EAST
1. Washington - The Caps are perennial contenders. But some off-season retooling makes them the a good bet to take that next step.
2. Pittsburgh - With Crosby and Malkin back and healthy, the Pens will be among the East's top teams. Even without the duo, they're still very good.
3. Boston - Boston still needs Tim Thomas to excel to win its division, but its depth and talent gives the Bruins a shot to go back-to-back.
4. Philadelphia - No team made bolder off-season moves than Philly. They'll take a step back in the regular season, but be better in the long haul.
5. Buffalo - A full season of new ownership and a pair of veteran additions adds up to the Sabres rising through the Eastern rankings again.
6. Tampa Bay - Some sneered to think Tampa Bay could be a playoff team last season, but nobody's sneering anymore. The Lightning are for real.
7. NY Rangers - The addition of Brad Richards will improve the Rangers' offense, but the Blueshirts' defense will remain their calling card.
8. Montreal - Montreal has nice young pieces in Price and Subban, but still lacks punch overall and will be in a death match to nail a playoff spot.
9. Carolina - The Canes have star power, but little depth, especially on the blueline. They're a playoff bubble team at best. At worst? Don't ask.
10. Toronto - Toronto's bumpy rebuild has gotten it close to the playoffs without actually making it. Expect that pattern to continue this year.
11. New Jersey - With a lack of top-notch talent - and with Martin Brodeur another year older - the Devils don't have enough to contend.
12. NY Islanders - You see where GM Garth Snow is going with this young group. But do you see them being better than any division rival? Us neither.
13. Winnipeg - The Jets will benefit from playing before an energized full house, but that won't be enough to make up for serious roster holes.
14. Florida - Dale Tallon's rebuild of the franchise is in full swing. The influx of veterans will help the Cats, but not enough to secure a playoff spot.
15. Ottawa - The Senators have stars in Daniel Alfredsson and Jason Spezza, but beyond them is a team at the start of a slow, painful rebuild.
WEST
1. Vancouver - All the key parts remain in tact for the league's best regular season club in 2010-11. No reason to think otherwise this campaign.
2. San Jose - Havlat and Burns give the Sharks a different look. They'll still dominate the West and wait for another shot to win an elusive Cup.
3. Chicago - With the goaltending sorted and talent up and down the lineup, it'll be hard to keep the Hawks down in the Central.
4. Los Angeles - Bringing Mike Richards and Simon Gagne into the fold makes it clear: The Kings want to win now. They've got the tools to do so.
5. Detroit - The Wings are a little bit older and greyer this year, but still have more than enough talent to vie for a home-ice playoff berth.
6. Anaheim - The Ducks have three world-class forwards who will push them into the post-season no matter who's between the pipes.
7. St. Louis - Adding veterans Arnott and Langenbrunner gives the Blues needed depth and experience. They've got speed to spare and will improve.
8. Nashville - The Predators will be in a battle for the playoffs again, but their young talent will progress enough to return.
9. Colorado - The Avs are a young team that has made serious changes, but there are serious questions as to how effective they'll be.
10. Calgary - Though they had a great second half last season, the Flames and their thin depth can't be expected to pick up where they left off.
11. Minnesota - Two new guns will help, but there are still holes throughout the lineup that will hurt Minnesota in the long run.
12. Columbus - Despite major additions to the roster, much of the Jackets' hopes rest on Steve Mason. If he struggles as he did last year, forget it.
13. Dallas - Ownership issues have affected the Stars' ability to retain and attract talent. They just don't have the big horses to run in the West.
14. Phoenix - Goalie Ilya Bryzgalov made up for the Coyotes' mild offense. Now he's in Philly and the team he left behind will be much worse for it.
15. Edmonton - Blue-chippers abound, but too many questions at all positions make the Oilers owners, not renters of the NHL's basement.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Question: If You Could Only Watch One Sport For The Rest Of Your Life, What Would It Be?
What a fucking doozy this one is. So, here we go. Basketball I simply couldn’t care less about, like if they lockout for the next decade I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep. Football is obviously the best sport to watch on TV, but sports two days a week just isn’t going to cut it for me. So that’s got us narrowed down to hockey and baseball. Now it’s a fucking toss up. Baseball has way more games to watch, but practically half of them feel like an exhibition game. Every loss it’s like “I’m not gonna get worried about March/May/June/July baseball,” August it actually starts to matter. Plus the games are so incredibly long that it ain’t easy to stay awake the whole time. So what good is 162 games to watch if only half matter and you can only stay conscious for half the game? All of a sudden you’re down to it being like a 40 game season.
That’s why I’m going hockey. The fact that the Stanley Cup just did a New England tour is definitely fresh in my mind and plays a factor, but I’m sticking with it. Hockey just gives you the physical aspects you’ll miss with football, speed you’ll miss with basketball, and the objects being hit really hard you’ll miss with baseball. And hockey rivalry games are bloodbaths. Dumb exciting. Plus when it comes to the playoffs? I don’t think anyone can debate that nothing beats playoff hockey. It’s playoff hockey, March Madness, then the field when it comes to sports tournaments. Having said all that, I admit I’m a hockey guy and definitely will be in the minority here.
