Done Deal

[Ryan]

As expected the CBA will be completed today. The deal still has to be approved by both sides, but it's merely a formality.

www.tsn.ca

Interesting to note that Sportsnet is reporting that a twist to the deal will allow the agreement to be opened back up after 4 years. I'm sure more details will follow, but I'm guessing there's a detailed formula or set of conditions that will accompany something like this.

I'm sure details of the confirmed CBA will trickle down throughout the day, should be exciting.

[Habit]

I believe it when I see it...

[Ryan]

habit said:

I believe it when I see it...

It's sad, but that's going to be the reaction of an awful lot of people. There's been a great deal of trust that has been lost through all of this.

But all will be forgotten when free agents start signing by the dozen ;D

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

ryan said:

habit said:

I believe it when I see it...

It's sad, but that's going to be the reaction of an awful lot of people. There's been a great deal of trust that has been lost through all of this.

But all will be forgotten when free agents start signing by the dozen ;D

Get the pens ready and call in Wayne and Mario.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.................
When I see it!

[KR]

Bruce Garrioch reports that ratification is not guaranteed....so believe that it is:) All I have to say is it's about stinkin' time. I don't feel relief or joy......just apathy at this point. When the league gets down to the actual day-to-day routine of player signings etc I'll start to get involved again. As for the game being more entertaining in the end....the on-ice product will only be as good as the referees and the resolve of the league office to have the rules strictly enforced for the long haul. Otherwise, the more things change, the moe they stay the same.

[Polarice]

Just been announced that there is a deal done, they are however waiting for the players vote before actually releasing any on the info. TSN has a big write up on it now.

[Habit]

IT"S ABOUT #*@%!^& TIME!!

Let's sign players, win the lottery and play some hockey!!

In 3 Months

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Huh? What's happening?

[Forum Ghost]

From the TSN website....


GAME ON!

[Forum Ghost]

Only one word came to mind when I heard the news...



finally

[Ryan]

TSN reports the lottery will be slightly weighted. All teams with 3 balls to start. Lose 1 ball for everytime you made the playoffs in the last 3 years and 1 for every first overall pick in the last 4.

It will also be a fantasy style reverse order 7 round draft taking place in Ottawa on the 30th.

By my calculations, here's how the lottery balls will shake down...

Teams with 3 Balls (6.12% chance of winning):
Buffalo
Columbus
Florida
New York

Teams with 2 Balls (4.08% chance of winning):
Anaheim
Atlanta
Calgary
Chicago
Edmonton
Los Angeles
Minnesota
Nashville
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Washington

Teams with 1 Ball (2.04% chance of winning):
Boston
Carolina
Colorado
Dallas
Detroit
Long Island
Montreal
New Jersey
Ottawa
Philadelphia
San Jose
St-Louis
Tampa Bay
Toronto
Vancouver

Please correct me if anything appears wrong here.

[Forum Ghost]

Seems as if there is an individual cap on salaries as well.

Not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but it looks like a player cannot earn more than 20% of the team cap. The cap range is $21.5M - $39M.

Therefore a team with a $39M payroll cannot pay any of its players more than $7.8M.

[Ryan]

ESPN is reporting that there will be an team by team individual player salary cap set at 20% of the team's total payroll.

This will put teams like Atlanta and Calgary in a bad position. Assume they each have payrolls of $25 mil. Players like Iginla, Heatley and Kovalchuk will command hefty salaries, but will they settle for $5 mil when a player like Jagr can be paid $7+ mil because his team has a higher payroll?

Star players on low payroll teams will be limited to a lower potential salary than star players on high payroll teams. But then again, the high payroll teams needs to find the cap room to sign these players.

I think we all need to go back to math class before the summer is out.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Seems like Helene Elliott had the scoop after all.

[NWTHabsFan]

Thank goodness!!

[seventeen]

Rats, now I have to go back to discussing players hockey ability, coaching, scouting, and managing instead of delving deeply into fascinating contract debates. What's wrong with the world?

