Don't the players carry a heavy burden of a 50/50 split
- BetweenTheDots

Players aren't owners or partners they're employees. Bullpoop they don't get the face value of their contracts. I don't believe in salary caps the only thing they do is protect owners from each other. To be clear I am definitely not a union guy and I don't believe in minimum wage either.

Not if - for the next season, at least - there are very few (if any) marginal revenues to be generated.
- StLBravesFan

Yup!

Don't the players carry a heavy burden of a 50/50 split
- BetweenTheDots

Last year the escrow taken out of the players checks ended up being 20% of their salary, and there is still going to be a shortfall where the players owe the owners money. That is why there is going to be a flat cap for many years to come, because the NHLPA is trying to reduce the amount of escrow the players are contributing each year until they pay down the debt. That is why it was so crucial to play these playoffs, so as to get the TV money and reduce the escrow debt the players owed.

Players aren't owners or partners they're employees. Bullpoop they don't get the face value of their contracts. I don't believe in salary caps the only thing they do is protect owners from each other. To be clear I am definitely not a union guy and I don't believe in minimum wage either.
- rpeters01

In the NHL they are similar to partners, they share in the revenues. It is in the best interest of all parties to maximize the revenue.

In the NHL they are similar to partners, they share in the revenues. It is in the best interest of all parties to maximize the revenue.
- LAHawk

They don't share the capital appreciation.

Last year the escrow taken out of the players checks ended up being 20% of their salary, and there is still going to be a shortfall where the players owe the owners money. That is why there is going to be a flat cap for many years to come, because the NHLPA is trying to reduce the amount of escrow the players are contributing each year until they pay down the debt. That is why it was so crucial to play these playoffs, so as to get the TV money and reduce the escrow debt the players owed.
- LAHawk

Employee's owing owners is called "indentured servitude."

Employee's owing owners is called "indentured servitude."
- rpeters01

The players owe the teams because this past year the revenue split was something like 60-40 in favor of the players, more than the 50-50 split negotiated and signed off by both sides.

You really believe that, the workers always get screwed, i guarantee you all these teams will be pressed against the cap, players will still get paid
- BetweenTheDots

Whatever their contracts say about pay, the players are going to take major haircuts because of the escrow over the next several seasons.

The $81MM is not the players' share of HRR: that always gets adjusted to 50% of HRR after each season, INCLUDING these Covid-affected seasons.

In normal seasons, they have to give back 10%-15% (or a little more). The next couple of seasons won't approach normal.

The players' actually 50% for the next couple of seasons will result in the players owing the owners so much money that they all agreed that the players would pay it back over several seasons.

They won't get "screwed" because they agreed to the original escrow provisions, and to the new escrow situation in the negotiations leading up to the return to play - but they are going to get "hit" for the next several seasons.

At least, that's how I understand the situation.

I think you got to recheck your math because if you buy out Smith it will cost a total of $2166000 plug Suter in at $925,000 grand total of $3,091,000? Smith current contract $3,250,000? Am i missing something and that $2,166,000 would be divided by 2, 2 year cap hit of $1,083,000, i think
- BetweenTheDots

So - are you saying that the Hawks are going to be a "budget" team and NOT replace Smith's salary cap hit and NOT get to the $81MM cap?

The point of buying out Smith would be to free up some cap space so they can go out and get new ones. Suter will not be Smith's replacement at $925,000.

They don't share the capital appreciation.
- rpeters01

They also don't share in the expenses. They share is gross revenues.

The Athletic suggests that the Hawks are high on Sam Colangelo. The implications are that he may not be available at #46 so the Hawks could taken him at #17.

Wiz has Colangelo going at #55, The Hockey News has him at #41 while the ISS pegs him at #61.

Colangelo seems like a stretch at #17, but anything is possible.
- DarthKane

It is interesting whom Bowman drafts. And what position he drafts. I agree with many who say to draft the best athlete skill guy available. That is certainly heavily weighing on Bowman's shoulder

I do mot believe however as far as trading goes, that Bowman wants to bring in barely anyone. If he does, then someone else might be heading out.