That’s why I’m going hockey. The fact that the Stanley Cup just did a New England tour is definitely fresh in my mind and plays a factor, but I’m sticking with it. Hockey just gives you the physical aspects you’ll miss with football, speed you’ll miss with basketball, and the objects being hit really hard you’ll miss with baseball. And hockey rivalry games are bloodbaths. Dumb exciting. Plus when it comes to the playoffs? I don’t think anyone can debate that nothing beats playoff hockey. It’s playoff hockey, March Madness, then the field when it comes to sports tournaments. Having said all that, I admit I’m a hockey guy and definitely will be in the minority here.
Shark Week Fucking Sucks
Just wanted to pop on here and make a quick announcement for a second then everyone can get back to their day. Shark Week fucking sucks. Sorry but somebody had to say it. I remember I went to check it out last year to see what all the hype was about. It’s a bunch of fucking shows about sharks swimming in the ocean. Probably the most bored I’ve ever been watching TV and I watch a lot of TV. Honestly I’d probably cut my wrists vertically and take a bath with a Great White before I watched one second of Shark Week. Not to mention I have no idea whose idea it was to give Sharks all this love and make them feel so special that they get an entire week of programming? Bro sharks are assholes. Seriously get in a plane crash and get stranded in the middle of the ocean with a bleeding leg wound and let me know how awesome Shark Week is then.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Looking ahead to the next round of NHL labor talks - Part Two (Solutions)
Possible solutions.
In my previous post, I listed the potential issues facing the NHL and NHLPA in the next round of collective bargaining.
It's difficult to foresee what the ultimate resolution will be for these issues. A lot can occur over the next year which could have an impact upon negotiations, and there obviously won't be any easy solutions. It's also likely other problems could arise which could create additional roadblocks on the way to a new CBA.
That being said, it's also possible for both sides to reach resolutions which should benefit both sides, without having to resort to tactics which could threaten another season-killing work stoppage.
A reduction of either the salary cap and/or the reduction of the players' percentage of revenue will the most contentious issue. The NHL has too many teams struggling to keep their heads above water thanks to a rapidly increasing cap that is tied to revenue fluctuations, and we can expect Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly to publicly make the case that, once again, lowering players salaries and/or percentage of league revenue is the only viable solution.
That's not the PA's fault, as the current CBA was touted by the league, and its media sycophants, as the necessary solution to save money losing franchises. Of course it had numerous flaws, which more than a few critics of the CBA pointed out when the deal was being ratified, but don't be surprised if the league attempts to claim no one could've foreseen the problems which arose over the course of the current CBA.
Regardless, once again, the burden of saving those struggling teams will likely fall upon the players.
Bettman and company could do what they did in the last labor dispute and smear the PA as greedy and selfish, though this time such a tactic could boomerang on the league, since it sold this CBA as the savior of struggling markets.
They could instead soft-sell this, probably by subtly hinting some of the poor-cousin teams could end up folding if no new owners or markets can be found for them, which could potentially put the jobs of up to 100 currently active NHL players into jeopardy.
An easier way to address the problem would be improved revenue sharing, which the PA could push for, but expect the big markets owners to be resistant to that, just as they were during the negotiations for the current CBA.
It'll be interesting to see whether only the salary cap floor is lowered, or both the floor and ceiling.
The big markets would probably prefer to maintain a higher ceiling, since they're the only ones who can afford to keep pace, thus giving them a better shot at retaining their best players, as well as signing top free agent talent.
We could see a widening in the gap between the upper and lower cap levels. Currently it's at $16 million, but it wouldn't be surprising to see it widened in the next CBA to $20-$24 million, putting less stress on struggling franchises.
Reducing the players' percentage of revenue should ultimately keeps the team owners united.
Lowering the players' share from its current 57% to 50 percent, as well as lowering the cap ceiling, will mean the players accepting another salary rollback. Otherwise, many teams would be forced into dumping players to become cap compliant, and that's not going to sit well with the more successful big markets clubs.
Considering they agreed to a 24 percent rollback at the start of the current CBA, the players aren't going to like the thought of accepting another, but if they lack the will to face another lengthy lockout, they may have little choice.
That however doesn't mean they get screwed over, for if the league continues to tie the cap to revenue, whatever losses they'll see in the short term will be off-set by long-term gains as the cap continues to increase, just as they did under the current cap system.
The PA likely fears the league pushing for a fixed cap, one which doesn't increase over the term of the next CBA. That would end up being tough for the PA to swallow, especially the lower-paid talent.
The star players will always get top dollar, and there will always be general managers who'll overpay for talent. No CBA can eradicate dumb management decisions.
But it's the role players – the third and fourth liners, the fifth and sixth defensemen, the backup goalies – who'd feel the effects of a fixed cap.
So, if the league pushes for a lower salary cap and lower revenue percentages, the PA will want to ensure the cap remains a floating one tied to annual revenue.
If the league pushes for a lower cap, salary rollback and reduced share of revenues, the PA could work it to their advantage by demanding the league also make sacrifices.
One would be either the elimination of escrow, or capping it at less than ten percent of the players salaries.
