NHL and NHLPA Agree On Salary Cap

Rex

Rex

Chief Blackcock
Joined:
Jul 17, 2010
Posts:
3,447
Liked Posts:
449
Location:
Grimson's Sweet Ass
I don't see an issue with the 10 seasons thing. Before the lockout people became UFA at 31, now you have people who are 27 being able to leave their team.
 

R K

Guest
Doesn't matter the revenue will be the sticking point. Especially knowing what defines "NHL Revenue" and who set's it.



Just think we won't have to pay for worthless preseason games this year...



Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

That is, I was pessimistic to begin with, figured there was no way season starts on time and today's news only reinforces that sense.
 

jakobeast

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,903
Liked Posts:
21
Location:
yer ma's pants
I really don't get some shit sometimes. I mean, yeah,I get they are gonna highball on the revenue. They should highball that. I think a 50/50 split will hurt both sides. The players will bitch something fierce, as that is essentially a 7% decrease in pay.



10 years before UFA status? That to me is goofy. don't a majority of goalies start to decline at about 31?



5 year limit on contracts? Hey owners....you can do that now, morons.



These players are giving themselves to the NHL for 20 years or so. They give their all. Look at the past off season. There was a large number of players that either took their own life or died way to early. While it can't be proven that the sport is the reason, it certainly can't be ruled out. As such, they do deserve to make a good chunk of change, and, hopefully, plan accordingly for the time they are not employed and may need help.



The NHLPA should counter with the opposite of what was stated, and include an open review process for blown/bullshit call by the refs, an independent review for suspendable infractions, and up to 5 free slurpees, or slurpee-like frozen drink, up to a large size every week.
 
Tater

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,654
jakobeast said:
I really don't get some shit sometimes. I mean, yeah,I get they are gonna highball on the revenue. They should highball that. I think a 50/50 split will hurt both sides. The players will bitch something fierce, as that is essentially a 7% decrease in pay.



10 years before UFA status? That to me is goofy. don't a majority of goalies start to decline at about 31?



5 year limit on contracts? Hey owners....you can do that now, morons.



These players are giving themselves to the NHL for 20 years or so. They give their all. Look at the past off season. There was a large number of players that either took their own life or died way to early. While it can't be proven that the sport is the reason, it certainly can't be ruled out. As such, they do deserve to make a good chunk of change, and, hopefully, plan accordingly for the time they are not employed and may need help.



The NHLPA should counter with the opposite of what was stated, and include an open review process for blown/bullshit call by the refs, an independent review for suspendable infractions, and up to 5 free slurpees, or slurpee-like frozen drink, up to a large size every week.
Click to expand...



There is no substitute.
 
Rex

Rex

Chief Blackcock
Joined:
Jul 17, 2010
Posts:
3,447
Liked Posts:
449
Location:
Grimson's Sweet Ass
jakobeast said:
I really don't get some shit sometimes. I mean, yeah,I get they are gonna highball on the revenue. They should highball that. I think a 50/50 split will hurt both sides. The players will bitch something fierce, as that is essentially a 7% decrease in pay.



10 years before UFA status? That to me is goofy. don't a majority of goalies start to decline at about 31?



5 year limit on contracts? Hey owners....you can do that now, morons.



These players are giving themselves to the NHL for 20 years or so. They give their all. Look at the past off season. There was a large number of players that either took their own life or died way to early. While it can't be proven that the sport is the reason, it certainly can't be ruled out. As such, they do deserve to make a good chunk of change, and, hopefully, plan accordingly for the time they are not employed and may need help.



The NHLPA should counter with the opposite of what was stated, and include an open review process for blown/bullshit call by the refs, an independent review for suspendable infractions, and up to 5 free slurpees, or slurpee-like frozen drink, up to a large size every week.
Click to expand...



no, actually most goalies don't mature and reach their prime until around 26-27 unlike players.



Like I said before, players didn't used to hit UFA until 31, in some cases that would be 13 years.
 

R K

Guest
jakobeast said:
I really don't get some shit sometimes. I mean, yeah,I get they are gonna highball on the revenue. They should highball that. I think a 50/50 split will hurt both sides. The players will bitch something fierce, as that is essentially a 7% decrease in pay.



10 years before UFA status? That to me is goofy. don't a majority of goalies start to decline at about 31?



5 year limit on contracts? Hey owners....you can do that now, morons.



These players are giving themselves to the NHL for 20 years or so. They give their all. Look at the past off season. There was a large number of players that either took their own life or died way to early. While it can't be proven that the sport is the reason, it certainly can't be ruled out. As such, they do deserve to make a good chunk of change, and, hopefully, plan accordingly for the time they are not employed and may need help.



The NHLPA should counter with the opposite of what was stated, and include an open review process for blown/bullshit call by the refs, an independent review for suspendable infractions, and up to 5 free slurpees, or slurpee-like frozen drink, up to a large size every week.
Click to expand...



