Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#5491 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:59 PM

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.


This is true. Bettman praises that record revenue when it comes to what a great job he's done, but it's not an actual reflection of the true state of the league.

Although they have record revenues, they also have record expenses too. And anyone who has taken basic accounting knows, revenues - expenses = profits. Which in most teams cases, takes them into the red.

Also, a third of that apparent 3 billion dollars is coming from the television deal with NBC. And right now they're not very happy. Second year of a huge deal, and the league is already going into a lockout. That's not good for business.

Edited by DeNiro, 29 December 2012 - 09:00 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5492 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:01 PM

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?


  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5493 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

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.


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.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5494 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:04 PM

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.

Edited by DeNiro, 29 December 2012 - 11:05 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5495 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 11:51 PM

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.


Unless they change the cap for 2013-2014 from that offer... every player is going to have that range of cap hit. Corey Perry and Edler deals for sure :)
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5496 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,374 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:16 AM

Looks like it's going right down to the wire. A real cliffhanger.

These guys in suits are pretty exciting in their own right!
  • 1

#5497 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

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.

ok i see was not sure... so then having players like crosby on the front lines aint a bad thing... he has the most to lose.....
I still don't see why owners want the players to take the fall for there bad deals.
  • 0

Release The KraKassian
Kassianthe_Krakensm.jpg


#5498 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:05 AM

Players paying for other player's buyouts is not going to fly.


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.

Edited by Mauii, 30 December 2012 - 02:57 AM.

  • 1
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#5499 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:04 AM

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.

The old CBA is done so I don't have a problem with ownership changing anything that they want as far as the new deal goes. I do have a problem with players getting less than what they were contracted for. I don't like the collectivism imbedded in the NHL approach but have come to realize that the sports business is a different cat. None the less player contracts overlapping CBA's have to be honoured in full and within the CAP. This ability to buy out contracts outside the CAP is BS. It is simply encouraging the same behavior in another 8 years. BAd management should reap their own rewards. CAP space should be made tradeable and teams forced to give up talent in exchange for their mistakes.

I'm sounding like a player's advocate which I am not. I think both players and owners are playing with the sport in a pretty irresponsible manner. Millionairs fighting billionaires is the term most referenced. What will truly be amusing is if revenue drops 10% next year. Then listen to the squealing!

I can still see the NHL walking away if the PA comes back with a cherry picked contract. A 300 page offer indicates that the owners have put it all on the table.
  • 0

#5500 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:46 AM

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
  • 0

#5501 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,558 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:48 AM

Sorry but what did Fehr promise the Union? Is that on record somewhere?
  • 0

#5502 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:55 AM

You dont hire Donald Fehr to go from 57 to 50% . You dont hire Fehr to go from unlimited to 6.7 year max contracts. You dont hire Fehr to have a 8 to 10 year CBA.

Fehr has argued against every single on of these provisions. There is no way the NHLPA hired him in 2010 to end up here with this deal Bettman has proposed. Just about anyone could have negotiated this deal. Its basically the owners deal.

What is Fehr going to do now? Counter propose some minor details? Bettman will just counter counter propose smaller details to have the final word. Fehr will then counter even further to have the final word and so on. Its silly. The bottom line is this deal is 95% of what the owners wanted. So if they accept , good for Bettman. If they dont, there is no judge in the universe who is going to feel sorry for the union.

This deal is the best CBA they have ever produced. And its exactly in line with the revenue sharing the other leagues have. The league can now show the court the union is being ridiculous and will never win in court now.
  • 0

#5503 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,732 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Deal will get done. It's just a matter of the timing.
Whole things been a sham from the start.
Bettman always had Jan.11 circled on his calendar with a ;) face drawn on it.
  • 1

#5504 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 12:33 PM

You dont hire Donald Fehr to go from 57 to 50% . You dont hire Fehr to go from unlimited to 6.7 year max contracts. You dont hire Fehr to have a 8 to 10 year CBA.

This deal is the best CBA they have ever produced. And its exactly in line with the revenue sharing the other leagues have. The league can now show the court the union is being ridiculous and will never win in court now.


Well on the other hand, they hired him not to end up with a 43% revenue split. They hired him to maintain most of their contracting rights, they hired him to have existing contracts honoured... all things that were not what the league wanted.