Bowman indicated the objective is to get younger. And with Shaw and deHahn injury concerns, I really start to wonder if caggiulia is allowed to leave. Only due to concussion history. Don't forget that we have Shaw living in the weeds...another concussion issue player.

I suggest Carpenter will be sufficient until some AHL kids can take over. I mean with Toews, Dach, and either Kampf or an AHL kid at center, that e tra center spot has to go to someone whom ideally contributes Strome like offensive numbers but is a better skater and is a physical type style. That is what we need. Conversely an offensive contributor in Barrett or from the draft would likely lead eventually to a Strome departure and hoping that one of the Rockford kids can plug in nicely as a checker energy physical 4th line.

So - are you saying that the Hawks are going to be a "budget" team and NOT replace Smith's salary cap hit and NOT get to the $81MM cap?

The point of buying out Smith would be to free up some cap space so they can go out and get new ones. Suter will not be Smith's replacement at $925,000.
- StLBravesFan

You were the one saying there would be no buyouts, just pointing out if they do that that gives them an extra million dollars to spend for someone like a RFA. Again everyone else is saying there won't be any buy outs

So that would give the Hawks $2 mil in cap space next season

So - are you saying that the Hawks are going to be a "budget" team and NOT replace Smith's salary cap hit and NOT get to the $81MM cap?

The point of buying out Smith would be to free up some cap space so they can go out and get new ones. Suter will not be Smith's replacement at $925,000.
- StLBravesFan

Who knows? How are Wirtz's other enterprises doing? Is everyone paying their rent? The United Center is sitting empty. Maybe getting rid of McDonough was a cost cutting move? Do you think the addition of a $2 mil. player is going to make a difference in the team being a Stanley Cup contender or not?

Employee's owing owners is called "indentured servitude."
- rpeters01

The players don't have to sign a contract with an NHL team, there are teams all around the world they can sign with. They can also start a rival league if they want.

New blog! Season review of wingers:

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=107319

You were the one saying there would be no buyouts, just pointing out if they do that that gives them an extra million dollars to spend for someone like a RFA. Again everyone else is saying there won't be any buy outs

So that would give the Hawks $2 mil in cap space next season
- BetweenTheDots

I'm saying that the reason to do a buy-out is to create additional cap space to be able to sign new players.

If they do that - and get back to the cap limit (the $81MM) - the net effect will be to cost the franchise money - "...genuine coin of the realm", to quote Kaspar Gutman.

If all that Rocky wants to do is save money, yeah, cut Smith and replace him with an ELC player on a minimum salary, and remain below the cap. Under those assumptions, yeah, there would be buyouts, and the Hawks would participate.

Under the assumption that they would spend to get back to the cap - no, I don't think there will be buyouts.

Who knows? How are Wirtz's other enterprises doing? Is everyone paying their rent? The United Center is sitting empty. Maybe getting rid of McDonough was a cost cutting move? Do you think the addition of a $2 mil. player is going to make a difference in the team being a Stanley Cup contender or not?
- LAHawk

I think the addition of $2 mil will allow you to keep a RFA instead of not being able to sign them

They also don't share in the expenses. They share is gross revenues.
- LAHawk

I understand I have a basic philosophical difference with what the players signed up to like Toews. I think they were very stupid and should have drawn the strike/lockout out longer. This agreement to share owner's risk is biting them terribly now. I was opposite the UAW most of my career if anyone has a disdain for unions it is me.

Maybe but that is a reach imo.
- Scott1977

I admit it is a bit machiavellian. But think about it: Seabrook butts heads with Colliton and has already set the stage to ask for a trade with his comments about being a full time player next season. Duncan "This is Not a Development League" Keith is an awkward fit with Colliton's system and could be next to ask to be moved. The Hawks would be thrilled to shed some salary and clear part of the D logjam.