2019 Offseason Thread

[glenwo2]

37 minutes ago, Henry Killinger said:

You know this is DevilSwede from HFBoards, right?

You mean the same guy who "claims" he'll be happy to get Hughes but really wants Kakko(though he won't admit it)?     

Had no clue that was his twitter account.

 

The more you know.

[CommonDreads]

On 5/26/2019 at 11:05 PM, glenwo2 said:

Very interesting. 

Not sure if he has an NHL option in his contract, but Lehtonen signed a two year contract with Jokerit in the KHL back in April. Not sure if the KHL has contracts with NHL options, however.

[CMONPETEYD]

He also said Boqvist was signing and that has not happened yet

[MadDog2020]

 

[Daniel]

I’m cautiously optimistic that there won’t be a lockout that results in any lost regular season games.  It seems like there aren’t any fundamental differences between the two sides anymore, except maybe the large up front bonuses.  They’re really just fighting over numbers, but there’s nowhere the two sides can reasonably go where persistently unprofitable teams are all the sudden going to be profitable as a result of a CBA.  

[MadDog2020]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

I’m cautiously optimistic that there won’t be a lockout that results in any lost regular season games.  It seems like there aren’t any fundamental differences between the two sides anymore, except maybe the large up front bonuses.  They’re really just fighting over numbers, but there’s nowhere the two sides can reasonably go where persistently unprofitable teams are all the sudden going to be profitable as a result of a CBA.  

I’ll believe it when I see a ratified and signed document. Never underestimate the NHL’s ability to shoot itself in the d!ck.

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

I’ll believe it when I see a ratified and signed document. Never underestimate the NHL’s ability to shoot itself in the d!ck.

The 2005 lockout I completely get.  You basically would have had a system of European soccer leagues if there were no hard salary cap and significant contraction to boot.

I had less sympathy for the owners the last time around since it was largely caused by loopholes of their own making.  But still limits on contract length are good for the game and fans, and the players are still doing fine financially.

Not that I think the owners are in it for our sake. Just that there is not a whole lot they can reasonably expect to gain from another work stoppage.  As I said, the owner of the Panthers who said he’s losing like $30 million a year isn’t going to see the team in the black all the sudden because contract lengths are cut by a year and the revenue split moves a couple of percentage points one way or the other.

[sundstrom]

The next work stoppage wouldn't be a lockout - it would be a player strike. Because the owners would pretty much keep the CBA as is.

There is one hill the players will die on - escrow. they'll want that lowered.

[MadDog2020]

5 minutes ago, sundstrom said:

The next work stoppage wouldn't be a lockout - it would be a player strike. Because the owners would pretty much keep the CBA as is.

There is one hill the players will die on - escrow. they'll want that lowered.

Definitely. The players haven’t been shy about how much they hate escrow.

[NJDfan1711]

9 hours ago, MadDog2020 said:

Definitely. The players haven’t been shy about how much they hate escrow.

What exactly of the player's is put in escrow, and are they not allowed to touch it for a certain period of time?

[Devilsfan118]

1 hour ago, NJDfan1711 said:

What exactly of the player's is put in escrow, and are they not allowed to touch it for a certain period of time?

I'm not too ashamed to admit I have no clue what "escrow" means in this context.

I assume it's money the players will eventually get back.. right?

[DevsMan84]

4 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

I'm not too ashamed to admit I have no clue what "escrow" means in this context.

I assume it's money the players will eventually get back.. right?

From what I understand, a % of their paychecks are put into escrow.  After the season is done they see if certain league-wide revenue targets were hit and they get a % back based on if and how close they hit those targets.

[MadDog2020]

1 hour ago, NJDfan1711 said:

What exactly of the player's is put in escrow, and are they not allowed to touch it for a certain period of time?

It’s money deducted from every player’s check to assure a 50/50 split in revenues equally between players and owners. At the end of the season when total revenue is calculated, it is then determined if the players get that money back. 

[NJDfan1711]

10 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

From what I understand, a % of their paychecks are put into escrow.  After the season is done they see if certain league-wide revenue targets were hit and they get a % back based on if and how close they hit those targets.

I was actually going to assume it was their bonus money, be it an initial signing bonus or performance-based bonus - that I could sort of understand.  But I'm not sure why some of their regular paycheck would be put in escrow.  I can understand them not wanting a portion of their money held back and only distributed based on how the league does, which is probably out of their control  (I assume again that it's in terms of overall revenue, which would be based on things like marketing, and the overall economy)

[NJDfan1711]

13 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

It’s money deducted from every player’s check to assure a 50/50 split in revenues equally between players and owners. At the end of the season when total revenue is calculated, it is then determined if the players get that money back. 

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

[MadDog2020]

Just now, NJDfan1711 said:

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

No, their regular salary has a deduction for escrow. Consider it like a regular payroll deduction, like FICA. It’s deducted every paycheck. Then, at the end of the season when total league revenue is calculated, it’s then determined if the players get the total sum of those escrow deductions back. It’s all tied to an equal 50/50 split between owners and players. There is the chance the players never recover that money, and that’s what they hate (and rightfully so), because it’s money from their negotiated salaries, not bonus money. 