The actual reports out there and rumours from connected pundits (eg, not you) say that it is Bettman who promised the world to his owners and is feeling the pressure as he hasn't delivered anywhere near what he said he would.

As far as this being the best CBA the league has ever produced? That is patently and empirically not true. The current proposal is worse in every single regard than the one that just expired. You don't take the owners first offer as the baseline in negotiations, you take the status quo, which is the previous contract.

You my friend are the mayor of wrongville.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5505 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,804 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

The old CBA is done so I don't have a problem with ownership changing anything that they want as far as the new deal goes. I do have a problem with players getting less than what they were contracted for. I don't like the collectivism imbedded in the NHL approach but have come to realize that the sports business is a different cat. None the less player contracts overlapping CBA's have to be honoured in full and within the CAP. This ability to buy out contracts outside the CAP is BS. It is simply encouraging the same behavior in another 8 years. BAd management should reap their own rewards. CAP space should be made tradeable and teams forced to give up talent in exchange for their mistakes.

I'm sounding like a player's advocate which I am not. I think both players and owners are playing with the sport in a pretty irresponsible manner. Millionairs fighting billionaires is the term most referenced. What will truly be amusing is if revenue drops 10% next year. Then listen to the squealing!

I can still see the NHL walking away if the PA comes back with a cherry picked contract. A 300 page offer indicates that the owners have put it all on the table.

I always sound like i am 100% in favor of whatever proposal bettman puts out there, but its a case of not being on any side but 'hockey'. I am not pro players and i am not pro owners...i am pro reality. Some teams could ffail if the cap is not lowered: each team employs 23 guys to play hockey at any given time of the season. Lets not contract the league if we don't have to. Maybe move some teams to more ...shall we say ...northern climates...but lets keep with the ones we have now.

So if we agree that the cap is going down, and we do, as do Fehr and Bettman...then now its an arguement about how to accomplish that.
I wish they would simply figure out the amount its dropping for the 2013/14 year and cut all contracts this summer by that amount, that would be the easy way.

The hard way is this make whole and honouring contracts et cetera bs

either way its doable..and I see the NHL is saying for this year the cap will be 70.3m prorated so roughly 35m or so based on a half season...

The guys in suits need to figure out how to get to 50%...and that doesnt seem hard to me in laymans terms..but its excruciatingly hard for them becuase the people with a vested interest, the top 10% of NHL money earners dont want to give up millions of dollars. Neither would I..but by not playing they are giving up millions of dollars...so it is not a scientific choice to not agree to the terms...its an emotional one...and that irks me. The players emotional choice is based on money and not on hockey..and the scientific choice which is based on money would say sign and play to earn this years salary, or at least what is left of it.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5506 iLLmAtlc

iLLmAtlc

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 07

Posted 30 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

so guys what if the drop dead date isn't actually january because the league cancelled the season in february last time? and that, this 48 game rhetoric/january rumours is just to make the PA think that's when the date is?

Posted Image
  • 0
Posted Image

#5507 BCNeil

BCNeil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 09

Posted 30 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

Do most players care if they can only do 6 or 7 year contracts?

No, only a few players in the league have contracts over 7 years, generally superstars.

Do most players care if year to year variance is 5% 10% 25%?

No, only a few players in the league are affected, generally superstars.

Do most players care if the cba term is 7, 8, or 10 years?

Nope, most will be retired under any option.

Oh, but who does. Fehr. A 10 year contract leaves him doing what in 5 years?
  • 1

#5508 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,955 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

Canucks have 60.3m tied up in 13 players next year... I can't see how we get to 22/23 players even if half the roster was rookies making under a million.

You can talk about Luongo being moved and Ballard being bought out - that would clear 9.5m and that's assuming we don't take any cap back in the Luongo deal. Raymond/Malholtra not being extended is already included in that 13 man roster, meaning the only additional cap space could be gained by losing Booth. There is no way we can keep Edler and still be under 60.3m - even if we go for a longer term with 10% variance assuming a ~5m cap hit over the course of the deal it's impossible to keep him.