[seventeen]

I've just watched a recap of the agreement and am very puzzled. It appears to me that while the players gave up immediate salary, they won on just about every other front (?). Duh? Why is everyone slapping the owners on the back? Why couldn't this same deal have been done a year ago? The players are still spoiled IMO and I'm not happy with free agency at 27 for most players. It removes much of the incentive to develop your own guys. Makes it way too easy for dumbos like Fergie Jr. I agree with Bob Mckenzie, working the intricacies of the cap and your line-up is going to be challenging for GM's. Fortunately Gainey has brains. I can see, however, fewer cases like Mike Ryder. Once a guy hits 23, 24 its too late.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

I've just watched a recap of the agreement and am very puzzled. It appears to me that while the players gave up immediate salary, they won on just about every other front (?). Duh? Why is everyone slapping the owners on the back?

Hey, I've been (not so quietly) smirking in my corner.

$3B league-wide revenues x 54% = $1.62B / 30 teams = $54M salary cap x 20% for the highest paid player = $10.8M

I guess we'll see if the owners are more interested in making money from their franchises or sticking it to the union.

*

The six-year agreement also includes a reopener after four years, meaning the players can terminate the deal at that time if they are unsatisfied with how it has impacted them.

- www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wduha13/BNStory/Sports/

[Rimmer]

"I don't think the deal that we're going to get would have been ratified last summer," said Sean Burke, a free agent like many of his brethren. "But I just think we've been worn down to the point where at this stage the deal would really have to be incredibly bad for the guys not to vote it in. At least that's the sense I'm getting."

I think this quote by Sean Burke sums up pretty well how things have changed from the players point of view

R.

[Habit]

ryan said:

ESPN is reporting that there will be an team by team individual player salary cap set at 20% of the team's total payroll.

This will put teams like Atlanta and Calgary in a bad position. Assume they each have payrolls of $25 mil. Players like Iginla, Heatley and Kovalchuk will command hefty salaries, but will they settle for $5 mil when a player like Jagr can be paid $7+ mil because his team has a higher payroll?

Star players on low payroll teams will be limited to a lower potential salary than star players on high payroll teams. But then again, the high payroll teams needs to find the cap room to sign these players.

I think we all need to go back to math class before the summer is out.

This is what I wrote a week or so ago... (I feel like Mr. B)

habit said:

ryan said:

All along I don't think I had ever heard of a cap on individual player salaries, but it appears that has happened as well.

If I understand correctly no player's salary can exceed $7.4 mil next year (20% of $37 mil). That number would rise and fall as the cap does I assume.

Pretty interesting...all in all the owners really took Goodenow for a ride here and it looks good on him. I'm not sure if even the owners ever expected this good of a deal.

Lets say the Habs have a Salary or $32M. Does that mean that the highest paid player can only make $6.4M?

- or -

If Boston has a $24M payroll their highest paid player gets $4.8M?

How I read that is it cannot be more than 20% of "Their" payroll, and not the cap. If the Rangers want to get dirty and cut Jagr's salary more, just put a cheap team on the ice and only pay him $4.5M or so.

However the artical is just another re-hash of the same-old-same-old.

I must be a Idiot - Savant or something like that!!

[Habit]

mrbozo said:

seventeen said:

I've just watched a recap of the agreement and am very puzzled. It appears to me that while the players gave up immediate salary, they won on just about every other front (?). Duh? Why is everyone slapping the owners on the back?

Hey, I've been (not so quietly) smirking in my corner.

$3B league-wide revenues x 54% = $1.62B / 30 teams = $54M salary cap x 20% for the highest paid player = $10.8M

I guess we'll see if the owners are more interested in making money from their franchises or sticking it to the union.

*

The six-year agreement also includes a reopener after four years, meaning the players can terminate the deal at that time if they are unsatisfied with how it has impacted them.

- www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wduha13/BNStory/Sports/

If the owners want to be "Evil", lower the ticket prices. This will lower revenue, lower Player salary's and still make a profit of 46%.

Muuuhaaaaa... Muuuuuhaaaaaa

*Dr. Evil laff*

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habit said:

mrbozo said:

Hey, I've been (not so quietly) smirking in my corner.

