Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

You Call This Fair?

from Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News,

You cannot convince me there’s universal support among NHL owners for this lockout. No chance. I refuse to believe they’re all standing in line behind Gary Bettman and Boston’s Jeremy Jacobs, whom we ruefully have to claim as one of our natives, and truly support this charade that’s ruining a sport.

There’s plenty of I-don’t-care-about-the-Sabres going on around here. So what chance does hockey have in places like Phoenix? Or Dallas? Or stripped-down Nashville? And so much for the momentum built in Los Angeles or Florida.

Keep in mind what these owners did. They threw out huge contracts over the summer and then rushed to get dozens of guys signed right before the Sept. 15 lockout. Minnesota’s Craig Leipold has been at the forefront of Bettman’s negotiating team and he’s one of the biggest offenders.

Pretty obvious now he had no intentions of paying $98 million each to Zach Parise and Ryan Suter, isn’t it? Throw ‘em the big money on paper and let the rollback figure of the CBA take care of the real dollars. Great strategy.

continued

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

This is another article written by a lightweight.

“Pretty obvious now he had no intentions of paying $98 million each to Zach Parise and Ryan Suter, isn’t it? Throw ‘em the big money on paper and let the rollback figure of the CBA take care of the real dollars. Great strategy.”

No, it would be a stupid strategy. 

First, even if the NHL gets to an immediate 50-50 split in year 1 (which they will not) Parise and Suter still each got TEN MILLION DOLLARS UP FRONT, so it’s not like there is a desire to avoid paying money out in large quantities, so the writer is an idiot once.

Second, Parise and Suter signed deals that will take them to ages 41 and 40 respectively.  Are those two guys planning on playing at ages 41 and 40?  When for their last two seasons they will be making a million bucks give or take?  No?  Then shut up.  They weren’t going to get the full 98 million dollars of their deals under that situation either.  The writer is an idiot twice.

Third, over the course of their 13 year deals it’s fairly likely that revenues even at a reduced 50-50 split will outpace where they were last year under a 57-43 split, rendering escrow concerns irrelevant.  The writer is an idiot thrice.

Fourth, if money was the real concern Parise and Suter would be agitating to sign a 50-50 deal because 6(7) years at 50-50 wilol get them as a collective more money than 5(6)-5.5(6.5) years even at 57-43… which they were never going to get.  Unless those players are as stupid as this writer is.  Four times over.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 11:59 AM ET

Avatar

No?  Then shut up.

Source?

Posted by Garth on 11/20/12 at 12:06 PM ET

Avatar

Source?

Oh for crying out loud.  Really, Garth?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 12:58 PM ET

Avatar

Oh for crying out loud.  Really, Garth?

Yes, because

a) it’s not strange anymore for high end players to play to that age.  Lidstrom and Mark Recchi played past 40.  Jagr and Selanne are 40 and there are a bunch of players who are 39.  If you want to get back to me in 13 years to say you told me so then fine, but until one of them retires before the end of their contracts, you have no claim to being right.

b) Leipold offered them 13-year contracts and he wasn’t the only one.  There were multiple 13-year contract offers, so you really need to go out of your way to figure out how that’s the fault of Parise and Suter.

Posted by Garth on 11/20/12 at 01:20 PM ET

Avatar

a) it’s not strange anymore for high end players to play to that age. 

Yes, actually, it is.  Give me the percentage of players last year who were 40 and over.

If you want to get back to me in 13 years to say you told me so then fine

And here we have why I rolled by rhetorical eyes at your ‘Source?’ stupidity.  The odds of either or both of those guys playing to 40 and beyond is incredibly, incredibly small.  You know this.  There’s a certain amount of willful obtusity (tm) I’ll allow in these kinds of debates, but come on.

Leipold offered them 13-year contracts and he wasn’t the only one.  There were multiple 13-year contract offers, so you really need to go out of your way to figure out how that’s the fault of Parise and Suter.

You’re JJing, Garth.  Quote for me the portion of my comment that said or implied what you are saying it did.

What I am saying is that the writer yowling about Leipold signing contracts he never intended to honor is stupid in four specific ways, one of them being that the players aren’t exactly planning on honoring the final years of the deal either.  Seems a bit stupid and inconsistent.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 02:09 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

It is one thing to front load a long contract to circumvent the cap. It’s another to try to lock up a player for the rest of their career out of loyalty or security. The first is to be avoided, the second is to be applauded. If you can prove the former, please do. If not, basing someone else’s livelihood on your own assumptions is pretty silly.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/20/12 at 02:14 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

There’s a certain amount of willful obtusity (tm) I’ll allow in these kinds of debates

1) you don’t have a trademark on that term.

