Dead

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)

   130 members have voted

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,718 posts in this topic

Except that without variance, term limits themselves don't affect the cap number anyway. If you're not able to offer $10 million and $1 million years in the same contract, having a term limit isn't going to affect payroll one iota. Crosby can get 5-50 just as easily as he could get 10-100, the only reason he and other stars have less of a cap hit is variance and back diving of contracts.

This is incorrect, of course. How could term limits not affect the cap number? It's utter nonsense. Crosby is the wrong example because he wants his dumb contract to have a cap hit of 8.7M no matter what.

How much contract limits will affect the cap number remains to be seen, but it will affect it without question. Front-loaded contracts allow big market teams to substitute dollars for cap hit and they won't be able to do that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect, of course. How could term limits not affect the cap number? It's utter nonsense. Crosby is the wrong example because he wants his dumb contract to have a cap hit of 8.7M no matter what.

How much contract limits will affect the cap number remains to be seen, but it will affect it without question. Front-loaded contracts allow big market teams to substitute dollars for cap hit and they won't be able to do that anymore.

Variance is much more important than length when it comes to the BS deals. A 15 year deal with no variance has no cap difference while a 6 year deal with backdiving has a cap difference. We can simply see that variance is the problem more than contract length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variance is much more important than length when it comes to the BS deals. A 15 year deal with no variance has no cap difference while a 6 year deal with backdiving has a cap difference. We can simply see that variance is the problem more than contract length.

I don't really agree, but I also don't see how it's germane to the discussion. Contract length allows players to defray risk by trading potential dollars for security. If the wide variation were limited but contract lengths were not, we'd still see the same principles at play, it's just that the deals would be shorter and the cap hits bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree, but I also don't see how it's germane to the discussion. Contract length allows players to defray risk by trading potential dollars for security. If the wide variation were limited but contract lengths were not, we'd still see the same principles at play, it's just that the deals would be shorter and the cap hits bigger.

What will limit cap manipulation more, term limits or zero variance? It's obviously zero variance and you seem to be saying term limits matter more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will limit cap manipulation more, term limits or zero variance? It's obviously zero variance and you seem to be saying term limits matter more.

No, I agree with that, I guess I just don't see where 'cap manipulation' is really the problem the NHL is trying to solve. Plus, if they get term limits, they could limit the variance far less than what's being proposed now and still not have many problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guaranteed contracts and 50% of the revenue (not profit). the players should be reminded of that every meeting. all this redistribution of money talk is way secondary! once the cap number and revenue % was settled this thing should have been done weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently Bill Daly said there will be a season. From an NHL network Sirius tweet FWIW.

Yes, someday...there will be a hockey season

someday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was put on the spot, he couldnt say No.

I'm not gonna read too much into the comment, but he could have danced around it and said something like, "that's our intention."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna read too much into the comment, but he could have danced around it and said something like, "that's our intention."

They said it had to be a yes or no answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that it was necessary for the last lockout to last the season to get it fixed for good. All did was make the owners even more greedy. The only way to fix the problem this league has is mass relocation. Not steal from the players to fix the fact that we have franchises in places they don't belong. Even if the players gave the owners everything they wanted in this CBA they would demand more and lock them out again because they failed to fix the real problem. The only way to make all teams profitable is to put them in markets with demand.

Edited by capo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that it was necessary for the last lockout to last the season to get it fixed for good. All did was make the owners even more greedy. The only way to fix the problem this league has is mass relocation. Not steal from the players to fix the fact that we have franchises in places they don't belong. Even if the players gave the owners everything they wanted in this CBA they would demand more and lock them out again because they failed to fix the real problem. The only way to make all teams profitable is to put them in markets with demand.

All teams shouldn't be profitable - teams should make profit when they are good and lose money when they are bad. I suspect TV is what keeps the teams where they are - Canadian teams do terribly on TV in the States, and the US is the biggest growth market for the game. Owners are therefore convinced that keeping teams where they are is better in the long-term.