They will....
 

jakobeast

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,903
Liked Posts:
21
Location:
yer ma's pants
Rex said:
no, actually most goalies don't mature and reach their prime until around 26-27 unlike players.



Like I said before, players didn't used to hit UFA until 31, in some cases that would be 13 years.
Click to expand...



So whats wrong with players hitting ufa status at 27 or 28? If they feel that the team treats them well, the environment is good, the team has a good chance to win, and so on, they will stay.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
jakobeast said:
So whats wrong with players hitting ufa status at 27 or 28? If they feel that the team treats them well, the environment is good, the team has a good chance to win, and so on, they will stay.
Click to expand...



Currently, the rule is 27 years old or 7 years in the league and THEN you are a UFA. I think if they just took away the 7 years in the league portion, this would be fair. I can understand a team developing a player, putting time and effort into getting them pro "ready" and then 3 seasons later they can bolt for another team while the original team is left high and dry.



It's the first offers, which of course are going to be high. Any successful business man (like all 30 owners are) will do this and eventually they will meet in the middle. Eventually could be two months, or twelve unfortunately...
 

R K

Guest
TJD said:
Currently, the rule is 27 years old or 7 years in the league and THEN you are a UFA. I think if they just took away the 7 years in the league portion, this would be fair. I can understand a team developing a player, putting time and effort into getting them pro "ready" and then 3 seasons later they can bolt for another team while the original team is left high and dry.



It's the first offers, which of course are going to be high. Any successful business man (like all 30 owners are) will do this and eventually they will meet in the middle. Eventually could be two months, or twelve unfortunately...
Click to expand...



NHL STH's own the Coyotes currently, the Devils are in Bankruptcy, the Oilers a Consortium, and several other teams are not quite "successful".



I find it assinine NHL Owners just doled out 187 years of contracts at astronomical $$, then propose minimum 5 year contracts. Maybe they weren't paying attention to what they just fucking did two weeks ago. NHLPA is going to have a field day all the way down to the Arbitration issue.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
R K said:
NHL STH's own the Coyotes currently, the Devils are in Bankruptcy, the Oilers a Consortium, and several other teams are not quite "successful".



I find it assinine NHL Owners just doled out 187 years of contracts at astronomical $$, then propose minimum 5 year contracts. Maybe they weren't paying attention to what they just fucking did two weeks ago. NHLPA is going to have a field day all the way down to the Arbitration issue.
Click to expand...

You get my idea.

I don't see them being dead-set on these "wants" cause if they did they are heading for a VERY long off season. See what the players counter with if they even release it. The NHL is probably pissed of that the NHLPA leaked these.
 

R K

Guest
How do you know it wasn't the NHL that leaked them? Reverse psychology? I see the first one holding up the season for sure.
 

Pez68

Fire Quenneville
Joined:
Oct 31, 2014
Posts:
4,693
Liked Posts:
260
46%
<




I don't have an issue at all with the 10 years thing until UFA. Typically three of those are spent developing anyway. So most teams get 4-5 years of their home grown talent, most of which is the player learning/improving gradually each season. It sucks to see all these teams losing their home grown talent when they are in their prime because of UFA status.



Five year limit? Uhh, well, couldn't they do that now as a group? Sorry players, we aren't signing you for anything more than five years. So basically what they're saying is, we can't control ourselves, so please put in a rule to keep us from being morons.
 

jakobeast

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,903
Liked Posts:
21
Location:
yer ma's pants
What about some type of soft cap hit for the home grown talent? Like, say Toews signs a contract with the Hawks for and average hit of 7 per year, but only like, 5 goes towards the cap? That way, the team that grew the talent can offer a bigger contract, but not get too screwed cap hit wise. If another team wants to steal Toews, they can, but it will cost em cash and cap space.



Or am I typing out of my ass?
 

Ton

New member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
3,991
Liked Posts:
124
Location:
Park Ridge, IL
jakobeast said:
What about some type of soft cap hit for the home grown talent? Like, say Toews signs a contract with the Hawks for and average hit of 7 per year, but only like, 5 goes towards the cap? That way, the team that grew the talent can offer a bigger contract, but not get too screwed cap hit wise. If another team wants to steal Toews, they can, but it will cost em cash and cap space.



Or am I typing out of my ass?
Click to expand...



The problem with that is, what is the definition of "home grown" talent? Someone who was drafted by their original team? What if they leave, go sign a contract elsewhere, then return to the original team? Or is it a player that re-signs an extension with the same club, although not drafted by them?
 
Chief Walking Stick

Chief Walking Stick

Heeeh heeeeh he said POLES
Donator
Joined:
May 12, 2010
Posts:
45,636
Liked Posts:
29,767
Can the NHL really endure another lockout?