$3B league-wide revenues x 54% = $1.62B / 30 teams = $54M salary cap x 20% for the highest paid player = $10.8M

I guess we'll see if the owners are more interested in making money from their franchises or sticking it to the union.

*

The six-year agreement also includes a reopener after four years, meaning the players can terminate the deal at that time if they are unsatisfied with how it has impacted them.

- www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wduha13/BNStory/Sports/

If the owners want to be "Evil", lower the ticket prices. This will lower revenue, lower Player salary's and still make a profit of 46%.

Muuuhaaaaa... Muuuuuhaaaaaa

*Dr. Evil laff*

Ah, yes—then there will be an owner who is so determined that under the cap-linked-to-revenues system player salalries should never again reach previous levels, that he keeps lowering ticket prices. Of course the lower the prices go the less revenue there will be to defray expenses other than payroll—and then said owner will cry piteously that the CBA doesn't work. ;D

[franko]

Cap anticipation growing
A few suggestions on what could replace 1995's "Game On"
Chris Stevenson, SLAM Sports

I have been looking forward to this moment for the last 300 days or so.

Ever since the NHL owners started their lockout of their players last Sept. 15, reducing the relevance of the NHL in the U.S.A. to less than a spelling bee, I have been consumed with thinking about this moment.

Now it appears as though it is close at hand.

Yeah, yeah, the NHL lockout's over.

That's not what I'm talking about. We've known this announcement was going to happen because hockey reporters have been writing and saying "this is the week" or "today's the day" for the last two months and even a broken clock is right once a day.

(The NHL apparently wanted to announce the end of the lockout yesterday because there's nothing going on in sports and they could capitalize on the space and airtime afforded by the lack of news.

After almost a year of no NHL news, that seems a bit hypocritical, huh?

Never mind that most American sports fans will still flip by the "NHL Lockout Over" story to get to a rehash of the MLB All-Star Game, a recap of another teary Jack Nicklaus press conference at the British Open or a profile of the guy who puts the air in Lance Armstrong's tires.)

But, for those of us who care, this is an exciting time.

Yeah, exciting new rules are on the way (though I haven't heard one of my friends who used to have Senators season tickets say, "The tag up offside is back? Where's my VISA card?!")

New rules are good.

Good news is good.

But that's not the best part.

It's the anticipation.

What colour will the hats be this time?

Will they just dig out some of those big black ones from 1995 that look like they were snatched off the head of Elmer Fudd and had "Game On" splashed across the front?

The end of the 1994-95 lockout remains as one of my favourite NHL moments and not just because the lockout was over and we could go back to watching the Senators lose 15 games in a row.

No, it became special when NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA honcho Bob Goodenow put those "Game On" hats on their heads for a photo op at the press conference announcing the end of the 1994-95 lockout.

I saw a clip of it recently. Goodenow plunked it on his head at a jaunty angle for what appeared to be the most painful two seconds of his life.

The look on his face was what you might have imagined at the moment when his secretary said, "Sean Avery on line one."

Goodenow grimaced before whipping the hat off his head.

And the players had won that lockout.

With that big, high-front ballcap on, Bettman looked like he had just climbed down off of Secretariat. All he was missing was a whip and a pair of muddy goggles.

But there is a new reality for the NHL now.

Given the hit NHL revenues have taken during a lockout that now appears to have been totally needless, the NHL might want to save money on having new hats printed up with some catchy slogan borrowed from a recent Mike Myers movie.

Then again, has there been a recent Mike Myers movie?

It will be difficult to match the simplicity and brilliance of "Game On."

There are going to be many exciting things to contemplate in the next few days. Will the Senators be able to keep all their free agents?

Where will Sidney Crosby wind up?

Which rule changes will be introduced and how will they affect the game?

Which goaltender will be the first to complain about the size of the new pads?

But I can't wait for the press conference.

Will they be able to get Bettman and Goodenow in the same room?

What will the slogan be this time? "NHL -- Remember Us?"

Will Bettman's say, "Take This, Chelios"?

Will Goodenow wear a hat that says "Will Negotiate For Food?"

Or will it say, "I Told Them It Would Take TWO Years!"