There's also the idea that because of the stupidity of the NHL system, small market teams would hate it if Phoenix moved to Toronto - that would cost them money.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the idea that because of the stupidity of the NHL system, small market teams would hate it if Phoenix moved to Toronto - that would cost them money.

I don't know... I think it's more Bettman's refusal to admit that he's wrong and thus the lengthy work stoppages we've had under his tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no NHL for Xmas.... :puke:

Part of me is hoping "Maybe there has been secret high level negotiations the past week or so and they'll surprise us with a Christmas Day CBA"

then I realize how absurd that is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me is hoping "Maybe there has been secret high level negotiations the past week or so and they'll surprise us with a Christmas Day CBA"

then I realize how absurd that is

lol part of me agrees...but if this three month mess has taught us one thing, it's that nothing ever really stays secret. Especially when twenty players have to attend every meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good read that I don't think has been posted here yet.

http://business.time.../#ixzz2FYMi9iqM

More to the point, contraction might not be necessary if NHL owners would only grow up. The problem in hockey, as ESPN The Magazine‘s Peter Keating recently explained, is that NHL owners don’t share enough of their own money with each other. And share they must, because the nature of the NHL’s “popularity” in the U.S.—intense interest among small pockets of local fans, consistent disinterest otherwise—translates into paltry national TV contracts. As a result, Keating writes, NHL teams “share a far tinier proportion of their revenues than teams in other sports do, because NHL clubs rely much more on local media deals for money than on national TV contracts.” So big-market teams, with lots of local TV money, spend more on player salaries, forcing small-market owners to choose between paying their players more than they can afford or putting a subpar product on the ice. Either choice has unpleasant financial consequences.

This has long been a problem, of course, for all major sport leagues. But we’ve known for a while that the way mature owners and strong commissioners have to deal with this imbalance is to share revenues between teams. Practically, this allows all teams to be competitive, ensuring a consistent and popular product. Philosophically, this recognizes the we’re-all-in-this-together aspect of professional sports leagues, one of the more curious economic constructs in history. It’s not a coincidence that the most successful North American sports league also has the most rational approach to revenue sharing. Some 60% of the NFL’s $11 billion revenue pie is shared, which is why tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can compete with big bad New York or Chicago. The other two Big Three leagues aren’t quite as egalitarian but have improved their models in recent years: MLB teams share nearly a third of local TV revenue, while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations).

The NHL, meanwhile, has been sharing 4.5% of its $3.3 billion revenue (with not much more on the table in current talks.

Edited by Devilsfan118

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take issue with the notion that the NFL is successful because they share so much money. I think it's somewhat of a coincidence.

The NFL is successful because:

A: most games are meaningful towards playoff position

B: The season is incredibly short - watching all your team's games is a 50 hour proposition, not that hard for most people to do.

C: The NFL has successfully blocked off a period of time when games will be held

D: The sport is easiest to bet on - and betting on every game is not hard either.

Revenue sharing helps, but it also has created perpetually unsuccessful teams like Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati - if you are guaranteed a profit, as these teams are, there's not much incentive to overhaul your organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the replays of the Devils playoff games. Over and Over. Well, only the ones they won. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the replays of the Devils playoff games. Over and Over. Well, only the ones they won. :P

I've gotten to the point where I'm watching regular season highlights now.

:hah: haha they thought they tied it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten to the point where I'm watching regular season highlights now.

:hah: haha they thought they tied it.

Oh you mean that "BRUTAL CALL!" :cryriver:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Via Chere's twitter: @Ledger_NJDevils: Devils' Lou Lamoriello on NHL lockout: "I'm embarrassed for the game."

@Ledger_NJDevils: Lamoriello says he hasn't been involved in talks as he was in past lockouts. "I can't answer why."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Via Chere's twitter: @Ledger_NJDevils: Devils' Lou Lamoriello on NHL lockout: "I'm embarrassed for the game."

@Ledger_NJDevils: Lamoriello says he hasn't been involved in talks as he was in past lockouts. "I can't answer why."

My guess is he'd bring unnecessary common sense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites