Page 1 of 1
Maybe the Blues will spend to the cap..
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:51 am
by DaDitka
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.
Re: Maybe the Blues will spend to the cap..
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:31 pm
by philco_3
Another work stoppage is all this sport needs.
Re: Maybe the Blues will spend to the cap..
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:04 pm
by Oaklandblue
DaDitka wrote: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.
Re: Maybe the Blues will spend to the cap..
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:05 pm
by theohall
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.
Re: Maybe the Blues will spend to the cap..
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:33 am
by DaDitka
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.