[DevsMan84]

3 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

It's from their regular paychecks and it is for that HRR (hockey related revenue) that was hotly contested in 2013.  The agreement from the 2013 CBA was that the split was 50/50 between owners and players (previously it was something like 57% players and 43% owners).

HRR are things like ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals, etc. 

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, sundstrom said:

The next work stoppage wouldn't be a lockout - it would be a player strike. Because the owners would pretty much keep the CBA as is.

There is one hill the players will die on - escrow. they'll want that lowered.

I think the players understand that escrow is just a fact of life, no matter how much they complain about it. 

[MadDog2020]

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

[DevsMan84]

1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

I was expecting around $8M.  Regardless the $8.5M to $9.5M just makes it either overpaid or very overpaid.  UFA by default are getting insane deals these days and he was up there in terms of UFA forwards available.  I expect Eberle will cost around $7M based on these numbers.  Panarin, on the other hand, is easily getting $11M+.

[NJDfan1711]

1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

No, their regular salary has a deduction for escrow. Consider it like a regular payroll deduction, like FICA. It’s deducted every paycheck. Then, at the end of the season when total league revenue is calculated, it’s then determined if the players get the total sum of those escrow deductions back. It’s all tied to an equal 50/50 split between owners and players. There is the chance the players never recover that money, and that’s what they hate (and rightfully so), because it’s money from their negotiated salaries, not bonus money. 

 

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

It's from their regular paychecks and it is for that HRR (hockey related revenue) that was hotly contested in 2013.  The agreement from the 2013 CBA was that the split was 50/50 between owners and players (previously it was something like 57% players and 43% owners).

HRR are things like ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals, etc. 

The 50/50 split sounds fair, but what's the actual % that's escrowed?  That is the figure that actually makes the world of difference.  If I'm making $10M a season and 1% is escrowed, then essentially if everything goes right, myself and the league split $100,000, so I'm only losing out on $50,000 of my $10M salary, but if the escrow percentage is say 10%, then I'm splitting 1 million dollars down the middle, and losing $500,000 of my paycheck - a huge difference.  

I guess I just don't get why players have any of their money escrowed.  As a GM/owner, you agree to pay a player X amount per year, that should be what he brings home for that season, and it should be his and his only.  On the flipside, I also don't see why players would get a cut of ticket sales - I thought that number was essentially the money owners used to pay player salaries.  

[DevsMan84]

2 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

 

The 50/50 split sounds fair, but what's the actual % that's escrowed?  That is the figure that actually makes the world of difference.  If I'm making $10M a season and 1% is escrowed, then essentially if everything goes right, myself and the league split $100,000, so I'm only losing out on $50,000 of my $10M salary, but if the escrow percentage is say 10%, then I'm splitting 1 million dollars down the middle, and losing $500,000 of my paycheck - a huge difference.  

I guess I just don't get why players have any of their money escrowed.  As a GM/owner, you agree to pay a player X amount per year, that should be what he brings home for that season, and it should be his and his only.  On the flipside, I also don't see why players would get a cut of ticket sales - I thought that number was essentially the money owners used to pay player salaries.  

I am not sure what the % is now for the escrow, but the latest figure I have is from 2015 where 15% of the players salary is escrowed.  That year the players got a little over 2% back.

I believe the thought is that both the players and owners should have skin in the game in terms of the health of the league.  This agreement is in the CBA and both sides agreed to it, so players are well aware that whatever contract they signed they will have to give/have withheld a decent portion towards the escrow. 

Here is a good graphic with how much of the player loses when he is paid:

[vadvlfan]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

I think the players understand that escrow is just a fact of life, no matter how much they complain about it. 

Many italians love escrow (in soups etc.) pronounced "schkrarrole" (I know, that was really bad)

[DevsMan84]

Also the graphic/photo I posted brought up another point where I think the owners may want to address in upcoming CBA talks: state tax.  There are states like Florida where they have no state income tax.  That puts other teams at a disadvantage as in Toews' hypothetical case it gives him over 680K more reasons to sign there.

[NJDfan1711]

1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

As the salary cap keeps going up, and more specifically the max individual player salary per year, so too will contracts for players who you might consider "average", like Skinner.  Personally, I think he's above average, but that's beside the point.  I'll never forget when, just a year or two ago, in one of the threads on here we were discussing salary caps and salaries, and I thought the max player salary per year was still like 8-9M or something like that, and someone informed me that it was actually like 13 or 14 at the time.  I couldn't believe it.  But, with that in mind, I always look at it this way:  whatever the max annual salary is per player (I actually don't know what it is at the moment, but let's say it's $15M/yr), then I try to envision a scale, with 1M being the lowest a player can be paid (I know it's lower than that), and $15M being the highest someone can be paid.  Simple math would state that the median number there would be 7.5, which you would assume an "average" NHL player would make.  Now, regardless of how you feel about Skinner as a player (as mentioned, I personally considered him to be slightly above average), even if you do consider him merely average, 8.5/9.5 isn't really that much more than 7.5.  

I know that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, but I think it applies and makes sense (to me at least)