That being said, let's say we lose the 9.5m from Ballard/Luongo, bringing our total cap hit for 2013/2014 to 50.8m with 13 players signed and 9.2m in cap space. We would need 9 players making ~1m to fill out 1 top 4 d spot (loss of Edler/Ballard), 2 bottom pairing players (neither Alberts or Tanev are extended into 2013/14), 2 third line forwards (Raymond/Malholtra departing), and 4 bottom 6 forwards (need to extend Higgins/Lapierre in this group).

So how do we do it CDC?

2013/14 line up with 50.8m cap hit and 13 players signed (Luongo dealt, Ballard waived) :

Sedin (6.1) - Sedin (6.1) - Burrows (4.5)
Booth (4.25) - Kesler (5) - Hansen (1.35)
______ - _______ - Kassian (.87)
______ - _______ - ______
______
(Ideally we extend Lapierre/Higgins filling a wing and a centre spot)

Hamhuis (4.5) - Bieksa (4.6)
Garrison (4.6) - ______ (Tanev here, needs to be extended as well)
_______ - _______
_______

Schneider (4)
Lack (.85 - his 1 way is set for next season)

How are we going to do it CDC, fill these spots with 9.2m in cap space!

Edited by Ossi Vaananen, 30 December 2012 - 04:23 PM.

  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5509 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 04:28 PM

^^^ Trade for cap space?
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#5510 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

Some teams could ffail if the cap is not lowered


Actually, with the new proposed rules pertaining to the cap floor some lower spending teams could end up spending more.

While on face value it seems like a lowered cap would help lower spending teams because, "Calculated by the annual rate of inflation, that $10.3 million drop equates to the 2005 value of the current salary cap." (Source) However, under the last CBA lower spending teams were able to sign players to contracts with bonuses they knew weren't likely to get paid, allowing them to take credit for money they never had to actually spend to reach the cap floor. Under the new rules (which may have originally been proposed by the PA, but has been included in both NHL and PA proposals for months now, so it's likely a done deal without any fight from the NHL), teams will now have to reach the salary cap floor without bonuses, paid or not.

Under the old agreement, a club such as the Islanders routinely made sure there were several entry-level players on its roster whose cap hit was much larger than their actual salary thanks to several bonuses. For example, in the 2011-12 season, rookie Nino Niederreiter’s entry-level contract paid him $900,000 in actual salary but nearly $2-million in bonuses brought his cap hit to just under $2.8-million. The 20-year-old was on the NHL roster for 55 games and scored exactly one goal, which meant almost all of that bonus money was never paid, a huge saving for the cash-strapped Islanders.

But under Bettman’s proposal, that would no longer be allowed. Instead of declaring $2-million they wouldn’t spend, the Islanders and other teams would have to cough up that cash in player salaries.

Source: http://www.theglobea...article4912113/

I couldn't find any information about whether or not the NHL's latest proposal included any amendment to the way the cap is currently calculated (like the PA's proposal of a 20%+/- mid aimed at actually helping lower spending teams long term), so here's a simple projection on what it might look like with either set up:

Existing $8M +/- Cap: $60M upper, $52M mid, $44M lower
PA proposed 20% +/- Cap: $60M upper, $50M mid, $40M lower

So, for the next/first full season teams will have to spend $44M under the existing formula, or $40M under the PA proposal, to reach the floor. Since the cap floor last season was $48.3M, that means teams could be saving as little as $4M. But, unlike the old CBA, under the new rules bonuses will not be used to reach the floor and, as the quote above showed, some teams were getting credit for money they didn't actually spend to reach the floor. So, that means as soon as next season low spending teams could be spending as much, if not more, than they were last season in actual dollars.

For example, last season the New York Islanders were given credit for spending $49,107,418, but $10,022,500 of that was in performance bonuses (paid or not). That means, under the new rules they would only have gotten credit for spending $39,084,918 last season and would actually have to spend more than last season just to reach the floor. Under the PA's more generous cap formula, they'll still be spending almost $1M more. Under the existing cap formula, they'll have to spend around $5M more.

Likewise, Colorado was given cap credit last season for $49,401,072 but $6,507,500 was bonuses. So, under the new CBA, they would have only gotten credit for $42,893,572, meaning under the existing cap formula they will actually have to spend over $1M more next season just to reach the floor. In fairness, only a few teams relied so heavily on bonuses to reach the cap floor, but removing the option of doing just that will hurt lower spending teams and force them to actually spend more.

