Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Evening Line

"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it.  (Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."

-Ryan Suter of the Minnesota Wild on the CBA negotiations.  More from Suter via Craig Custance of ESPN.

Filed in: NHL Teams, Minnesota Wild, NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: ryan+suter

Comments

Avatar

Sigh.

You know, I bet if the NHL could come up with some way to move player share to 50% immediately but honor every dollar of already signed contracts the NHLPA would be okay with that.

I wonder if they realize how stupid that position is, relative to what they think they are defending.

For instance, if for whatever reason a handful fewer contracts were signed pre-lockout and there were more guys still unsigned and so the raw dollar space existed for the NHL to lower the cap under a 50-50 HRR split as opposed to a 43-57 HRR split… do dudes like Suter even realize what it is they are suggesting?

I do. 

He’s essentially talking about a short-term two-tiered pay structure in the NHL.  There would be all the grandfathered contracts that were signed under the 70 mil cap assumptions, and then from Day Zero of the new CBA every upcoming RFA or UFA would get wildly less than they would have gotten a season previous, and wildly less than guys on their team are getting, just because of the timing of their FA status.

That’s why I get such an eyeroll out of the players talking about defending current contracts.  All they are really doing is taking the money out of the pockets of future FAs by demanding it goes into the pockets of the recently signed.

Since the vast majority of NHLPA members have valid contracts, all they see is the immediate cost to them of a ‘rollback’.  They apparently either don’t see or don’t particularly care about the future costs of their current position to their NHLPA FA ‘brothers.’

And all of that aside, poor Ryan.  He’s so disappointed.  Instead of 98 million dollars he’s going to get bent over a table and get 89 million dollars.  Boohooboohoo.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 02:28 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

And all of that aside, poor Ryan.  He’s so disappointed.  Instead of 98 million dollars he’s going to get bent over a table and get 89 million dollars.  Boohooboohoo.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 02:28 AM ET

It couldn’t be the months long courtship Leipold put on for them, signing them to 98m contracts.. and BEFORE that telling the people and fans of MN that they are prepared to “throw the bank” at this years big time free-agents and will be “major players” in making pitches for them.. couldn’t be all that, before Leipold became a voice for “rollbacks” during this lockout.  Couldn’t be all that, it must be that they’re insensitive to hypothetical players, dealing with a hypothetical commissioner in 6 years and another hypothetical lockout.. yeah… must be that…

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 03:12 AM ET

Hank1974's avatar

You know, I bet if the NHL could come up with some way to move player share to 50% immediately but honor every dollar of already signed contracts the NHLPA would be okay with that.

HD, Fehr has basically come out and said that. I guess that’s what the third proposal was.
They’d go to 50/50 immediately (instead of a progressed roll-back) as long as the contracts were honoured 100%.

People who are far more tapped in than I am have also suggested that the owners were told 2 years in advance that these long-term, CBA-circumventing contracts would be eliminated, and thus the reason why owners like Leipold had no problems signing Suter and Parise.

If that’s really the truth, then the NHL deserves to lose another season, or two.

Even though I agree with the players crying foul, in the end, they should just sign whatever deal the NHL is offering. No matter how you look at this, the players can’t win.
And history has shown that salary’s will always go up so in 2 years, all these players that will have ‘lost’ some money, will make it all back.
But the longer the lockout lasts, the less money they have a chance to make.
Just sign the deal.

Posted by Hank1974 on 10/27/12 at 07:57 AM ET

Avatar

Couldn’t be all that, it must be that they’re insensitive to hypothetical players, dealing with a hypothetical commissioner in 6 years and another hypothetical lockout.. yeah… must be that…

I know I have a little fun typing gibberish when I respond to you, but I want to take a moment to ask a serious question:  What in the hell are you even talking about?

Seriously, HO.  It’s like the English language doesn’t have any real meaning for you.  I’m not talking about ‘hypothetical’ players.  There are going to be FAs.  Those FAs are going to suffer financially because of the NHLPAs short-sighted stance on current deals.

It’s completely indisputable.  The more cap space that is tied up in existing deals, the less there will be for future deals.  It is pretty much the simplest concept imaginable.

As far as the Leipold stuff goes, could you find me a single quote of his where he’s talked about “rollbacks” as you claimed?  I google searched it and couldn’t find a single mention.

The only thing I’ve seen from Leipold is a comment about the NHL having to change the way teams spend because teams are losing money, and then three months later signing Parise and Suter..  In that case he took a team that was going to lose a few mil and likely made them into 10+ mil losers in the short term.