Another would be ensuring contracts remain guaranteed, allowing perhaps for a one-time-only renegotiation - either during the life of a lengthy contract, or during the player's tenure with a team - which would also have to be mutually agreed upon by the team and the player.
The PA could also ensure teams are still allowed to sign players to front-or back-loaded deals, designed to allow teams more cap-friendly contracts. The players could also demand movement clauses remain untouched,or perhaps they agree to accept slight modifications imposing age and term limits on such clauses.
It's also possible the PA could seek a league guarantee of participation in the Sochi Winter Olympics, arbitration rights remain in place (or abolishing the team's right to file for arbitration), plus increased revenue sharing.
The players could also push to lower the eligibility age for unrestricted free agency from 27 to 25 across the board. Currently players who either join the NHL at 18 or have seven or more active NHL seasons can be eligible for UFA status at 25 or 26.
If the players aren't willing to accept the league's demands to reduce their share of revenue and lower their salaries, and can stomach the possibility of another lengthy shutdown, then another lockout could be considered a certainty.
But I'm guessing the players don't want that, and will instead try to get the best deal they can, hoping once again to capitalize on the short-sightedness of the team owners.
Many of those owners probably don't want to risk jeopardizing the gains they've made in both revenue and visibility in the all-important American sports market, which could also see perhaps less stridency in their approach to negotiations.
Ultimately, the NHLPA could agree to a reduced cap (provided it remains tied to annual revenue fluctuations), perhaps a sliding scale salary rollback which has more impact upon the highest earners and less upon the lowest, and a reduced share of revenue, perhaps 52%.
They could also agree to slight modifications of movement clauses, plus perhaps another “one-time-only” penalty-free buyout period immediately following the imposition of the new CBA, similar to the one which was introduced at the start of the current agreement.
The league in return could agree to reduced escrow capped at 8 percent annually, guaranteed contracts with a one-time-only, mutually agreed renegotiation window, and participation in the Sochi Winter Games, followed by a mutually agreed decision with the PA regarding participation in future Winter Games.
They could also agree to the players retention of their arbitration rights, plus some slight adjustments to revenue sharing, expanding perhaps the eligibility and amounts. Teams might also be allowed to absorb a set percentage of a player's salary in order to facilitate a trade.
Of course this is merely guesswork, and admittedly simplistic, but if the NHL and NHLPA wish to avoid yet another potentially costly work stoppage, here's hoping both sides are prepared to address these and other possibly contentious issues, without talks once again deteriorating into yet another nasty row which jeopardizes yet another season.
In my previous post, I listed the potential issues facing the NHL and NHLPA in the next round of collective bargaining.
It's difficult to foresee what the ultimate resolution will be for these issues. A lot can occur over the next year which could have an impact upon negotiations, and there obviously won't be any easy solutions. It's also likely other problems could arise which could create additional roadblocks on the way to a new CBA.
That being said, it's also possible for both sides to reach resolutions which should benefit both sides, without having to resort to tactics which could threaten another season-killing work stoppage.
A reduction of either the salary cap and/or the reduction of the players' percentage of revenue will the most contentious issue. The NHL has too many teams struggling to keep their heads above water thanks to a rapidly increasing cap that is tied to revenue fluctuations, and we can expect Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly to publicly make the case that, once again, lowering players salaries and/or percentage of league revenue is the only viable solution.
That's not the PA's fault, as the current CBA was touted by the league, and its media sycophants, as the necessary solution to save money losing franchises. Of course it had numerous flaws, which more than a few critics of the CBA pointed out when the deal was being ratified, but don't be surprised if the league attempts to claim no one could've foreseen the problems which arose over the course of the current CBA.
Regardless, once again, the burden of saving those struggling teams will likely fall upon the players.
Bettman and company could do what they did in the last labor dispute and smear the PA as greedy and selfish, though this time such a tactic could boomerang on the league, since it sold this CBA as the savior of struggling markets.
They could instead soft-sell this, probably by subtly hinting some of the poor-cousin teams could end up folding if no new owners or markets can be found for them, which could potentially put the jobs of up to 100 currently active NHL players into jeopardy.
An easier way to address the problem would be improved revenue sharing, which the PA could push for, but expect the big markets owners to be resistant to that, just as they were during the negotiations for the current CBA.
It'll be interesting to see whether only the salary cap floor is lowered, or both the floor and ceiling.
The big markets would probably prefer to maintain a higher ceiling, since they're the only ones who can afford to keep pace, thus giving them a better shot at retaining their best players, as well as signing top free agent talent.
We could see a widening in the gap between the upper and lower cap levels. Currently it's at $16 million, but it wouldn't be surprising to see it widened in the next CBA to $20-$24 million, putting less stress on struggling franchises.
Reducing the players' percentage of revenue should ultimately keeps the team owners united.
Lowering the players' share from its current 57% to 50 percent, as well as lowering the cap ceiling, will mean the players accepting another salary rollback. Otherwise, many teams would be forced into dumping players to become cap compliant, and that's not going to sit well with the more successful big markets clubs.
Considering they agreed to a 24 percent rollback at the start of the current CBA, the players aren't going to like the thought of accepting another, but if they lack the will to face another lengthy lockout, they may have little choice.