Now, I know someone is going to mention the fact that under the NHL's proposal some NHL contracts in the minors are going to be counted against the cap and that's a fair point. However, those contracts are not counted against the players' share. So, while it may help teams reach the salary cap floor (if they're counted in it which I don't know if we know for sure yet), it may not end up helping teams all that much as owners still have to pay the players their full 50% (even if that means sending every player a pro-rated check at the end of the season to make up for a shortfall). And, those contracts will only help owners in terms of what they have to spend for the salary cap if they were already paying those salaries and are able to get credit for money they were already spending. Trading to get players with heavy minor contracts won't help as they still represent additional actual money paid.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5511 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

Canucks have 60.3m tied up in 13 players next year... I can't see how we get to 22/23 players even if half the roster was rookies making under a million.

You can talk about Luongo being moved and Ballard being bought out - that would clear 9.5m and that's assuming we don't take any cap back in the Luongo deal. Raymond/Malholtra not being extended is already included in that 13 man roster, meaning the only additional cap space could be gained by losing Booth. There is no way we can keep Edler and still be under 60.3m - even if we go for a longer term with 10% variance assuming a ~5m cap hit over the course of the deal it's impossible to keep him.

That being said, let's say we lose the 9.5m from Ballard/Luongo, bringing our total cap hit for 2013/2014 to 50.8m with 13 players signed and 9.2m in cap space. We would need 9 players making ~1m to fill out 1 top 4 d spot (loss of Edler/Ballard), 2 bottom pairing players (neither Alberts or Tanev are extended into 2013/14), 2 third line forwards (Raymond/Malholtra departing), and 4 bottom 6 forwards (need to extend Higgins/Lapierre in this group).

So how do we do it CDC?

2013/14 line up with 50.8m cap hit and 13 players signed (Luongo dealt, Ballard waived) :

Sedin (6.1) - Sedin (6.1) - Burrows (4.5)
Booth (4.25) - Kesler (5) - Jensen (.90)
Higgins (2.5) - Lapierre (2.0) - Hansen (1.35)
Weise (.750) - Schroeder (1.2) - Kassian (.870)
Sweatt (.900)
(Ideally we extend Lapierre/Higgins filling a wing and a centre spot)

Hamhuis (4.5) - Bieksa (4.6)
Edler (5.0) - Garrison (4.6)
Connauton (.850) - Tanev (1.9)
Alberts (1.25) Sauve (.800)

Schneider (4)
Lack (.85 - his 1 way is set for next season)


How are we going to do it CDC, fill these spots with 9.2m in cap space!


64 mil there. best I could do. But I think Higgins will have to be replaced by whatever we can get in the Luongo trade.

And Ballard and Raymond ideally need to be traded this season in order to get some assets to fill some holes.

Make no mistke though. This is Bettman's way of continuing to help loser markets. This will screw up so many top teams, and will benefit the loser teams that have young talent to fill in the holes.

Edited by DeNiro, 30 December 2012 - 06:26 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5512 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:26 PM

Do most players care if they can only do 6 or 7 year contracts?

No, only a few players in the league have contracts over 7 years, generally superstars.

Do most players care if year to year variance is 5% 10% 25%?

No, only a few players in the league are affected, generally superstars.


I'm not sure you understand the "middle class" argument which says that when teams have to commit more of their cap space to the few big name players it leaves less for the rest of the players.

Do most players care if the cba term is 7, 8, or 10 years?

Nope, most will be retired under any option.


Exactly. And that's exactly why some believe the union should fight for a shorter CBA, because it's unfair for almost the entire union membership to be under an agreement they had absolutely no say in.

Oh, but who does. Fehr. A 10 year contract leaves him doing what in 5 years?


In all likelihood, 64-year-old Fehr is going to retire after this CBA negotiation regardless of the length or outcome. I think everyone knows that. It's been known from the beginning that he was likely brought in specifically for this CBA negotiation because of his strong qualifications in sports labour.