Slam Sports/Ottawa Sun

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

No, it became special when NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA honcho Bob Goodenow put those "Game On" hats on their heads for a photo op at the press conference announcing the end of the 1994-95 lockout.

I saw a clip of it recently. Goodenow plunked it on his head at a jaunty angle for what appeared to be the most painful two seconds of his life.

The look on his face was what you might have imagined at the moment when his secretary said, "Sean Avery on line one."

Goodenow grimaced before whipping the hat off his head.

And the players had won that lockout.

With that big, high-front ballcap on, Bettman looked like he had just climbed down off of Secretariat. All he was missing was a whip and a pair of muddy goggles.

Hill Larry us.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

New-look NHL set to appear

By ERIC DUHATSCHEK

Thursday, July 14, 2005 Updated at 11:49 AM EDT

Globe and Mail Update

A day after the National Hockey League's 301-day lockout ended, player agents were desperately waiting to get their hands on the new agreement, so they could learn exactly how they will be doing business under the league's new economic model.

Don Meehan, president of Newport Sports and the agent for Jarome Iginla, Jose Theodore and others, called the longest work stoppage in professional sport "shameful" and suggested: "There have been a lot of casualties. People have lost their jobs. We can't take for granted that we can win fans back, on a simple announcement. We're going to have to work awfully hard at that.

"The most fundamental aspect of this new agreement is that it necessitates a fundamental change in attitude on behalf of both sides and in the way they deal with one other. This truly is a business partnership now. It's time we started dealing with each other on that basis — and not as enemies."

For now, however, no one can accurately predict just how the new system will evolve. A $39 million salary cap will apply to the first season of the agreement, but that number will go up or down, depending upon the direction of league revenues over the course of the six-year term.

In a perfect world, revenues will not plunge in the first year of the new agreement, but stay relatively stable. If that occurs, then the business could theoretically grow quickly in future years, paving the way for richer pay days ahead.

On the other hand, if the product isn't substantially improved, or the paying public is disenchanted enough by the 301-day lockout that they collectively ignore the league upon its return, then the industry (and all of its players) could take a significant monetary hit because the salary cap will fall as well.

The danger is clear: If a team spends near the cap (and commits to a handful of pricey, long-term contracts for prominent players) and then finds that the cap is reduced by 25 per cent in Year 2 of the deal, what do they do then? They could find themselves trapped — dealing with a significantly lower cap, but stuck with contracts that may not be able to extricate themselves from.

It is a dilemma that general managers need to anticipate this year already, because if they tie themselves down to too many of the aforementioned types of contracts, there will be no easy escape the way there will be this year, when teams can buy out overpriced players' contracts, without it counting against their respective salary caps.

Accordingly, it is logical to expect both sides — agents and managers — to play it safe and sign short-term deals. That way, they can buy themselves time to see how the new system evolves.

"For the first time ever, the risk of uncertainty affects both sides," said IMG hockey president J.P. Barry, the agent for Daniel Alfredsson, Jaromir Jagr and others. "My one caveat would be, in the small category of the premier unrestricted free agent, or the franchise player, there could be some variation of that.

"The guy who is your franchise player, who you're going to build around him, even if you're wrong, you might only be wrong by $1 million or $1.5 million.

"The fact is, a team may have a lot of uncertainties, but they can eliminate a lot of them by having some semblance of a core. So that might be the one exception."

Under terms of the new agreement, NHL free agency stays at 31 for the first year, but then drops to 29 in the second year and all the way to 27 by the fourth year of the deal.

Logically, the NHLPA probably could have pressed the issue and seen an immediate reduction in the age of unrestricted free agents. The fact that they didn't press the issue suggests they were concerned that the market for unrestricted free agency is already saturated, with many more to come once teams start making buyout decisions. Thus, putting even more free agents on the open market could depress the price for everyone out there and made little business sense.

As it is, every one of the 30 NHL teams will have a different priority, as soon as the deal is ratified. Some will be busy, getting their key players under contract. Others will be trying to get their 2003 draft choices signed. A handful of teams may be forced to buy out the contracts of players so as to get under the cap. Others, with room to spend, will identify free agents to bid on and determine how much money they are prepared to spend to secure their rights.

