293 replies to this topic

[BlueSkirt]

I'm sorry, let me clarify - what would be the benefit to the sport ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

deeper rosters, less teams, higher quality play.

in other news, 2+2 is 4.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't the purpose of contraction & roster reduction aimed at removing deadweight from the league and it's teams.
Is it not where the extra roster spot is taken by a so-called goon ?

['7']

well if they put it to a vote, and a majority wants to take out leopold they can. the remaining 26 can buy him out a 2.8 mil and get a few players a piece for that. or you can have 10 rich teams buy him out at 7.5 a piece. You might say that's alot but thinking ahead, they'd be playing in a smaller league where salaries would naturally be lower, but just in case you could set a high cap at about 47 million though you probably wouldn't get near it.

[NJDevs4978]

$42.5 million is fair enough, the players now have to know this is the highest the so-called 'hawks' among the owners are willing to go and there will NOT be a better deal next year. They got a removal of linkage, they got the cap to go up and that's all they're going to get, if the players can't live with an average salary of around $2 million per season per player on the 20-man roster when a cap will only affect the highest-paid players on a team to begin with then they deserve to have the owners break the union.

The Brookses of the world said the owners only wanted to hear about a $31 million cap, well that number got moved up $11.5 in the end AND there's 'no' tie to linkage. Now we'll see whether the players are willing to destroy the sport for a few extra bucks for its upper class that they'd never see anyway.

Edited by Hasan4978, 15 February 2005 - 07:56 PM.

[Derek21]

I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

[Don]

I hate this deal. A $42M cap is meaningless when there are buckets of teams that couldn't dream of coming up with $42M/season.

The only way I would support anything over $35M is if there was a VERY strong luxery tax between $35M and $42M, with that money going to the lower revenue teams.

[Derek21]

Then you're living in fantasy land Don. You think every team should be capped between $34 and 40 million because they all are in the same markets? That's ridiculous.

You and Bettman should get together for drinks.

[NJDevs4978]

7, you're forgetting that the PLAYERS wouldn't neccesarily want contraction either, that means the loss of jobs. Then again the players haven't cared less about its lower-middle class from the get-go so they might rationalize the loss of one team or two as the loss of 35 dissenters and the relocation of the rest of the players

[Don]

I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's real easy to say $46M when your team has double that.

If the NHLPA had said $200M would you be saying $110M would be right? WTF?

This deal royally screws the small market teams.

[Elias Sports Bureau]

Sorry... just moved for AP five minutes ago.

Edited by Elias Sports Bureau, 15 February 2005 - 08:07 PM.

[Derek21]

If you contracted say 4 teams and then added the maximum players-per-roster, it wouldn't be that bad. What is at now? 20?

[NJDevs4978]

I hate this deal. A $42M cap is meaningless when there are buckets of teams that couldn't dream of coming up with $42M/season.

The only way I would support anything over $35M is if there was a VERY strong luxery tax between $35M and $42M, with that money going to the lower revenue teams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is $42 million meaningless when the highest-spending teams spent around $80 million last year? It's a tremendous step toward leveling the field and depressing the market. If teams can't survive with a $42 million cap then they SHOULD be contracted. Or the owners should come up with more of a revenue-sharing plan than they've ever come up with.

[Derek21]

I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, it's real easy to say $46M when your team has double that.

If the NHLPA had said $200M would you be saying $110M would be right? WTF?

This deal royally screws the small market teams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, this is where I draw the line. What is a small market team? Is it just the eight handpicked teams' owners Bettman chose or is it others who don't have a say when Bettman asks for a minority to approve the cancelation of the season?


Because if you really want to get technical, there aren't as many small markets as you claim.

You have small markets, medium ones and big ones. They have to install a system that would not just benefit one but make it doable for all.


Esb... that letter was posted earlier in the thread by Petey.


I still don't see there being a season. They'll botch it and we'll be left with nothing.

Edited by Derek21, 15 February 2005 - 08:05 PM.

[Elias Sports Bureau]

It seems too wide a gap to be traversed right now.

[Don]

(A) EIGHTEEN TEAMS were under the proposed new cap. EIGHTEEN. That's a 1 and an 8. 18. EIGHTEEN. I'll write that in big letters. EIGHTEEN

(B)And most of those teams still lost money. And they will lose even more next year when revenues are lower.


But if you are happy with teams still losing big wads of cash after this lockout, that's fine. I'd expect nothing less.

A $42M cap is a white flag by the league. Those that want contraction will get it under this "cap".