But guess who does have a personal interest in the length of the CBA? Bettman. He's currently 60-years-old and will likely be retired before an 8- or 10-year CBA expires. In fact, in addition to trying to avoid a work stoppage around the NHL's Centennial in 2017, some have argued Bettman's pushing for a longer CBA specifically because he wants to be able to retire at a date several years removed from a labour dispute to help improve how he'll be remembered. Cynical for sure, but no less so than your baseless take on Fehr.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5513 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,955 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:42 PM

64 mil there. best I could do. But I think Higgins will have to be replaced by whatever we can get in the Luongo trade.

And Ballard and Raymond ideally need to be traded this season in order to get some assets to fill some holes.

Make no mistke though. This is Bettman's way of continuing to help loser markets. This will screw up so many top teams, and will benefit the loser teams that have young talent to fill in the holes.


I'm a big fan of using prospects but even I think that's not exactly a competitive roster. I certainly hope that by 2013/14 Kass is off the 4th line and into an offensive role. I still don't think we can extend Edler, and that 5m you have for him puts us 4m over the cap.

I agree though, parity will be more apparent. Teams which haven't attempted to be competitive like NYI and EDM will suddenly be competitive teams as their top 6 makes a fraction of everyone else.

I also hope that this little reconstruction exercise gives those critical of my cap dump, and players losing jobs points a better idea of what I was trying to convey. Even on the Canucks you can blatantly see everyone that isn't a 'core' player is at risk of losing their job with this team. It's nonsensical for the PA to want to sign onto this latest proposal.
  • 1

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5514 spliced

spliced

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:47 PM

Maybe it's pure 100% bias from me but I don't like the sound of the cap dropping so much in 1 year. Teams like the Canucks with so much tied up in players already signed get really hammered by that. I'd like 66, 63, 60 over three years or at the very least 65, 60 over two years.

A lot of the other things talked about don't really effect the actual hockey as much to me. Sure there are different things coming in but they are mostly stuff in the future where teams are on an equal ground. This harshly penalizes some teams while actually benefiting others. I think a slower drop in the Cap would still make it hard on big spending teams but it would be more reasonable. The other thing is more players might leave for the KHL or Europe since so many teams wouldn't have much to spend on contracts.
  • 0

#5515 wizeman

wizeman

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:48 PM

Well on the other hand, they hired him not to end up with a 43% revenue split. They hired him to maintain most of their contracting rights, they hired him to have existing contracts honoured... all things that were not what the league wanted.

The actual reports out there and rumours from connected pundits (eg, not you) say that it is Bettman who promised the world to his owners and is feeling the pressure as he hasn't delivered anywhere near what he said he would.

As far as this being the best CBA the league has ever produced? That is patently and empirically not true. The current proposal is worse in every single regard than the one that just expired. You don't take the owners first offer as the baseline in negotiations, you take the status quo, which is the previous contract.

You my friend are the mayor of wrongville.


I think having an opposing point of view is fine. The way you present it is amusing. Its defensive. Its littered with rumors and innuendo. Then at last the person insult. I dont know which is worse. The mayor of wrongville (whatever that means) or you suggesting you are my friend.

Lets stick to the subject matter.

Bettman started off with 43%. The same stupid 43% the owners have eaten for the last 7 years. Did the union find it insulting? The owners know how they must feel. 43% is insulting.

Very quickly the owners got to 50/50 . The union never made an formal offer for months. When Fehr finally did , it was the same 57% .

a) If you asked the NHLPA when Fehr was hired in 2010 they would have to lose 800 mil bucks in a lock out (or more) ........all to get a 50/50 split , 6/7 year contract maximums, and an 8/10 year CBA or be on the verge of dissolving the whole union, they would have told Fehr to go $#%#$ himself.

b)If you asked the Owners when Fehr was hired in 2010 that they would have to lose 800 mil (or less its 43% right?) ......all to get a 50/50 split , 6/7 year contract maximums, and an 8/10 year CBA or be on the verge of dissolving the whole union.......they would be jumping up and down for joy and giving Bettman ANOTHER raise.

Dont think so? Go put up a poll and put it to the test. :)
  • 0

#5516 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,297 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

I'm a big fan of using prospects but even I think that's not exactly a competitive roster. I certainly hope that by 2013/14 Kass is off the 4th line and into an offensive role. I still don't think we can extend Edler, and that 5m you have for him puts us 4m over the cap.

I agree though, parity will be more apparent. Teams which haven't attempted to be competitive like NYI and EDM will suddenly be competitive teams as their top 6 makes a fraction of everyone else.

I also hope that this little reconstruction exercise gives those critical of my cap dump, and players losing jobs points a better idea of what I was trying to convey. Even on the Canucks you can blatantly see everyone that isn't a 'core' player is at risk of losing their job with this team. It's nonsensical for the PA to want to sign onto this latest proposal.


With the Sedins, Burrows, and Kesler it will be a competitive roster.

It's gonna affect every top team too, not just us. Lots of teams are going to have to dump players and use prospects that may or may not be ready.

I don't see how the union can accept this.

Edited by DeNiro, 30 December 2012 - 06:57 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5517 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,557 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 30 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

It won't be the end of the world if Luongo, Ballard, Booth, Raymond, and Malhotra are off the payroll. Higgins and Lapierre are must re-signs imo.

Next season will be a critical one for our prospects.Me thinks after an additional summer of training.... Jensen, Kassian, Lack, Schroeder, and Connauton will all make it.

D.Sedin H.Sedin Burrows
Jensen Kesler Kassian
Higgins Schroeder Hansen
Volpatti Lapierre Weise

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Garrison
Connauton Tanev

Schneider
Lack
  • 1

#5518 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,374 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

My God these suits!!

I'm on the edge of my seat here!
  • 0

#5519 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:17 PM

Bettman started off with 43%. The same stupid 43% the owners have eaten for the last 7 years. Did the union find it insulting? The owners know how they must feel. 43% is insulting.


The split of total revenue in the last contract was approximately 50/50 (almost 51% for the players to be exact). The concept that the owners had to run their businesses out of their 43% of HRR is simply false.

They took out a bunch of revenue streams and excluded it from HRR and then did the 43/57 split. The last CBA was the one where they actually split the take fairly evenly.

You talk about me using rumours, that is true... but they are from actual reputable hockey sources like TSN who are on the inside. On the other hand, you are simply using things that you invent to make your arguments.

Looking at the fact you just signed up here yesterday that you either got punted from the boards, or created a 2nd account so you could troll around being silly.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5520 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:56 PM

Canucks have 60.3m tied up in 13 players next year... I can't see how we get to 22/23 players even if half the roster was rookies making under a million.

You can talk about Luongo being moved and Ballard being bought out - that would clear 9.5m and that's assuming we don't take any cap back in the Luongo deal. Raymond/Malholtra not being extended is already included in that 13 man roster, meaning the only additional cap space could be gained by losing Booth. There is no way we can keep Edler and still be under 60.3m - even if we go for a longer term with 10% variance assuming a ~5m cap hit over the course of the deal it's impossible to keep him.

That being said, let's say we lose the 9.5m from Ballard/Luongo, bringing our total cap hit for 2013/2014 to 50.8m with 13 players signed and 9.2m in cap space. We would need 9 players making ~1m to fill out 1 top 4 d spot (loss of Edler/Ballard), 2 bottom pairing players (neither Alberts or Tanev are extended into 2013/14), 2 third line forwards (Raymond/Malholtra departing), and 4 bottom 6 forwards (need to extend Higgins/Lapierre in this group).

So how do we do it CDC?

2013/14 line up with 50.8m cap hit and 13 players signed (Luongo dealt, Ballard waived) :

Sedin (6.1) - Sedin (6.1) - Burrows (4.5)
Booth (4.25) - Kesler (5) - Hansen (1.35)
______ - _______ - Kassian (.87)
______ - _______ - ______
______
(Ideally we extend Lapierre/Higgins filling a wing and a centre spot)

Hamhuis (4.5) - Bieksa (4.6)
Garrison (4.6) - ______ (Tanev here, needs to be extended as well)
_______ - _______
_______

Schneider (4)
Lack (.85 - his 1 way is set for next season)

How are we going to do it CDC, fill these spots with 9.2m in cap space!


... Everyones salary gets rolled back 15% which out of your 60 million brings it to 51 million. Next year malhotra, and raymond will be gone thats another 4.5 million.

Edited by G-52, 30 December 2012 - 10:57 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.