Barry doesn't believe the late start to the free-agent season is going to create much of a problem.

"In the past couple of years, July 1 was the start date, but really, nobody did anything until close to Aug. 1," he said. "Really, July 1 has become a very soft date. People have been waiting until well into July or early August to really get going."

[Habit]

I wonder...

Would GM's, instead of signing a player to a $5M contract sign them to a 15% of cap?

This would keep them under a shrinking cap system. i.e. Theo gets 15% of a $37M cap ($5.5M).

If the cap goes down to say 35 mil in the next season then Theo's salary would automaticall be $5.25M.

Might sound and work strange, but it could be a way for teams to constantly get under a shrinking and growing cap. But a Team payroll would be a thing of the past, and only percentage of cap would remain.

Where is that beer I just put down....

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

seventeen said:

I've just watched a recap of the agreement and am very puzzled. It appears to me that while the players gave up immediate salary, they won on just about every other front (?). Duh? Why is everyone slapping the owners on the back? Why couldn't this same deal have been done a year ago? The players are still spoiled IMO and I'm not happy with free agency at 27 for most players. It removes much of the incentive to develop your own guys. Makes it way too easy for dumbos like Fergie Jr. I agree with Bob Mckenzie, working the intricacies of the cap and your line-up is going to be challenging for GM's. Fortunately Gainey has brains. I can see, however, fewer cases like Mike Ryder. Once a guy hits 23, 24 its too late.

What good is free agency to a player if he can't be paid more by another team with their cap than he already is being paid. Negotiating with a number of teams that all have a limit doesn't help the player much. Journeymen will be kept down in order to make $$$ available to better players under the cap.
Now the league can expand to Moncton and Biloxi and those teams can be profitable.
$21 million dollars for a whole team.
I don't expect to see the players rejoicing.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habit said:

I wonder...

Would GM's, instead of signing a player to a $5M contract sign them to a 15% of cap?

This would keep them under a shrinking cap system. i.e. Theo gets 15% of a $37M cap ($5.5M).

If the cap goes down to say 35 mil in the next season then Theo's salary would automaticall be $5.25M.

Might sound and work strange, but it could be a way for teams to constantly get under a shrinking and growing cap. But a Team payroll would be a thing of the past, and only percentage of cap would remain.

Where is that beer I just put down....

That is brilliant! Why not structure one's entire payroll on a percentage of cap?

Hmmmm...agents...players...

(takes another sip of brandy-laced coffee)

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

habit said:

mrbozo said:

Hey, I've been (not so quietly) smirking in my corner.

$3B league-wide revenues x 54% = $1.62B / 30 teams = $54M salary cap x 20% for the highest paid player = $10.8M

I guess we'll see if the owners are more interested in making money from their franchises or sticking it to the union.

*

The six-year agreement also includes a reopener after four years, meaning the players can terminate the deal at that time if they are unsatisfied with how it has impacted them.

- www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050713.wduha13/BNStory/Sports/

If the owners want to be "Evil", lower the ticket prices. This will lower revenue, lower Player salary's and still make a profit of 46%.

Muuuhaaaaa... Muuuuuhaaaaaa

*Dr. Evil laff*

What would be truly evil would be to raise ticket prices, and when interrogated to respond blandly, "We have to make up revenues for the lost season."

*

Hmmm, perhaps don't touch ticket prices, but hike the prices of everything else. Make those gray hotdogs even more indigestible for the average fan. Lower the alcohol content of the beer and juice the price—$10 for a cup of water. Encourage the use of public transit with outrageous parking rates. Make the team cap (the one you purchase from the club's merchandise boutique) a tight fit—salary cap stylee.

[Habit]

Just watched Bob mcKenzie in TSN. He mentioned that if revenue goes up, so does the player percentage!!

I'm doing this from memory, bo bear with me...

Revenue = percentage

2.2B = 55%

2.5B = 56%

2.7B = 57%

2.9B = 58%

As this keeps coming out, the players are seaming to get a better of the deal than first thought.