Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Some Wiggle Room?

added 6:46pm,

 

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

This should be a bit of Wake-up Juice when someone says (cluelessly) that the PA has agreed to 50-50.

They haven’t.  They never did.  They agreed to take a minimum of 65 mil forever, but hey… if that ever turns into 50%, well, neat.

And keep in mind that the PA wants the 300 mil of Make Whole in addition to a minimum salary ceiling of 65 mil per team forever.

The funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) thing here is that even if they got every dime of those completely impossible requests the lockout would still have cost the PA around 800 million and counting that they will never, ever get back.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 07:59 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

So the NHL has agreed to an escrow cap then?

Because as long as overall players’ share is tied to HRR, a cap difference of $150M worth of commitments per year is a meaningless divide. 

Without an escrow cap (which I’m hearing the NHL has still rejected and the NHLPA has stopped demanding), it barely matters.  But hey, Kypreos is on top of this.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/04/13 at 08:03 PM ET

John W.'s avatar

This should be a bit of Wake-up Juice when someone says (cluelessly) that the PA has agreed to 50-50.

They haven’t.  They never did.  They agreed to take a minimum of 65 mil forever, but hey… if that ever turns into 50%, well, neat.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 06:59 PM ET

Wrong.  It’s like JJ said, it is still a 50-50 split.  If the cap is 65M and that doesn’t equate to a 50-50 split then the players will lose the additional money back to the owners via escrow.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 01/04/13 at 08:08 PM ET

Avatar

Because as long as overall players’ share is tied to HRR, a cap difference of $150M worth of commitments per year is a meaningless divide. 

Then why is the PA asking for it?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 08:15 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Then why is the PA asking for it?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 07:15 PM ET

They must just be emotional, because somebody once told me that players aren’t capable of trying to do things which may benefit future free agents at the expense of players with already-signed contracts.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/04/13 at 08:18 PM ET

Avatar

They must just be emotional, because somebody once told me that players aren’t capable of trying to do things which may benefit future free agents at the expense of players with already-signed contracts.

Dodge.

If it’s meaningless, why ask for it?

If they’ve already agreed to 50-50, then trying to get a 65 mil arbitrarily established cap has no real benefit for anyone.  When revenues got high enough it would be there anyway.

So, JJ, why are they asking for this meaningless thing, again?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 08:25 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Dodge.

Eyeroll.

If they’ve already agreed to 50-50, then trying to get a 65 mil arbitrarily established cap has no real benefit for anyone.

That’s not true.

So, JJ, why are they asking for this meaningless thing, again?

Good question. Why has the NHL stalled the process on a meaningless demand that the cap be much lower than it should necessarily be?

I don’t know the answer to that. My guess is that the league is trying to waste time before signing a deal they’re ok with in the hopes that the NHLPA will slip up in the next week and accidentally give them a dumb concession in order to “trade” for a different cap next season.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/04/13 at 08:29 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

SO!? exactly why did they waste a DAY *#$%@& acting like a 13 Year Old Girl

Posted by Evilpens on 01/04/13 at 08:47 PM ET

John W.'s avatar

Then why is the PA asking for it?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 07:15 PM ET

What if it’s the other way around?  What if the cap is at 60M but the revenue justifies a cap higher than 60M?  I don’t think there’s an escrow for the owners that would pay the players more to get it back to 50%.  Maybe the players are protecting from getting less than their 50%?

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 01/04/13 at 09:12 PM ET

Avatar

Kypreos doesn’t know what the fudge he’s talking about.

Unless
1. 50-50 split of HRR

and

2. no cap on escrow

is no longer / never was actually) an agreed upon thing, a cap ceiling difference of 5 million dollars, 5 dollars, or 5 oublizillion bazillion dollars is a difference of $0.00 in comparison to any other non-zero cap ceiling figure anyone might propose.

Posted by larry on 01/05/13 at 03:26 AM ET

Avatar

This should be a bit of Wake-up Juice when someone says (cluelessly) that the PA has agreed to 50-50.

They haven’t.  They never did.  They agreed to take a minimum of 65 mil forever, but hey… if that ever turns into 50%, well, neat.

And keep in mind that the PA wants the 300 mil of Make Whole in addition to a minimum salary ceiling of 65 mil per team forever.