['7']

46 million would be fine, both sides declare victory and we play on. that's the figure JD mentioned in his interview and seemed pretty optimistic it would get things done.

the rosters are 20 derek, that's just 4 lines, 6 D, 2 goalies. What would be wrong with carrying 2 extra forwards or 1 extra forward and 1 extra D?

really I don't think most of the owners would have a problem with a 50 million cap, but it was the gang of 8 who killed so much of the season insisting it would be some ludicrous figure like 32 million.

[Don]

Not 8. 18. I don't know if I can make it any bigger. Maybe it needs some colour.

EIGHTEEN

Edited by Don, 15 February 2005 - 08:15 PM.

['7']

(A) EIGHTEEN TEAMS were under the proposed new cap. EIGHTEEN. That's a 1 and an 8. 18. EIGHTEEN. I'll write that in big letters. EIGHTEEN

(B)And most of those teams still lost money. And they will lose even more next year when revenues are lower.


But if you are happy with teams still losing big wads of cash after this lockout, that's fine. I'd expect nothing less.

A $42M cap is a white flag by the league. Those that want contraction will get it under this "cap".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how many of those 18 lost alot of money, because surely they know most NHL franchises are not going to turn a profit every year, if you're not ready to lose money some years, then get out of the league!

how many could've spent more but decided to shed payroll in anticipation?

sure we'll get contraction, but not 18 teams. 6 maximum. the rest will recognize the realities of hockey, some years they'll make a little, others they'll lose a little.

[Triumph]

You're all deluded.

Eighteen teams were below the cap but what this does is it throws the brakes on any salary growth. I hardly think it's a white flag - you've been believing the Bettman party line far too much if you think it's a surrender. With inflation, assuming this cap does not ascend in any significant way in the next ten years, the NHL will be fine. It's not like every team is going to throw themselves up to the threshold of the cap, or has to. The point is to destroy NHL player salary growth and provide some measure of cost certainty, which this does. If teams that can afford players are up to the cap, and teams that can't aren't, where do the free agents go? Where's the market for them? There is none.

Edited by Triumph, 15 February 2005 - 08:31 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

You're all deluded.

Eighteen teams were below the cap but what this does is it throws the brakes on any salary growth.  I hardly think it's a white flag - you've been believing the Bettman party line far too much if you think it's a surrender.  With inflation, assuming this cap does not ascend in any significant way in the next ten years, the NHL will be fine.  It's not like every team is going to throw themselves up to the threshold of the cap, or has to.  The point is to destroy NHL player salary growth and provide some measure of cost certainty, which this does.  If teams that can afford players are up to the cap, and teams that can't aren't, where do the free agents go?  Where's the market for them?  There is none.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I do believe I agreed that I don't think $42.5 is a surrender either. And presuming this deal also includes the rollback, teams' losses will be cut just by that alone and they'll stay cut because of the cap. But of course we don't know WHAT this deal includes other than the headline.

And Derek and 7, $46 million isn't a 'compromise'...not when the players' $52 million cap is a soft cap with a luxury tax and could go as high as $57 million in any given year.

Edited by Hasan4978, 15 February 2005 - 08:41 PM.

[puck]

Here's where they finished last year -

Detroit Red Wings $ 77,856,109
New York Rangers $ 76,488,716
Dallas Stars $ 68,578,885
Philadelphia Flyers $ 68,175,247
Colorado Avalanche $ 63,382,458
Toronto Maple Leafs $ 62,458,140
St. Louis Blues $ 61,675,000
Los Angeles Kings $ 53,833,800
Anaheim Mighty Ducks $ 53,296,750
Washington Capitals $ 50,895,750
New Jersey Devils $ 48,931,658
Boston Bruins $ 46,569,000
Vancouver Canucks $ 42,074,500
New York Islanders $ 40,865,500
Ottawa Senators $ 39,590,000
Phoenix Coyotes $ 39,249,750
Montreal Canadiens $ 38,857,000
Calgary Flames $ 36,402,575
Carolina Hurricanes $ 35,908,738
San Jose Sharks $ 34,455,000
Tampa Bay Lightning $ 34,065,379
Columbus Blue Jackets $ 34,000,000
Edmonton Oilers $ 33,375,000
Buffalo Sabres $ 32,954,250
Chicago Blackhawks $ 30,867,502
Atlanta Thrashers $ 28,547,500
Minnesota Wild $ 27,200,500
Florida Panthers $ 26,127,500
Pittsburgh Penguins $ 23,400,000
Nashville Predators $ 21,932,500


12 teams including the Devs would be over the "cap". I think its an offer the players need to seriously consider. They need to be realistic here. Another eight months and the fan base in many cities will be significantly impacted. It took baseball several yrs to recover(and a juiced ball not to mentioned juiced players). Can the NHL ever recover?