That however doesn't mean they get screwed over, for if the league continues to tie the cap to revenue, whatever losses they'll see in the short term will be off-set by long-term gains as the cap continues to increase, just as they did under the current cap system.
The PA likely fears the league pushing for a fixed cap, one which doesn't increase over the term of the next CBA. That would end up being tough for the PA to swallow, especially the lower-paid talent.
The star players will always get top dollar, and there will always be general managers who'll overpay for talent. No CBA can eradicate dumb management decisions.
But it's the role players – the third and fourth liners, the fifth and sixth defensemen, the backup goalies – who'd feel the effects of a fixed cap.
So, if the league pushes for a lower salary cap and lower revenue percentages, the PA will want to ensure the cap remains a floating one tied to annual revenue.
If the league pushes for a lower cap, salary rollback and reduced share of revenues, the PA could work it to their advantage by demanding the league also make sacrifices.
One would be either the elimination of escrow, or capping it at less than ten percent of the players salaries.
Another would be ensuring contracts remain guaranteed, allowing perhaps for a one-time-only renegotiation - either during the life of a lengthy contract, or during the player's tenure with a team - which would also have to be mutually agreed upon by the team and the player.
The PA could also ensure teams are still allowed to sign players to front-or back-loaded deals, designed to allow teams more cap-friendly contracts. The players could also demand movement clauses remain untouched,or perhaps they agree to accept slight modifications imposing age and term limits on such clauses.
It's also possible the PA could seek a league guarantee of participation in the Sochi Winter Olympics, arbitration rights remain in place (or abolishing the team's right to file for arbitration), plus increased revenue sharing.
The players could also push to lower the eligibility age for unrestricted free agency from 27 to 25 across the board. Currently players who either join the NHL at 18 or have seven or more active NHL seasons can be eligible for UFA status at 25 or 26.
If the players aren't willing to accept the league's demands to reduce their share of revenue and lower their salaries, and can stomach the possibility of another lengthy shutdown, then another lockout could be considered a certainty.
But I'm guessing the players don't want that, and will instead try to get the best deal they can, hoping once again to capitalize on the short-sightedness of the team owners.
Many of those owners probably don't want to risk jeopardizing the gains they've made in both revenue and visibility in the all-important American sports market, which could also see perhaps less stridency in their approach to negotiations.
Ultimately, the NHLPA could agree to a reduced cap (provided it remains tied to annual revenue fluctuations), perhaps a sliding scale salary rollback which has more impact upon the highest earners and less upon the lowest, and a reduced share of revenue, perhaps 52%.
They could also agree to slight modifications of movement clauses, plus perhaps another “one-time-only” penalty-free buyout period immediately following the imposition of the new CBA, similar to the one which was introduced at the start of the current agreement.
The league in return could agree to reduced escrow capped at 8 percent annually, guaranteed contracts with a one-time-only, mutually agreed renegotiation window, and participation in the Sochi Winter Games, followed by a mutually agreed decision with the PA regarding participation in future Winter Games.
They could also agree to the players retention of their arbitration rights, plus some slight adjustments to revenue sharing, expanding perhaps the eligibility and amounts. Teams might also be allowed to absorb a set percentage of a player's salary in order to facilitate a trade.
Of course this is merely guesswork, and admittedly simplistic, but if the NHL and NHLPA wish to avoid yet another potentially costly work stoppage, here's hoping both sides are prepared to address these and other possibly contentious issues, without talks once again deteriorating into yet another nasty row which jeopardizes yet another season.
Looking ahead to the next round of NHL labor talks - Part One (Issues)
The Issues.
The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHL Players Association will expire on September 15, 2012, meaning the 2011-12 season will be the last one under that agreement.
Given the end of the last two CBAs resulted in player lockouts – the previous costing an entire season – it's understandable most NHL fans prefer not to think about the possible issues in the next round of collective bargaining which could potentially threaten yet another season.
NHLPA director Donald Fehr has said he hoped to begin CBA talks around mid-season. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested talks could begin next spring or summer, as he and the team owners would probably prefer to await the outcome of the NFL and NBA labor disputes, perhaps to get some useful ideas to carry into the next round of collective bargaining.
A few pundits already assume another work stoppage will occur, citing everything from the ever-rising salary cap to the PA's hiring of Fehr, the former head of the MLB players union.
Yet unlike the years leading up to the previous work stoppages, we're not hearing a lot of sabre rattling from the league and the PA. There's been no sniping, no dire warnings, no insults.
That's probably because the PA leadership isn't as militant as in years past, while ownership isn't as united in a common cause (crushing the PA leadership) as it once was.
It's also likely a number of folks on both sides lack the stomach for another lengthy labor war, perhaps due to unwillingness to engage in a contentious labor battle which might jeopardize the league's growing revenue, as well as visibility in the all-important American sports market.
The silence on both sides could be seen perhaps as a good sign the next round of bargaining might not result in another nasty labor war.