2) how magnanimous of you to allow some.  Gosh, you’re so nice.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/20/12 at 02:16 PM ET

Avatar

I moderate my own debates on this site and many of the comments simply read:

You have chosen to ignore comments from this member.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/20/12 at 02:22 PM ET

Avatar

Yes, actually, it is.  Give me the percentage of players last year who were 40 and over.

That’s not a very fair request from me, actually.  There’s no way you’d know it or be able to find it easily.  What I did, then was go through the current NHL rosters (not the 23 man but the expanded preseason rosters) of the first 19 teams in the NHL Anaheim through NYRangers and there are…?

10 guys 39 and older listed.  12 if you want to include Lidstrom and Homer who are listed on Detroit;s roster, but come on.

So really we’re talking about 10 guys 39 and older through 19 expanded rosters.  Barely 1 every other team, assuming all of those players even make those clubs when and if hockey resumes.

So… yeah, playing to and past 39 is pretty freaking rare.  As Wings fans we’re a little ‘biased’ as far as that goes since we’ve had Yzerman and Lidstrom and Chelios positively blow the doors off of expectations of age and decline.  The thing is, however, those guys are wild exceptions to the rule, not the beginning of a new trend.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 02:27 PM ET

Avatar

I moderate my own debates on this site and many of the comments simply read:

And yet.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 02:29 PM ET

Avatar

1) you don’t have a trademark on that term.

2) how magnanimous of you to allow some.  Gosh, you’re so nice.

You posted too soon, JJ.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 02:30 PM ET

Avatar

If you can prove the former, please do.

Again, there’s a certain amount of WO I can allow, but if you think for one second that these long terms with multiple 1ish mil years at the end well past the ‘use by’ dates of around 95+% of NHLers are for anything other than lowering the AAV of the deal as a whole… well, there’s not going to be a whole lot to discuss.

That’s a level of credulity I don’t want to waste too much time with.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 02:34 PM ET

Avatar

fairly likely that revenues even at a reduced 50-50 split will outpace where they were last year under a 57-43 split, rendering escrow concerns irrelevant

You make this argument all the time, but never seem to apply it to the owners.
Its also true that by doing nothing, in a few years the owners would have just as much revenue under the old split as they would this year under a 50-50 split.

With the damage the lockout is doing, the owners may even end up with less revenue under a 50-50 split, then if they had kept their 43% and kept the league growing.

But i guess the owners don’t care, cause they’ll just lock out the players again and demand 60-40 next time, and you will blame the players for not caving immediately to all the owners demands.

Posted by jwad on 11/20/12 at 02:56 PM ET

Avatar

You make this argument all the time, but never seem to apply it to the owners.

Because it doesn’t apply to the owners in the same way.

The difference between the owners and the players is that whatever the players make is for the most part profit while whatever the owners make is for the most part not profit.

If a player is set to make 5 million dollars in a year, that’s all money in his pocket.  Yes, there are taxes but those apply fairly equally to both sides.  The players has his in-season room and board covered, medical care, equipment, training, all that stuff is covered for him.

He plays, cashes his check, and that’s it.

So, when a player loses some portion of that 5 mil due to a lockout or other labor stoppage, he’s losing a huge amount of ‘take home’ money every step of the way.

Not so, owners.  As much as most posters and fans here hate to admit it, the financials on the owners side of the table are a lot more lean.  Based on Forbes numbers hockey ops very often either come in at a net loss or at such a meager profit that there are 1-5 players on the team who in a given year made more to play under a guaranteed contract than an owner did to pour 100+ million bucks into the team in capital plus the decidedly unguaranteed nature of ops profits.

So from their perspective, and in reality for the most part, owners aren’t really ‘losing’ that much from recent labor stoppages.  There are a few exceptions, mostly the uber-high revenue teams, but for the most part NHL hockey is a far more profitable business to play than it is to own.

With the damage the lockout is doing, the owners may even end up with less revenue under a 50-50 split, then if they had kept their 43% and kept the league growing.

Right, but as I explained, on the owners side revenue /= profit.  On the players side revenue = profit.  So, losing ‘revenue’ is far more damaging to players than owners.

But i guess the owners don’t care, cause they’ll just lock out the players again and demand 60-40 next time, and you will blame the players for not caving immediately to all the owners demands.

That comment is two things:

1) Stupid.
2) Ignorant of what I’ve actually said about that issue.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/20/12 at 03:40 PM ET

Avatar

Because it doesn’t apply to the owners in the same way.

So growth only helps the players, but not the owners?

If thats the problem, It seems like there might be a way for the CBA to adress that besides just the players share. 

Otherwise, wont we just be right back here in a few years?

 

 

Posted by jwad on 11/20/12 at 05:21 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