Especially after the Kings win the Cup and getting another huge market interested in hockey again?
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Ton said:
The problem with that is, what is the definition of "home grown" talent? Someone who was drafted by their original team? What if they leave, go sign a contract elsewhere, then return to the original team? Or is it a player that re-signs an extension with the same club, although not drafted by them?
Click to expand...

I actually really like this idea from Jako.



If I were making the rule; a player could get a H.G.D. as long as they are with the franchise they played there "1st NHL Game" with and in succession. That means if Toews (Hypothetically) leaves for the Jets for 1 season, and then comes back to the Hawks, his cap hit will no longer get the H.G.D. discount as he broke his succession of Blackhawk seasons. This also keeps players who were traded as prospects to still be considered H.G. (guys like Versteeg, Fraser, Umberger) even though they were not drafted by the parent club. If a player is a undrafted free agent, whatever team signs them gets the H.G.D. discount.



You obviously would have to figure out 1) a Discount (maybe 25% doesn't count towards cap?) and 2) A way to close the loop hole of UFA's/RFA's such as Justin Shultz not jumping ship/being poached by other clubs.



This would allow teams to actually spend time on developing players which means potentially higher skilled players (more time to develop) and teams being rewarded for drafting well. I don't want to see a guy like Toews/Kane/Star player leave because my favorite team can't offer them enough money to stay under the cap (Hypothetical).
 

jakobeast

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,903
Liked Posts:
21
Location:
yer ma's pants
TJD said:
I actually really like this idea from Jako.



If I were making the rule; a player could get a H.G.D. as long as they are with the franchise they played there "1st NHL Game" with and in succession. That means if Toews (Hypothetically) leaves for the Jets for 1 season, and then comes back to the Hawks, his cap hit will no longer get the H.G.D. discount as he broke his succession of Blackhawk seasons. This also keeps players who were traded as prospects to still be considered H.G. (guys like Versteeg, Fraser, Umberger) even though they were not drafted by the parent club. If a player is a undrafted free agent, whatever team signs them gets the H.G.D. discount.



You obviously would have to figure out 1) a Discount (maybe 25% doesn't count towards cap?) and 2) A way to close the loop hole of UFA's/RFA's such as Justin Shultz not jumping ship/being poached by other clubs.



This would allow teams to actually spend time on developing players which means potentially higher skilled players (more time to develop) and teams being rewarded for drafting well. I don't want to see a guy like Toews/Kane/Star player leave because my favorite team can't offer them enough money to stay under the cap (Hypothetical).
Click to expand...



That was pretty much what I was thinking.



Would it be crazy to allow a team to trade a player and eat some salary, like they do in baseball? Well, maybe not. Then small market teams could sign a player to a huge contract, trade him, and use that towards the cap floor.
 
Spunky Porkstacker

Spunky Porkstacker

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 6, 2010
Posts:
15,741
Liked Posts:
7,452
Location:
NW Burbs
The NBA came out with a rule in the 80s titled the Larry Bird Rule. It basically allowed a team to re-sign one of their own players even if it meant going over the cap.



[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]
This was to allow teams not to be forced to let their players leave simply to stay under the cap. The NBA figured that it would be better for the popular teams to retain their stars if they so chose.​
[/font]



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/05/sports-legends-revealed-how-did-the-larry-bird-exception-to-the-nba-salary-cap-get-its-name.html
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
jakobeast said:
That was pretty much what I was thinking.



Would it be crazy to allow a team to trade a player and eat some salary, like they do in baseball? Well, maybe not. Then small market teams could sign a player to a huge contract, trade him, and use that towards the cap floor.
Click to expand...

I would think if a player gets traded away who has a H.G.D., his actual cap it (the 25% added on) would be what teams add to their cap.



Teams used to be able to send money to the other team (Philly sent 1 Million to Quebec along with players/prospects for the rights to Lindros) but that was before a salary cap was in place. Don't think it would work as well now.
 

Shantz My Pants

New member
Joined:
Dec 10, 2014
Posts:
3,923
Liked Posts:
787
Spunky Porkstacker said:
The NBA came out with a rule in the 80s titled the Larry Bird Rule. It basically allowed a team to re-sign one of their own players even if it meant going over the cap.



This was to allow teams not to be forced to let their players leave simply to stay under the cap. The NBA figured that it would be better for the popular teams to retain their stars if they so chose.​





http://latimesblogs....t-its-name.html
Click to expand...

I like the idea, but that #1 would have to be bumped to maybe 2 players as the NBA has roster of 12 and the NHL 20.



Again, I'm in favor of a rule that would allow teams to get their worth from a prospect, instead of letting them bolt to a better team at age 25.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,878members
92,983threads
4,371,536posts
545online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 545 (members: 45, guests: 500)

Staff online NOW

Top