That's not to suggest however there aren't any potentially contentious issues which could bog down or threaten negotiations. Here's a look at several:
The salary cap. Speculation the league could pursue a lowering of the salary cap began last summer, and while this has yet to be officially confirmed, it seems to have gained acceptance amongst the punditry, both in the MSM and blogosphere.
The rationale behind this move is small- and mid-market teams are struggling to keep pace with a salary cap which has constantly risen since its implementation in 2005-06, and as a result have been losing money.
Of course, there aren't “small-and mid-market teams” which are struggling, but instead teams in large markets which have been poorly managed for a number of years, resulting in a decline in both attendance and revenue.
But the league simply cannot introduce legislation which would prevent teams from making bad management decisions. Instead, it will probably do what it has always done, attack the players' share of revenue as the culprit, in hopes whittling more of it away will somehow magically level the playing surface.
The league could therefore argue the cap must be lowered if teams which are currently hemorrhaging money are to survive.
If so, it remains to be seen if it'll seek to lower the cap “ceiling”, “floor”, or both. The cap ceiling of course is the maximum amount teams can invest in player payroll in a season, while the floor is the minimum amount. The gap between the two is currently set at $16 million.
When the salary cap was implemented for the 2005-06 season, the “ceiling” was set at $39.5 million, the “floor” at $23.5 million. For 2011-12, ceiling is $64.3 million.
Don't expect the NHLPA to try to get the cap abolished. Everyone understands that's simply not going to happen. The salary cap is here to stay, and the PA will try to figure out a way to work within it for the betterment of their membership, just as they did under the current one, which worked out much better for the players than their critics believed it would.
Salary rollback/reduction in players' share of revenue. To lower the cap, the league could seek to implement another rollback of players' salaries, akin to the agreement between the league and the PA when the current CBA was adopted, resulting in salaries for existing contracts cut by 24 percent.
It could also attempt to lower the players share of revenue, currently set at 57%, to 50 percent, or possibly as low as 45%.
Escrow. I wrote the following about escrow nearly two years ago, which still holds true today:
Currently a certain percentage (based on revenue projections) of the players’ salaries are withheld by the league quarterly. At the end of each season, if revenue projections exceed expectations, the players get their money back with interest. If not, it’s withheld by the league and returned to the owners.
That wasn’t an issue in the first three seasons under this CBA as the players in two of the three seasons got their money back and saw only around three percent withheld in 2006-07. Due to the recession however the players last season (2008-09) ultimately lost eighteen percent of their wages to escrow..
Escrow remains a sore point for the players, as they understandably don't like any part of their salary being withheld throughout the season, especially when most or all of it eventually winds up returned to the team owners. It's believed they'll either seek to abolish escrow, or establish a cap to a set number under 10 percent.
Contracts. It's been speculated the league would prefer to do away with guaranteed contracts, allowing teams the right to renegotiate a player's contract, or terminate it without penalty if, by management's estimation,the player hasn't met certain performance criteria.
This might not be as serious an issue as it initially appears, since some teams have resorted to “burying” the expensive contracts of under-achieving or fading players in the minors, rather than engage in the costly effort of buying them out at two-thirds the remaining value spread over twice the term.
Wade Redden of the NY Rangers is a perfect example. Signed to a six-year, $39 million contract in 2008, by 2010 Redden – by the Rangers estimation - was no longer playing up to the expectations of a player earning an average cap hit of $6.5 million per season.
As a contract buyout would've proven too expensive, the Rangers opted instead to demote Redden to their AHL affiliate for the remainder of the season. They still had to pay his salary, but it no longer counted against their salary cap. It's expected they'll do the same again for the 2011-12 season, unless he retires.
Redden would probably prefer to be playing in the NHL than in the minors, but no team is interested in taking on that big salary, and under the current CBA rules, the teams cannot split any portion of his existing contract, other that via re-entry waivers.
The Rangers have tried placing him on re-entry waivers, whereby interested teams claiming him would pick up half his salary, but without success.
Rangers management bears full responsibility for signing Redden to such an expensive deal, but in this instance, it's a mistake which is proving costly to the player's career.
This is a case where a player would probably accept having his contract renegotiated, where the salary and term could be considerably lowered. It would free up cap space for the team, which could also allow the player to continue playing for them, or the lesser term and salary could potentially improve his trade value.
Another issue is that of lengthy, front-or back-loaded contracts. Two years ago, it was several general managers, with the blessing of their respective team owners, who found the loophole in the current CBA, allowing them to sign top players to extremely lengthy (8-15 years), often front-loaded contracts in order to garner a more favorable salary cap hit.
A prime example is Roberto Luongo’s 12 year, $64 million contract with the Vancouver Canucks, which will take him to age forty-two (unlikely he’ll still be playing by then), and despite being front-loaded, counts as only $5.333 million per season against the Canucks cap.
Luongo will probably be retired before he turns forty, and since he signed the contract before his 35th birthday, the remaining salary and cap hit will come off the Canucks books.
Critics like Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke hate these contracts and insist the league must abolish them in the next CBA. The PA of course is likely to fight this, claiming it’s the owners, not the PA, which brought those contracts into existence.
