. According to league sources, a $60-million cap would yield an escrow rate of about 6.2 per cent in 2013-14, presuming revenues grow at 2.5 per cent, which is no sure thing given the damage done to the NHL brand the past six months. A cap of $67.5 million would mean an escrow rate of 16.3 per cent. The picture gets uglier if revenues stay flat or shrink (and better if they grow at historical rates, which seems unlikely, but you never know). The league has told the NHLPA that they won't cap escrow, and while there is some room to negotiate on the terms they presented the players on Thursday, they aren't going to be offering more in transition money than they are now. The hard reality is that when this deal gets signed, NHL players will be getting less money than they did before. The question for the players will be: do they want to take the Band-Aid off slowly by having a higher salary cap but high escrow payments? Or will they take the Band-Aid off quick and have a lower cap in 2013-14 and very likely a depressed market for the 300 or so players that will be looking for jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 only fair way would be to structure it as a % of each players pay player 1 makes 600K he should only pay say 5% into the buyout contracts so he only pays 30K (still a lot since he is only taking home 300K approx after taxes) player two making 8.7million pays same 5% so 435K ... but i think it is absolutely mental that the owners want the players to pay for the managements miss use of there money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If you're a player with a 500k to 1.5 million dollar cap hit, you're going to be in big demand next summer. There's gonna be alot of high paid veterans out of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 If you're a player with a 500k to 1.5 million dollar cap hit, you're going to be in big demand next summer. There's gonna be alot of high paid veterans out of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Looks like it's going right down to the wire. A real cliffhanger. These guys in suits are pretty exciting in their own right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surtur Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 That is how escrow works... it is a set % and big wage earners pay more into it in pure dollars. It only gets more annoying for those guys though. If on average each player would have to pay to buy out Luongo's contract (as an example only) has to pay $55k to him (the remaining $40 million divided by 720 players... then that means a higher paid player like Crosby will actually lose well over $200k in salary to escrow just to pay for a Luongo buyout. How much would that irritate you if you were in that boat! Luongo and Lecavalier could be sitting in the Caribbean fishing, playing poker and chatting in French and spending a total of half a million in total of Crosby's money for their vacation! Players paying for other player's buyouts is not going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Players paying for other player's buyouts is not going to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The NHL's negotiating tactic, thus far, has been embarrassing, underhanded, and a poor display of professionalism. These horrible offers again suggests, the league does not/is not ready to play or is serious about getting the season started. While to the owners they show face by making an effort to do so, they throw in something to halt the progress. The terrible offers and the take it or leave scenarios will not get the game back on the ice, and I'm sure the NHL is very aware of this. Had the PA employed similar tactics, the NHL would be up in arms. But, thus far Fehr has done a fantabulous job of not getting caught up in their game and remains balanced and on track. The NHL/teams/GMs/Owners need to take responsibility for their own actions and regulate themselves, and not rely/impose/expect their employees/communities to pay for their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizeman Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The owners offer is the best CBA the league has ever produced. If Fehr rejects this one, he will get no sympathy from a judge in court for the players cause. That being said, this offer was not even remotely close to what Fehr promised the union when he as hired. So he loses either way. For the fans sake, I hope he puts the ego down and takes this offer to a vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.