Parise and Suter are making $54M in the first five years of their deals.

That's $10.8M/year, and yet cap hit of "only" $7.5M/year because of the stretched out back-load.

And that's where the "middle class fear" comes from.

Those guys are still going to get their $10.8M/year for those first five years, and now that's $3.3M/year less of cap space for everybody else on the team under the NHL's proposed scheme.
- georule

Exactly why it's needed. The system will not penalize the players it's to stop the nutty GMs from killing this league.

CAN YOU JUST GIVE UP ALREADY, THERE IS NO NHL SEASON THIS YEAR, GO MARLIES AND TEAM CANADA!

Gary Oldman playing Sid Vicious in the movie Sid and Nancy...
- MnGump

Yup. He did an incredible job too. Great actor. I just love the look he's giving. Perfect for HB.

Maybe instead of telling people to quit drinking the kool-aid, you should become informed on the situation. The 5 year term limit pushes more Cap dollars to the top players due to not being able to have a back diving contract. That leaves less cap dollars available to the middle class of NHL players, and hence less salary for them. It affects far more then 40 players.
- MJL

Isn't that the point of it? Force the owners to stop paying through the nose for the elite players in order to allow for middle class players to remain competitively waged?

Yup. He did an incredible job too. Great actor. I just love the look he's giving. Perfect for HB.
- bloatedmosquito

Right on!

Shouldn't the optimism meter be at the "could go either way" point? Just saying.

What is so difficult to understand about 5 year caps hurting the non-star players? Teams use the opportunity to trade term for dollars. Example: If Pittsburgh needed to sign Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury for market value, they might command a total of $25M per season. That's nearly half your team's available cap space. Now 17 players are forced to split $35M. Suddenly Pitt can't afford the 3-4 M guys. On the other hand, if the Pens offer a 8-10 year deals to those 3 with an total cap hit of $18M, you suddenly have an extra $7M to spend on your 2nd and 3rd liners.

It's not just the back-diving contracts that factor in here. Even if the salary is the same each year, the GM is assuming he is trading underpayment for a few years early for overpayment at the end of the deal. I understand why teams would want to cap term at 5 years, but to say there is no benefit to the 'middle class' of NHLers is beyond naive.

Isn't that the point of it? Force the owners to stop paying through the nose for the elite players in order to allow for middle class players to remain competitively waged?
- MnGump

The Owners will still pay through the nose for the elite players. They won't be able to give them as much in aggregate. Because the years are limited. But the top players will still earn top salaries. Now their Cap hits are likely to be higher. But the Owners really don't care about that. They care about eliminating what they feel are Cap circumventing deals. And it also helps the owners with the middle class contracts that they feel have grown out of whack.

Shouldn't the optimism meter be at the "could go either way" point? Just saying.
- whipper334

What's wrong with a bit of optimism around here? Ek just thinking about the fans and their well being. What a peach.

What is so difficult to understand about 5 year caps hurting the non-star players? Teams use the opportunity to trade term for dollars. Example: If Pittsburgh needed to sign Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury for market value, they might command a total of $25M per season. That's nearly half your team's available cap space. Now 17 players are forced to split $35M. Suddenly Pitt can't afford the 3-4 M guys. On the other hand, if the Pens offer a 8-10 year deals to those 3 with an total cap hit of $18M, you suddenly have an extra $7M to spend on your 2nd and 3rd liners.

It's not just the back-diving contracts that factor in here. Even if the salary is the same each year, the GM is assuming he is trading underpayment for a few years early for overpayment at the end of the deal. I understand why teams would want to cap term at 5 years, but to say there is no benefit to the 'middle class' of NHLers is beyond naive.
- DeanoTPS

I don't think this is about the players. I think this is the GM clause. The GM does not have to pay Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury that kind of cake. If someone wants to pay them that money then they will be killing their own team. The effect will be to spread the stars around the league so no team has a monopoly on talent.

Where is it written that pro sports players or anyone for that matter employed by billionaires or even millionaires are entitled to anything more than the absolute minimum of their employment value?

These global business leaders spend their lifes work creating and building their empires, why is anyone entitled to any of it? This is exactly the argument I've seen being spewed around here lately and frankly it's preposterous. Why is an NHL player entitled to "earn" even a fraction of what an owner is worth simply based on the fact that he's a pro athlete? One has nothing to do with the other.

As far as your statement goes "a small window of time to earn a small fraction of what the owners are worth." I guess that goes for all of us then, the problem is 99% of the population doesn't get to make it so easily and as quickly as does a pro athlete. Oh yeah, but they shouldn't be expected to live in the real world once their careers are over.
- MnGump

Awesome Job, and completely agree. Also, what percentage of people change careers during their lifetime? I bet you it is a staggering number. Personally, I've changed 3 times. Oh, and one of them involved a cut in pay as I switched from a career that required heavy travel, which is normally compensated for, to a stay at home job.

