It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:29 am

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:51 am 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:21 pm
Posts: 2800
Location: sailing with the Captain
Quote:
Brooks: Owners proposal includes salary cap rollback to $52.5 million
Joe Yerdon Jul 15, 2012, 11:00 AM EDT
40 Comments

Getty Images
All the talk of late concerning the NHL owners’ initial CBA proposal to the Players’ Union has been making people nervous that we’ll see yet another labor stoppage. Larry Brooks of the New York Post includes an added bit of information this morning that won’t likely help make anyone feel better.

Brooks shares in his Sunday column that the owners’ proposal would include a roll back of the salary cap to a level not seen since 2007-08. Brooks doesn’t pull any punches with his take on it.

The NHL’s Declaration of War presented to the Players’ Association in the guise of a first proposal on Friday would roll back the salary cap to approximately $52.5 million for 2012-13. The drop of nearly $10 million from last season would represent the lowest number since 2007-08, sources with knowledge of the league’s scheme have told Slap Shots.

With a salary cap roll back of that amount, 19 teams would have to slash salary to get under the the proposed cap if that wound up being the case. Of course, the owners’ first proposal is just that — a first proposal.

NHLPA head Donald Fehr said recently he didn’t think there would be a salary roll back in the next CBA, but this report indicates the owners want to correct the “mistakes” they made with the previous agreement.


There is a TON of noise yesterday and this morning that many now believe there is little chance we have an NHL season this year.

Funny part about that to me is the owners pushing for this sized roll-back after all the stupid money they've thrown around the last two weeks.

I have to believe this is simply posturing, and while there will be a roll back it won't be anywhere near that drastic and both sides have to understand how important it is to play this year. I could see them miss some time though, many owners think that would actually save them money and they saw how it not only didn't hurt the NBA, many teams saw increased interest with the shorter season.

_________________
Image

2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Patrik 'Bulan' Berglund


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:43 pm
Posts: 2296
Location: Red Bud, IL and Section 307 Row M
Another work stoppage is all this sport needs.

_________________
2009-2010 LGB Official Sponsor of Roman Polak
2010-2011 LGB Official Sponsor of the Brad Boyes 2011 2nd round draft pick.
2011-2012 LGB Official Sponsor of "The Russian" Evgeny Grachev
Image
2013 LGB Official Sponsor of David Perron
2013-2014 LGB Official Sponsor of Jay Bouwmeester

9-7-11 We Will Never Forget.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1069
DaDitka wrote:
Quote:
Brooks: Owners proposal includes salary cap rollback to $52.5 million
Joe Yerdon Jul 15, 2012, 11:00 AM EDT
40 Comments

Getty Images
All the talk of late concerning the NHL owners’ initial CBA proposal to the Players’ Union has been making people nervous that we’ll see yet another labor stoppage. Larry Brooks of the New York Post includes an added bit of information this morning that won’t likely help make anyone feel better.

Brooks shares in his Sunday column that the owners’ proposal would include a roll back of the salary cap to a level not seen since 2007-08. Brooks doesn’t pull any punches with his take on it.

The NHL’s Declaration of War presented to the Players’ Association in the guise of a first proposal on Friday would roll back the salary cap to approximately $52.5 million for 2012-13. The drop of nearly $10 million from last season would represent the lowest number since 2007-08, sources with knowledge of the league’s scheme have told Slap Shots.

With a salary cap roll back of that amount, 19 teams would have to slash salary to get under the the proposed cap if that wound up being the case. Of course, the owners’ first proposal is just that — a first proposal.

NHLPA head Donald Fehr said recently he didn’t think there would be a salary roll back in the next CBA, but this report indicates the owners want to correct the “mistakes” they made with the previous agreement.


There is a TON of noise yesterday and this morning that many now believe there is little chance we have an NHL season this year.

Funny part about that to me is the owners pushing for this sized roll-back after all the stupid money they've thrown around the last two weeks.

I have to believe this is simply posturing, and while there will be a roll back it won't be anywhere near that drastic and both sides have to understand how important it is to play this year. I could see them miss some time though, many owners think that would actually save them money and they saw how it not only didn't hurt the NBA, many teams saw increased interest with the shorter season.


Having a ten million less cap per team would benefit lower-grossing teams or teams in financial trouble, true, but if the NHL owners /really/ want to fix things so that they can be more competitve for cheaper, ditch these stupid 100-year contracts that loophole the hell out of the CBA. Yes, you want franchise players, but look at Columbus: 7.5M for Nash for SIX years. Solid player, heavily overpaid who is going to hold Columbus' cap hostage for the next six years and make him impossible to trade. Imagine if his production dropped through the floor and Columbus STILL had to pay him 7.5m for the next six years. Those contracts should be illegal.

That should be the main issue, because that to me is what's screwing up the NHL. Removing 10m with these contracts will absolutely torch a number of teams in this situation because they HAVE to lose 10m quick and if they're carrying even one of those contracts, they're giving up a handful of players, maybe more, to keep that 'Franchise' player under the Hundred-Year Contract.

_________________
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 3943
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Instead of completely dropping the "100 year" contract, make the limits on it reasonable.

Setting an expected playing age of 41 at which to end these contracts was the mistake. How many players in the NHL were 41 or older last season? There were three.

So make the limit on long term contracts more reasonable. Say ending it at age 38 - which is way more reasonable than this playing until 41 nonsense. That would take 3 years off the Suter and Parise deals making them seem somewhat more reasonable. IMO - that is the problem.

1) When they established the last CBA, the owners did not set a limit on length of contract.
2) The Devils took advanatge of it when they signed Kovie.
3) The NHL blinked and forced them to limit it a playing age of 41.
4) Now the Wild are taking advantage of that "new" ridiculous limit.

Either lower that maximum age limit or make contracts limited to say 5 years. This promotes free agency and/or limits the "100-year" contracts depending on which way they would go.

_________________
Official Sponsor Dmitri Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:33 am 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:21 pm
Posts: 2800
Location: sailing with the Captain
It would be hard to limit the max length of contracts, but you can change the way they are figured under the cap.

In the NFL, signing bonuses were distributed evenly over the length of the contract, then under this new CBA the make length for crediting the signing bonus is 5 years.

The problem in the NHL is the final 3 - 4 years on a contract that are written in at a league minimum but stretch the annual hit. Instead of the league spreading out the entire value of a contract evenly, they need to set parameters such as no season's hit can be for less then 80% or more then 120% actual value.

_________________
Image

2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Patrik 'Bulan' Berglund


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group