Movement clauses. There’s a perception these are the chief culprit in reducing the number of trades in the NHL. The true reason is the cap, but movement clauses do have an impact, as witnessed recently by Dany Heatley’s refusal two summers ago to accept a trade to Edmonton and limiting the number of options to about a half-dozen teams of his choosing.
Around one-sixth of the league’s players have some form of movement clause in their contracts, and of those, most are top level players, the kind general managers wouldn’t consider trading unless it was due to exceptional and unusual circumstances.
Olympic participation. To date the NHL has yet to confirm if they'll participate in Men's Ice Hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics, to be held in Sochi, Russia.
Although a majority of the NHLPA membership remain enthusiastic over Olympic participation, team owners are thought to be reluctant, citing concerns over potential injuries to star players and a growing opinion the Olympics have done little, if anything, to grow the NHL brand in North America.
Arbitration. This was something the PA fought to retain for restricted free agent in the previous round of labor talks, though it did result in the teams gaining the right to take a player to arbitration once in his career.
Given how rarely teams have employed that option (usually to prevent rival clubs from swooping in with offer sheets if they're unsigned after July 1st), and how few players who filed for arbitration ultimately go through the process, it's unlikely to be a significant issue in the next round of talks.
Revenue sharing. This one could be a serious issue, not so much between the league and the PA, but between the team owners, pitting the large market owners against their struggling small market peers.
It's believed the owners of franchises like the Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Montreal Canadiens, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins aren't thrilled with having to buoy money losing franchises. There could be a push from them to either eliminate revenue sharing entirely, or make significant alterations to the current regulations to either make it more difficult for struggling clubs to quality.
Revenue sharing, like a salary cap, doesn't make general managers smarter, but for those teams which are going through a rebuilding phase, it could provide them the opportunity to off-set losses, in term making it possible to invest more in their rosters.
It's something which worked well for years in the NFL, but that league can count on considerably higher revenue, thanks to its lucrative broadcasting contracts, than the NHL.
The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHL Players Association will expire on September 15, 2012, meaning the 2011-12 season will be the last one under that agreement.
Given the end of the last two CBAs resulted in player lockouts – the previous costing an entire season – it's understandable most NHL fans prefer not to think about the possible issues in the next round of collective bargaining which could potentially threaten yet another season.
NHLPA director Donald Fehr has said he hoped to begin CBA talks around mid-season. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested talks could begin next spring or summer, as he and the team owners would probably prefer to await the outcome of the NFL and NBA labor disputes, perhaps to get some useful ideas to carry into the next round of collective bargaining.
A few pundits already assume another work stoppage will occur, citing everything from the ever-rising salary cap to the PA's hiring of Fehr, the former head of the MLB players union.
Yet unlike the years leading up to the previous work stoppages, we're not hearing a lot of sabre rattling from the league and the PA. There's been no sniping, no dire warnings, no insults.
That's probably because the PA leadership isn't as militant as in years past, while ownership isn't as united in a common cause (crushing the PA leadership) as it once was.
It's also likely a number of folks on both sides lack the stomach for another lengthy labor war, perhaps due to unwillingness to engage in a contentious labor battle which might jeopardize the league's growing revenue, as well as visibility in the all-important American sports market.
The silence on both sides could be seen perhaps as a good sign the next round of bargaining might not result in another nasty labor war.
That's not to suggest however there aren't any potentially contentious issues which could bog down or threaten negotiations. Here's a look at several:
The salary cap. Speculation the league could pursue a lowering of the salary cap began last summer, and while this has yet to be officially confirmed, it seems to have gained acceptance amongst the punditry, both in the MSM and blogosphere.
The rationale behind this move is small- and mid-market teams are struggling to keep pace with a salary cap which has constantly risen since its implementation in 2005-06, and as a result have been losing money.
Of course, there aren't “small-and mid-market teams” which are struggling, but instead teams in large markets which have been poorly managed for a number of years, resulting in a decline in both attendance and revenue.
But the league simply cannot introduce legislation which would prevent teams from making bad management decisions. Instead, it will probably do what it has always done, attack the players' share of revenue as the culprit, in hopes whittling more of it away will somehow magically level the playing surface.
The league could therefore argue the cap must be lowered if teams which are currently hemorrhaging money are to survive.
If so, it remains to be seen if it'll seek to lower the cap “ceiling”, “floor”, or both. The cap ceiling of course is the maximum amount teams can invest in player payroll in a season, while the floor is the minimum amount. The gap between the two is currently set at $16 million.
When the salary cap was implemented for the 2005-06 season, the “ceiling” was set at $39.5 million, the “floor” at $23.5 million. For 2011-12, ceiling is $64.3 million.
Don't expect the NHLPA to try to get the cap abolished. Everyone understands that's simply not going to happen. The salary cap is here to stay, and the PA will try to figure out a way to work within it for the betterment of their membership, just as they did under the current one, which worked out much better for the players than their critics believed it would.
Salary rollback/reduction in players' share of revenue. To lower the cap, the league could seek to implement another rollback of players' salaries, akin to the agreement between the league and the PA when the current CBA was adopted, resulting in salaries for existing contracts cut by 24 percent.
It could also attempt to lower the players share of revenue, currently set at 57%, to 50 percent, or possibly as low as 45%.