The Owners will still pay through the nose for the elite players. They won't be able to give them as much in aggregate. Because the years are limited. But the top players will still earn top salaries. Now their Cap hits are likely to be higher. But the Owners really don't care about that. They care about eliminating what they feel are Cap circumventing deals. And it also helps the owners with the middle class contracts that they feel have grown out of whack.
- MJL

prove it.

I am generally in agreement with the last few blogs that EK has wrote, but here he is missing the primary reason Fehr and the players want longer contracts, especially coupled with no limitation on the spread between the years (meaning, front loaded contracts are allowed).

The reality is that those contracts significantly help more than just the top players, mainly due to the trickle down effect. Star players do not want shorter contracts - they want the security and frankly big ego boosting dollars of larger contracts.

The Doan contract cited is a special case, as he really only wanted to stay in Phoenix. The Giroux contract referenced is also an exception, as he wanted a shorter contract that would get him to FA and the bigger payday sooner. It's the exact opposite of the Simmonds situation where the team was buying into free agent years at a premium.

The reality is that teams will bid higher against each other if they can amortize it over a longer period of time, with the front-loaded contract. As is the case with much of corporate america (and I am a die hard capitalist), the short term is the priority of the long run.

So now that those contracts are at a much higher average annual value, the next rung of FA benefit. Example, Carle in no way would have justified that contract a couple of years ago. But teams say Suter is worth x, Carle is 70% of a Suter so he must be worth y.

This is undoubtedly the messge that Fehr is giving the players. Drive up the salaries for the stars, and everyone benefits.
- TheGreat28

I think your right in how the market is set. But I don't think that's the message that Fehr is giving the players. They don't want the 5 year term limit because it takes money away from the middle class players. And the players counter offer was for a 25% variance.

Shouldn't the optimism meter be at the "could go either way" point? Just saying.
- whipper334

Hmmmmmmmmm...mmmmmmmmmmm...

Flyers and Leafs are talking. I'm being told it's not Schenn for JVR.

Maybe instead of telling people to quit drinking the kool-aid, you should become informed on the situation. The 5 year term limit pushes more Cap dollars to the top players due to not being able to have a back diving contract. That leaves less cap dollars available to the middle class of NHL players, and hence less salary for them. It affects far more then 40 players.
- MJL

We're on the same side of the argument, so please take this with a grain of salt. But your premise is that the dollars for the star players will still be relatively the same, it will just be spread over a smaller number of years. And I realize, not the total per se but average. So maybe Parisi gets 10.4 over 5 years instead of a hundred years or whatever it was.

But given that the owners would not be able to lower the cap hit with back-diving deal, AND the need to fill out roster, the likelihood that they pay the same average annual value is a lot less going forward. I think with 5 year deal Parisi gets 7.5 or maybe 8 for 5 years.

Then, if that happens the trickle down effect to the 2nd and 3rd line players is also affected, so the next tier have slower wage growth (per my post on page 4).

That is really why Fehr is against the 5 year limit. Remember, he is dealing in aggregate (total salary spread across hockey, not one teams cap). If one team's cap is consumed by star players, there is always more cap space at another team. He wants to push the floor up with higher growth in the total salary base.

We're on the same side of the argument, so please take this with a grain of salt. But your premise is that the dollars for the star players will still be relatively the same, it will just be spread over a smaller number of years. And I realize, not the total per se but average. So maybe Parisi gets 10.4 over 5 years instead of a hundred years or whatever it was.

But given that the owners would not be able to lower the cap hit with back-diving deal, AND the need to fill out roster, the likelihood that they pay the same average annual value is a lot less going forward. I think with 5 year deal Parisi gets 7.5 or maybe 8 for 5 years.

Then, if that happens the trickle down effect to the 2nd and 3rd line players is also affected, so the next tier have slower wage growth (per my post on page 4).

That is really why Fehr is against the 5 year limit. Remember, he is dealing in aggregate (total salary spread across hockey, not one teams cap). If one team's cap is consumed by star players, there is always more cap space at another team. He wants to push the floor up with higher growth in the total salary base.
- TheGreat28

So you really think that Owners are going to spend less in terms of yearly salary when bidding for Free Agents? History suggests that's not going to happen. The actual salary for top players might not change much, but the Cap hit is what is going to inflate. For top players on every team. I think were getting to the same place, but taking a different path to get there.

One thing that could happen, is it might help teams retain their own players. A player can re-sign with his own team for 7 years. But can only get 5 years in Free Agency.

Maybe the NHL starts using the old sign and trade.