The funny (funny sad, not funny ha ha) thing here is that even if they got every dime of those completely impossible requests the lockout would still have cost the PA around 800 million and counting that they will never, ever get back.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 06:59 PM ET

Sorry dude, but you’re wrong. The NHLPA agreed to a 50/50 split with no real tricks, oh, about a week and a half ago, so you’re right about that.

But that’s not the issue that Kypreos is misunderstanding. I’m not sure how to explain it. Gross cap salary is an estimate. In wanting an artificially high cap ceiling in one year, the players are asking to increase the error between estimated salary and actual revenue share—knowing full well they’re just robbing themselves to pay themselves.

Not only does this not cost the owners anything, this measure’s actually preferable to about half the teams in the league because they’ve budgeted with an eye toward a cap number that isn’t coming next year—at Bettman’s instruction, I might add.

No idea why that midget opposes it. Probably just because he’s a slimy piece of shit.

Posted by larry on 01/05/13 at 03:35 AM ET

Avatar

Then why is the PA asking for it?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/04/13 at 07:15 PM ET

Because they don’t want a bunch of guys to get lowballed or have to sign in Columbus in a situation that their team wanted them back, budgeted to get them back, then had the rug pulled out from under them by Bettman a month after he told them to plan as if the cap is $70 million going forward. Even a $65 million cap offers a Hell of a lot more flexibility for the players without costing any money,

And it works both ways.

I mean, Dave Nonis left himself plenty of space to re-sign Edler. Under a $70 million cap. Like he was instructed to.

What’s he supposed to do now, lose Edler for nothing? Field a 15 man team? Tell Bieksa to fake an injury for a year until revenues grow enough to fit both of them back in?

Nonis didn’t screw up in planning his team. Luongo and maaaaaaaaaybe Garrison aside, the Canucks don’t have any outlandish contracts, and those two aren’t exactly James Wisniewski and Dennis Wideman in having salaries unrelated to what they do. Bettman moved the chesspieces while Nonis wasn’t looking. Why wouldn’t he want $5 mil worth of fake budget dollars to play with that don’t cost him any actual dollars?

Posted by larry on 01/05/13 at 03:46 AM ET

Avatar

What if it’s the other way around?  What if the cap is at 60M but the revenue justifies a cap higher than 60M?  I don’t think there’s an escrow for the owners that would pay the players more to get it back to 50%.  Maybe the players are protecting from getting less than their 50%?

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 01/04/13 at 08:12 PM ET

There actually is such a measure, assuming Bettman hasn’t snuck language in the CBA putting himself in fiat control of the distribution or nondistribution of said funds.

Posted by larry on 01/05/13 at 03:48 AM ET

Avatar

That’s not true.

Then why do you keep suggesting it?

Why has the NHL stalled the process on a meaningless demand that the cap be much lower than it should necessarily be?

You aren’t making any sense.  If the player share is 50-50, the cap number can be determined.  It’s how the cap has been figured out since its inception.

What the PA is asking for is that regardless of how the cap number should be determined, to set it at 65 mil, indefinitely.  IMO this is because they are also setting that arbitrary cap number as a de facto floor for what player share represents.

This is because it would be, as you suggest, completely stupid to ask for it for any other reason.

“Because as long as overall players’ share is tied to HRR, a cap difference of $150M worth of commitments per year is a meaningless divide.”

If it’s a meaningless divide, why is the PA asking for it?

IMO they are asking for it because it is not a meaningless divide, and it has ramifications far beyond what you’ve allowed yourself to contemplate.

Because they don’t want a bunch of guys to get lowballed or have to sign in Columbus in a situation that their team wanted them back, budgeted to get them back, then had the rug pulled out from under them by Bettman a month after he told them to plan as if the cap is $70 million going forward. Even a $65 million cap offers a Hell of a lot more flexibility for the players without costing any money,

Here’s the problem, Larry.  You had to be an idiot to not know the cap was going down.  And even if you were an idiot, it is my understanding that Bettman told teams well in advance that the cap was going to go down, so they’d have to be a deaf idiot.

When people were yowling about the Wings leaving money on the table and sitting largely pat at the last deadline I pointed out that trying to stay below a future cap is a viable explanation for not loading up on deals.