Escrow. I wrote the following about escrow nearly two years ago, which still holds true today:
Currently a certain percentage (based on revenue projections) of the players’ salaries are withheld by the league quarterly. At the end of each season, if revenue projections exceed expectations, the players get their money back with interest. If not, it’s withheld by the league and returned to the owners.
That wasn’t an issue in the first three seasons under this CBA as the players in two of the three seasons got their money back and saw only around three percent withheld in 2006-07. Due to the recession however the players last season (2008-09) ultimately lost eighteen percent of their wages to escrow..
Escrow remains a sore point for the players, as they understandably don't like any part of their salary being withheld throughout the season, especially when most or all of it eventually winds up returned to the team owners. It's believed they'll either seek to abolish escrow, or establish a cap to a set number under 10 percent.
Contracts. It's been speculated the league would prefer to do away with guaranteed contracts, allowing teams the right to renegotiate a player's contract, or terminate it without penalty if, by management's estimation,the player hasn't met certain performance criteria.
This might not be as serious an issue as it initially appears, since some teams have resorted to “burying” the expensive contracts of under-achieving or fading players in the minors, rather than engage in the costly effort of buying them out at two-thirds the remaining value spread over twice the term.
Wade Redden of the NY Rangers is a perfect example. Signed to a six-year, $39 million contract in 2008, by 2010 Redden – by the Rangers estimation - was no longer playing up to the expectations of a player earning an average cap hit of $6.5 million per season.
As a contract buyout would've proven too expensive, the Rangers opted instead to demote Redden to their AHL affiliate for the remainder of the season. They still had to pay his salary, but it no longer counted against their salary cap. It's expected they'll do the same again for the 2011-12 season, unless he retires.
Redden would probably prefer to be playing in the NHL than in the minors, but no team is interested in taking on that big salary, and under the current CBA rules, the teams cannot split any portion of his existing contract, other that via re-entry waivers.
The Rangers have tried placing him on re-entry waivers, whereby interested teams claiming him would pick up half his salary, but without success.
Rangers management bears full responsibility for signing Redden to such an expensive deal, but in this instance, it's a mistake which is proving costly to the player's career.
This is a case where a player would probably accept having his contract renegotiated, where the salary and term could be considerably lowered. It would free up cap space for the team, which could also allow the player to continue playing for them, or the lesser term and salary could potentially improve his trade value.
Another issue is that of lengthy, front-or back-loaded contracts. Two years ago, it was several general managers, with the blessing of their respective team owners, who found the loophole in the current CBA, allowing them to sign top players to extremely lengthy (8-15 years), often front-loaded contracts in order to garner a more favorable salary cap hit.
A prime example is Roberto Luongo’s 12 year, $64 million contract with the Vancouver Canucks, which will take him to age forty-two (unlikely he’ll still be playing by then), and despite being front-loaded, counts as only $5.333 million per season against the Canucks cap.
Luongo will probably be retired before he turns forty, and since he signed the contract before his 35th birthday, the remaining salary and cap hit will come off the Canucks books.
Critics like Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke hate these contracts and insist the league must abolish them in the next CBA. The PA of course is likely to fight this, claiming it’s the owners, not the PA, which brought those contracts into existence.
Movement clauses. There’s a perception these are the chief culprit in reducing the number of trades in the NHL. The true reason is the cap, but movement clauses do have an impact, as witnessed recently by Dany Heatley’s refusal two summers ago to accept a trade to Edmonton and limiting the number of options to about a half-dozen teams of his choosing.
Around one-sixth of the league’s players have some form of movement clause in their contracts, and of those, most are top level players, the kind general managers wouldn’t consider trading unless it was due to exceptional and unusual circumstances.
Olympic participation. To date the NHL has yet to confirm if they'll participate in Men's Ice Hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics, to be held in Sochi, Russia.
Although a majority of the NHLPA membership remain enthusiastic over Olympic participation, team owners are thought to be reluctant, citing concerns over potential injuries to star players and a growing opinion the Olympics have done little, if anything, to grow the NHL brand in North America.
Arbitration. This was something the PA fought to retain for restricted free agent in the previous round of labor talks, though it did result in the teams gaining the right to take a player to arbitration once in his career.
Given how rarely teams have employed that option (usually to prevent rival clubs from swooping in with offer sheets if they're unsigned after July 1st), and how few players who filed for arbitration ultimately go through the process, it's unlikely to be a significant issue in the next round of talks.
Revenue sharing. This one could be a serious issue, not so much between the league and the PA, but between the team owners, pitting the large market owners against their struggling small market peers.
It's believed the owners of franchises like the Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Montreal Canadiens, Philadelphia Flyers, Detroit Red Wings, Vancouver Canucks and Boston Bruins aren't thrilled with having to buoy money losing franchises. There could be a push from them to either eliminate revenue sharing entirely, or make significant alterations to the current regulations to either make it more difficult for struggling clubs to quality.
Revenue sharing, like a salary cap, doesn't make general managers smarter, but for those teams which are going through a rebuilding phase, it could provide them the opportunity to off-set losses, in term making it possible to invest more in their rosters.