I think your right in how the market is set. But I don't think that's the message that Fehr is giving the players. They don't want the 5 year term limit because it takes money away from the middle class players. And the players counter offer was for a 25% variance.
- MJL

I'm not sure that I agree that his message is the bolded text. He has to deliver a single message that won't alienate either the stars or the balance of the league, which is much greater in number.

If he says what you wrote - that the star players are sucking up cap space at the expense of the rest of the league's players - it has a serious potential to drive a wedge between the have's and the have not's. Remember, these are teammates that have to play together long after this lockout is over. He can't afford to alienate the larger percentage of the total.

The smarter play is to say that if the teams have an ability to spread deals over a longer period, they'll be in a better cap position to offer higher contract dollars. And if those deals are cap-friendly, they'll have more money to spread around. He doesn't have to say that maybe some players get longer deals and others don't. The players will always think that their skills will improve and the next contract could be the one where they get the 7 year deal. Bryz is a perfect example of this.

I don't want a season at this point and I haven't since the first regular season game was cancelled. If one game has to be cancelled because of a lockout, they should be forced to write off the whole season or heavily reward the fans at their expense. How dare the NHL and NHLPA ever try to force the other's hand by depriving the fans of hockey. If nothing can be resolved by the start of the season, they should be forced to continue with the current CBA until a deal is made.

So you really think that Owners are going to spend less in terms of yearly salary when bidding for Free Agents? History suggests that's not going to happen. The actual salary for top players might not change much, but the Cap hit is what is going to inflate. For top players on every team. I think were getting to the same place, but taking a different path to get there.

One thing that could happen, is it might help teams retain their own players. A player can re-sign with his own team for 7 years. But can only get 5 years in Free Agency.

Maybe the NHL starts using the old sign and trade.
- MJL

Inflation in wages since the cap was introduced far exceeds inflation pre-cap. And yes, I realize that many other factors affect this. But actually, I'd be willing to bet that the rate of salary inflation in last 3 years significantly exceeds the first 4 or 5 years of the post-lockout rate.

And, since the players believe the owners to be greedy blood-sucking vampires, even with the increase in revenues the owners could have spent between the floor and mid-point and pocketed the difference.

I'm not sure that I agree that his message is the bolded text. He has to deliver a single message that won't alienate either the stars or the balance of the league, which is much greater in number.

If he says what you wrote - that the star players are sucking up cap space at the expense of the rest of the league's players - it has a serious potential to drive a wedge between the have's and the have not's. Remember, these are teammates that have to play together long after this lockout is over. He can't afford to alienate the larger percentage of the total.

The smarter play is to say that if the teams have an ability to spread deals over a longer period, they'll be in a better cap position to offer higher contract dollars. And if those deals are cap-friendly, they'll have more money to spread around. He doesn't have to say that maybe some players get longer deals and others don't. The players will always think that their skills will improve and the next contract could be the one where they get the 7 year deal. Bryz is a perfect example of this.
- TheGreat28

The players already know that the top players suck up the largest amount of Cap space. That's not news to them.

Inflation in wages since the cap was introduced far exceeds inflation pre-cap. And yes, I realize that many other factors affect this. But actually, I'd be willing to bet that the rate of salary inflation in last 3 years significantly exceeds the first 4 or 5 years of the post-lockout rate.

And, since the players believe the owners to be greedy blood-sucking vampires, even with the increase in revenues the owners could have spent between the floor and mid-point and pocketed the difference.
- TheGreat28

They could've have done that. But most didn't. And most likely won't.

So you really think that Owners are going to spend less in terms of yearly salary when bidding for Free Agents? History suggests that's not going to happen. The actual salary for top players might not change much, but the Cap hit is what is going to inflate. For top players on every team. I think were getting to the same place, but taking a different path to get there.

One thing that could happen, is it might help teams retain their own players. A player can re-sign with his own team for 7 years. But can only get 5 years in Free Agency.

Maybe the NHL starts using the old sign and trade.
- MJL

One other point on this. The GM's have the responsbility to build a team. Especially after the early struggles that some teams and GMs (ahem....cough...Paul Holmgren...cough) had managing cap space, they for the most part seem better adept at it over the last couple of years.

Now, some teams made incredibly stupid decisions early on (yashin, dipietro), but the number of 7+ year contracts has only shot up in the last couple of seasons. It is solely a result of trying to have your cake and eat it too. They want the star players but don't want to be in cap hell to do it. Take that away and they'll make vastly different decisions (on average, there will always be a knucklehead).

The players already know that the top players suck up the largest amount of Cap space. That's not news to them.
- MJL

Yeah, but it is one thing for them to know it, and another thing for it to be expressly stated in the middle of a contract negotiation. And again, I don't think Fehr has to. My argument would rally the troops without the risk of pitting them against each other.