On the face his complaint looks asinine, but I don’t think it means the Wild were making money before.  IMO the big signings are just about a one-shot if the team isn’t wildly successful this year they’ve got 21 mil in contracts coming off in one-two years in just 4 players, and Heatley (the guy expiring in two years) can get moved at the deadline this year for expiring guys to move the savings forward.

So if the signings blow up they can go cheap (again) pretty quickly, and if the signings work and they get a round or two deep in the playoffs they can make the lions share of that money back.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 08:15 AM ET

Avatar

People who are far more tapped in than I am have also suggested that the owners were told 2 years in advance that these long-term, CBA-circumventing contracts would be eliminated, and thus the reason why owners like Leipold had no problems signing Suter and Parise.

If that’s really the truth, then the NHL deserves to lose another season, or two.

Totally agree.  This is the big problem I’ve had with Bettman and the NHL.  That last CBA was stupidly, stupidly written.. and because they did such an awful job of it the league is right back in the same situation it was a few years ago.

The spread between the cap and floor is dumb, the loopholes for long term contracts are dumb, the 54-46 initial split was dumb, and walking up the players share as revenue increased was dumb.

Add in the stupid way league discipline is handled, and you’ve pretty much got my list of reasons I think Bettman is an incompetent who should be fired.

Even though I agree with the players crying foul, in the end, they should just sign whatever deal the NHL is offering. No matter how you look at this, the players can’t win.
And history has shown that salary’s will always go up so in 2 years, all these players that will have ‘lost’ some money, will make it all back.
But the longer the lockout lasts, the less money they have a chance to make.
Just sign the deal.

Totally agree.  Even if the players ‘break’ the owners and get a 5 year deal at 57-43 after missing a season again they won’t make as much as they would have had they signed a 50-50 deal and played the full 6.

And they are not ever going to get a 57-43 deal.

Add that in to screwing their future FAs out of their fair share of future revenues, and I literally have no idea what the NHLPA thinks they are going to accomplish.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 08:25 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The Score had an idea about how to bridge the gap between “pay them their current contract value” and “Make them pay themselves their current contract value.”

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/10/19/how-a-make-whole-salary-cap-would-provide-a-win-win-lockout-solution/

67Sound calls it a “Make-Whole Cap”, but you could just as easily call it a luxury cap.

Basically, let the rich teams spend up to that $70.2M figure until league revenues catch up and make that the actual cap. Dollars spent by those teams over the cap that’s based on 50/50 basically don’t count against the players’ share.

Sure the league spends over 50/50 in terms of real dollars spent (versus dollars counted), but it’s only the teams who can afford to do so who are driving that and it disappears as leaguewide revenues expand.

This would create a period where the rich teams would have a much more-significant competitive advantage over the small-market teams, but that’s an advantage that would narrow back quickly; essentially the big-market advantage could be used to kick-start the league’s recovery from the damage they’re doing to themselves with this lockout and end the luxury cap period quicker.

The one biggest concern there is that right now all but 3 teams are over the $53.3M midpoint that was a part of the offer the league pulled.  That could be solved by a direct escrow system where teams committed to paying between the old midpoint and new midpoint are “made whole” by the NHLPA.

Of course, that means the NHLPA (as a whole) giving some money back, but they’re giving it back directly to the teams which need it (although right now the Rangers, Penguins, and Red Wings would all qualify to receive back money in that system and I might just disqualify them from that). You have an adjustment period where you have to count “old money” against that system and “new money”, but again, that pain in the ass disappears as league revenues bring the luxury cap in line with the actual cap.

It’s a little give-back from the rich teams and a little give-back from the players to benefit the struggling teams.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/27/12 at 08:46 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

As far as the Leipold stuff goes, could you find me a single quote of his where he’s talked about “rollbacks” as you claimed?  I google searched it and couldn’t find a single mention.

Now you’re JJing


btw, I like the discrediting of my intelligence before your response, classy.

The portion of your quote I highlighted before my response seem to imply that even though he got swindled by an owner knowingly signing him and his bestie for price they weren’t planning on honoring, he should be ok with it because of the total amount.  That principle plays no part in the situation.

What exactly was so hard to understand about that, that you had to imply I do not grasp the english language?>

Keep playin’ the game liar.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 09:09 AM ET

Guilherme's avatar

I wont contribute to the discussion, just need some clarifications on what “JJing” and “HDing” means.

There’s this Chrome extension that replaces stupid terms (yolo, Belieber and the n-word) to whatever I want (carpe diem, Bieber fan, black), so please help me.

I already got “CBA>SPC” replaced with “that thing HD says when he’s running out of arguments”.

Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 10/27/12 at 10:14 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

No problem Herm,

JJ actually has multiple meanings.  I can mean you went back to the original point or argument when it’s being changed to avert being wrong or can’t prove his point.. which oddly leads us into the second meaning, which I’ve used in this context which is asking someone to validate their statement with facts.  If JJ asked for instance where he got a certain number.  That’s above the HD standard for accepting a statement so it was deemed (paraphrasing) ridiculously high.

So based on the second definition, HD is def JJing… by his definition.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 10:31 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I wont contribute to the discussion, just need some clarifications on what “JJing” and “HDing” means.

Replace JJing with “making cogent points” and you’re good.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/27/12 at 10:34 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

I think its pretty crazy to expect someone to take an $11 million haircut on a contract where the ink isn’t even dry yet. It sounds as if Leipold had this rollback in his pocket while negotiating, which would be acting in bad faith. I’d be upset as well.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 10/27/12 at 11:04 AM ET

Avatar

Now you’re JJing

Again, the English language has no meaning for you.  You specifically said:

“before Leipold became a voice for “rollbacks” during this lockout. “

I asked you to provide me anything, ANYTHING, where Leipold even spoke about rollbacks, much less advocated them.

Since Leipold, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said word one about rollbacks it’s not surprising you’ve utterly failed to provide anything that makes your claim doesn’t look patently false on it’s face.

btw, I like the discrediting of my intelligence before your response, classy.

Goodness.  The guy that goes on some bizarre rant against me has the balls to try and whine about foul play?  Toughen up buttercup.

The portion of your quote I highlighted before my response seem to imply that even though he got swindled by an owner knowingly signing him and his bestie for price they weren’t planning on honoring, he should be ok with it because of the total amount.

Again, English has no meaning for you.  My actual point, since you apparently need to be led by the hand like a little boy to it, is that A guy who signed a 98 million dollar contract but who is only going to get 89 million dollars of it really, really, doesn’t deserve anybody’s pity.

He can be as bummed out about it as he wants.  I think it’s beyond a waste of time to feel sorry for the guy.

So based on the second definition, HD is def JJing… by his definition.

You might just be the least qualified person in the universe to provide a definition for something.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 01:39 PM ET

Avatar

Replace JJing with “making cogent points” and you’re good.

I wish you would, actually.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 01:40 PM ET

Avatar

Are you making money?

“We’re not making money, and that’s one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we’re spending right now. [The Wild’s] revenues are fine. We’re down a little bit in attendance, but we’re up in sponsorships, we’re up in TV revenue. And so the revenue that we’re generating is not the issue as much as our expenses. And [the Wild’s] biggest expense by far is player salaries.”

Craig Leipold said this in April and I would think everybody can read between the lines that he is talking about a rollback.

Posted by murphy from Slovakia on 10/27/12 at 02:47 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

haha, you’re gettin’ snarky there liar.. touch a nerve?

Honestly though, it is my fault in this entry, I shouldn’t have dignified any of your comments with conversation.  I know this is your only social outlet which is probably why you’re so horrible civil exchange of ideas.

Toughen up buttercup.

You said a lot about yourself there saying that to another grown man.  Social immaturity.  Undeveloped.  At this age (assuming you’re an adult) saying that to another man.

Probably why you keep reverting to the “you’re stupid” arguement.  It all fits.

I know who you are and you wish’d you were.  I guarantee you’re NOTHING like this face to face with people either.  GUARANTEE.  Probably quiet and shy.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 03:33 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Posted by murphy from Slovakia on 10/27/12 at 02:47 PM ET

Where’d you find that, the vatican archives?  Heard there was nothing on the internet about this.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 03:37 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

horrible AT THE civil exchange of ideas.

oh, and by the way since you like to focus on things like this as points of my intelligence, I don’t get the luxury of sitting on my ass all day dedicated to page long comments, I usually have to multitask or rush in between doing shit, like adults have to do.  Adults with responsibilities that is.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/27/12 at 03:42 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

And all of that aside, poor Ryan.  He’s so disappointed.  Instead of 98 million dollars he’s going to get bent over a table and get 89 million dollars.  Boohooboohoo.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/27/12 at 02:28 AM ET

So, because Suter is rich, relative to us working stiffs, it is ok for him to have his pay cut?  By that logic, and since (I assume) you are very wealthy compared to the vagrants living in homeless shelters it would be perfectly alright if your boss decided to cut your pay. Because, hey there are people out there who would love to make your money to do what you do (or don’t do?)?  You should just be happy your boss let you keep your job.

“Poor HD.  Instead of making his $15,000 this year, he is going to get bent over a table and get $13,500.  Boohooboohoo.”
He should just stop whining and accept it.  Especially considering he has a chance to make $15,000 in 4 years, so it will be like the pay cut “vanished”

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/29/12 at 01:04 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image