It's something which worked well for years in the NFL, but that league can count on considerably higher revenue, thanks to its lucrative broadcasting contracts, than the NHL.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
St. Patty's Day!
Say what you want about the Irish. The alcoholism. The fair skin. The small dicks. The list goes on. But don’t say they don’t have spirit. They’ve got passion. There's no other day out of the year where everyone is like “today, we’re all Italian!” “today, we’re all Puerto Rican!” But for a whole month every weekend this whole city celebrates the Irish. The only other group that has there whole own fucking month is the blacks. Ironic no?
The best part about the real St. Patricks Day in Manhattan is that it can fall on a weekday so you get this outrageous blend of degenerate drunks and normal people who are just going to work like it’s any old Thursday. I saw this girl who was no more than 16 years old on the sidewalk blacked out at like 5pm screaming “someone give me cheese and bread!” and she walked right past this woman who was in a power suit and sneakers with her heels in her hand bag who was walking from the office just trying to commute home to her family. I saw some dude waiting in line at at deli sucking face with this hog while a couple of dudes in suits were grabbing a late lunch. It’s like the only day of the year where you can witness shit like that.
Funniest shit for me had to be when I was at Blaggards with my big doofus Italian friend. We’re double fisting beer in a crowded bar with bagpipes playing and he’s like “Clancy I’m feeling lightheaded. I feel like I just ran somewhere really fast. I’m having a panic attack I gotta go outside.” So this big dumb guinea goes outside and takes a walk and eventually I find him outside the bar hunched over with his hands on his knees. Too much Irish, the fucking guinzo couldn’t handle it. I was like “somebody get this man a shot of marinara, STAT! We’ve got a wop who’s crashing!” I guess St. Pats isn’t for everyone.
The stars have aligned today unlike anything before*. St. Patty’s Day and the First Round of the NCAA tournament all crammed into 24 hours. It’s like a solar eclipse or some shit. You know when you’re in elementary school and your teachers are like “Don’t go outside! Its dangerous if you look at the sky!”
Well thats how I feel right now. I just got back to my apartment and I’m afraid to go outside. Way too dangerous. Its like the Super Bowl for Drunk Fireman. Boozy sluts everywhere. Gambling addicts on the edge of their seats as all these buzzer beaters keep falling. Penn State fans and Louisville fans are suicidal. Morehead State fans and the Temple Owls are fucking in the streets. Today this city might be consumed by bar brawls and STDs.
And I literally wouldn’t have it any other way.
*This has probably happened before. The first round always roughly coincides with St. Pats but I just can’t remember it ever happening the same day.
But for me, I just picked up a sausage egg and cheese biscuit and a sausage McMuffin from McDonalds on my walk of shame back from the upper east, I’m blogging in the same clothes as the night before, and its like 70 degrees as I wait for more college hoops. Happy St. Patrick’s Day indeed.
The best part about the real St. Patricks Day in Manhattan is that it can fall on a weekday so you get this outrageous blend of degenerate drunks and normal people who are just going to work like it’s any old Thursday. I saw this girl who was no more than 16 years old on the sidewalk blacked out at like 5pm screaming “someone give me cheese and bread!” and she walked right past this woman who was in a power suit and sneakers with her heels in her hand bag who was walking from the office just trying to commute home to her family. I saw some dude waiting in line at at deli sucking face with this hog while a couple of dudes in suits were grabbing a late lunch. It’s like the only day of the year where you can witness shit like that.
Funniest shit for me had to be when I was at Blaggards with my big doofus Italian friend. We’re double fisting beer in a crowded bar with bagpipes playing and he’s like “Clancy I’m feeling lightheaded. I feel like I just ran somewhere really fast. I’m having a panic attack I gotta go outside.” So this big dumb guinea goes outside and takes a walk and eventually I find him outside the bar hunched over with his hands on his knees. Too much Irish, the fucking guinzo couldn’t handle it. I was like “somebody get this man a shot of marinara, STAT! We’ve got a wop who’s crashing!” I guess St. Pats isn’t for everyone.
The stars have aligned today unlike anything before*. St. Patty’s Day and the First Round of the NCAA tournament all crammed into 24 hours. It’s like a solar eclipse or some shit. You know when you’re in elementary school and your teachers are like “Don’t go outside! Its dangerous if you look at the sky!”
Well thats how I feel right now. I just got back to my apartment and I’m afraid to go outside. Way too dangerous. Its like the Super Bowl for Drunk Fireman. Boozy sluts everywhere. Gambling addicts on the edge of their seats as all these buzzer beaters keep falling. Penn State fans and Louisville fans are suicidal. Morehead State fans and the Temple Owls are fucking in the streets. Today this city might be consumed by bar brawls and STDs.
And I literally wouldn’t have it any other way.
*This has probably happened before. The first round always roughly coincides with St. Pats but I just can’t remember it ever happening the same day.
But for me, I just picked up a sausage egg and cheese biscuit and a sausage McMuffin from McDonalds on my walk of shame back from the upper east, I’m blogging in the same clothes as the night before, and its like 70 degrees as I wait for more college hoops. Happy St. Patrick’s Day indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)