What’s he supposed to do now, lose Edler for nothing? Field a 15 man team? Tell Bieksa to fake an injury for a year until revenues grow enough to fit both of them back in?

Nonis didn’t screw up in planning his team.

Luongo, Booth, Ballard, Kesler, Hamhuis, Garrison.

I think he did.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 01/05/13 at 07:15 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Sigh.

Once again I’m left to apologize for assuming you had a level of understanding about something you clearly do not.

If the player share is 50-50, the cap number can be determined.  It’s how the cap has been figured out since its inception.

The cap has been based on revenue projections since its inception. If the players want to project $300M in revenue more than the NHL, but not put a cap on Escrow, this doesn’t change how much the NHL pays out to the players regardless of how long it takes revenues to warrant that cap.

A $65M cap benefits the free-agents-to-be, who will be able to sign for more than they otherwise would have. Some or all of that difference may be eaten by escrow if revenue doesn’t meet the projection, but the only way for them to make that extra money in a way that won’t have to be shared evenly with the guys who are being made-whole is to let them sign for more in the first place.

The only divide happens within the NHLPA in how the money to which the presumed CBA entitles them is split. Between the league and the PA, it is a meaningless divide.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/05/13 at 09:45 AM ET

Avatar

Here’s the problem, Larry.  You had to be an idiot to not know the cap was going down.  And even if you were an idiot, it is my understanding that Bettman told teams well in advance that the cap was going to go down, so they’d have to be a deaf idiot.

Bettman did not. Just prior to free agency, his memo to GMs was “plan as if the cap is going to be $70 million.”

And no, you don’t have to be an idiot to have taken him at his word on that memo. Everyone knew a salary share reduction was coming, but nobody knew what form it would take.

Were I a general manager, “plan as if the cap is going to be $70 million” is code for “we’re gonna get flat rollbacks to existing contracts,” in which case, the way Nonis and Chiarelli budgeted their teams is perfectly responsible. Of course, I wouldn’t have done what they did, simply because I think Bettmans’ a snake and would have wanted to hedge my bets.

And, incidentally, not one of those Vancouver contracts you listed is terrible (and Kesler at $5 is a damned steal). Maybe Ballard, but I’m not convinced he doesn’t just need a change of scenery.

When people were yowling about the Wings leaving money on the table and sitting largely pat at the last deadline I pointed out that trying to stay below a future cap is a viable explanation for not loading up on deals.

Uh-uh. This is revisionism. The Red Wings weren’t big players at the deadline because there was “nothing great” available and, maybe a Jonathan Ericsson aside, Holland isn’t one to overpay for “nothing great.”

Holland WAS a big player in free agency. He just didn’t catch the two big fish he was chasing. Had he signed those two, he’d be $1 million over his 2013-14 “Bettman cap” allocation with 9 roster spots still in need of filling.

The only divide happens within the NHLPA in how the money to which the presumed CBA entitles them is split. Between the league and the PA, it is a meaningless divide.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 01/05/13 at 08:45 AM ET

Yep. What boggles the mind is that Bettman’s fighting a two front war over something that doesn’t cost a dime in the big picture. The players would want this for flexibility, about half the teams would want this for budget reasons caused by Bettman, and the other half of the teams get their payroll costs lowered through higher escrow returns on existing contracts. Nobody on the NHL side loses with an artificially-high one-year cap ceiling.

I’ve been all over Fehr for, imo, failing to represent his clients’ interests by wasting time and burning more money to get less. On this issue, Bettman’s the one who’s doing a disservice to his clients.

Posted by larry on 01/05/13 at 03:47 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Kypreos doesn’t know what the fudge he’s talking about.


This surprises You?? LOL

Posted by Evilpens on 01/07/13 at 11:41 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

Uh-uh. This is revisionism. The Red Wings weren’t big players at the deadline because there was “nothing great” available and, maybe a Jonathan Ericsson aside, Holland isn’t one to overpay for “nothing great.”

Holland WAS a big player in free agency. He just didn’t catch the two big fish he was chasing. Had he signed those two, he’d be $1 million over his 2013-14 “Bettman cap” allocation with 9 roster spots still in need of filling.


This is absolutely spot-on. That Ken Holland screwed up in a way that ended up helping his team is a dumb-luck miracle.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 01/07/13 at 12:00 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