Sunday, March 02, 2008
Well, it's only been 30+ months
Simmons sez:
Spector sez:
Matt sez: For the gajillionth time folks, the total amount earned by NHLPA members is a fixed sum determined solely by NHL hockey-related revenues. If Brian Campbell makes an extra million dollars, that comes (proportionally) out of the pockets of every other player in the league.
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player (or group of players in comparable situations, e.g. #1 defensemen). And indeed, since 2006, the NHLPA has stepped aside at player arbitration hearings because of the inherent conflict: more money for Player #1 means less for Players #2 thru #750.
As such, Simmons has it exactly wrong: if a player wanted to do what was best for his union brethren, he'd play for the minimum salary somewhere, as holding out for top dollar is to the direct detriment of his colleagues.
There are those who suggest that Campbell was under great pressure, quite possibly from the Players' Association, not to sign a deal in Buffalo that would have undercut the market place of a high-end free agent defenceman.
That is, too often, the dilemma for a pending free agent: Does the player do what is right for himself, or does he stand up for the supposed greater good of his union brethren?
Spector sez:
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I doubt the PA put any pressure on Campbell. Even if he's signed a lesser deal with Buffalo, comparable blueliners will earn more this summer thanks to the threat of offer sheets and the UFA market, since the salary cap hasn't prevented general managers from overspending on individual players.
Matt sez: For the gajillionth time folks, the total amount earned by NHLPA members is a fixed sum determined solely by NHL hockey-related revenues. If Brian Campbell makes an extra million dollars, that comes (proportionally) out of the pockets of every other player in the league.
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player (or group of players in comparable situations, e.g. #1 defensemen). And indeed, since 2006, the NHLPA has stepped aside at player arbitration hearings because of the inherent conflict: more money for Player #1 means less for Players #2 thru #750.
As such, Simmons has it exactly wrong: if a player wanted to do what was best for his union brethren, he'd play for the minimum salary somewhere, as holding out for top dollar is to the direct detriment of his colleagues.
# posted by Matt @ 2:40 pm 
Comments:
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player
That doesn't mean they think that way though, does it?
That doesn't mean they think that way though, does it?
It doesn't, but I think the fact that they have withdrawn from direct involvement in arbitration hearings is evidence that they do.
That would be assuming that each of the 30 teams was maxing out their salary cap completely and consistently.
In that case, taking less would be giving more to the other (approx) 749 players in theory, but not in the reality of the game now.
Regardless of what somebody makes, he's not taking away from the others. You'd have to think signing big would add value to the others who are comparable and have contracts coming up.
Or am I just drunk?
Hassenfeffa (can't remember my password)
That would be assuming that each of the 30 teams was maxing out their salary cap completely and consistently.
That is not correct. Next year the players, as a whole, are going to be paid some amount of money that is nothing but an exact percentage of total revenues (somewhere around $1.5B). In the context of influencing the contract decisions of individual players, there is fuck all the NHLPA can do to change that number by so much as a dollar. If Brian Campbell gets a bit more from San Jose than he would have from Buffalo, that's a little bit more escrow held back from every other player.
You're right, but I wonder if there's something to be said for the length of term involved, as in, perhaps the PA is looking to get as much guaranteed money (via term) on the table as possible?
Just a thought.
And as Andy mentioned, just because it's logical doesn't mean the union isn't still exerting some sort of pressure for players to push for the best deals they can get.
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player
Actually, I don't think that's necessarily correct. It depends on who carries influence within the NHLPA and who they see as their constituency: the high-end marquis players, or the players as a whole. If the leadership is in the hand of the marquis players, they may very well have a strong interest in ensuring that contracts for their players go high, denying salary revenue to the jobbers that probably make up the majority of the league.
Wouldn't be the first time there's power politics within a union.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage the players get is a maximum, not a minimum right? So the PA would have motivation to ensure the total is not less than the max, even if it means paying more escrow, so that nothing is left on the table.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage the players get is a maximum, not a minimum right?
You're wrong. It's neither (or both, if you prefer): it's an exact amount. If revenues are determined to be $2.4B and the players get 55% per the CBA, then the players in total will be paid exactly $1.32B as a group. If total salaries are $1.42B, then $100M of escrow is retained by the league and distributed.
You're right, but I wonder if there's something to be said for the length of term involved, as in, perhaps the PA is looking to get as much guaranteed money (via term) on the table as possible?
Matt's completely right. The PA has no interest in this, other than maybe, arguably, seeing him get money guaranteed for after the CBA's expiry date, on the grounds that maybe it won't be a capped league then.
Of course, Campbell's contract isn't going to be market setter six years now, if history is any indication, so that doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention, if I was him having the NHLPA tell me to hold out for longer term would really piss me off because I'm the guy carrying the injury risk.
I can't see why the PA would care.
Post a Comment
<< Home
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player
That doesn't mean they think that way though, does it?
That doesn't mean they think that way though, does it?
It doesn't, but I think the fact that they have withdrawn from direct involvement in arbitration hearings is evidence that they do.
That would be assuming that each of the 30 teams was maxing out their salary cap completely and consistently.
In that case, taking less would be giving more to the other (approx) 749 players in theory, but not in the reality of the game now.
Regardless of what somebody makes, he's not taking away from the others. You'd have to think signing big would add value to the others who are comparable and have contracts coming up.
Or am I just drunk?
Hassenfeffa (can't remember my password)
# posted by 
: March 02, 2008 5:21 pm
: March 02, 2008 5:21 pm That would be assuming that each of the 30 teams was maxing out their salary cap completely and consistently.
That is not correct. Next year the players, as a whole, are going to be paid some amount of money that is nothing but an exact percentage of total revenues (somewhere around $1.5B). In the context of influencing the contract decisions of individual players, there is fuck all the NHLPA can do to change that number by so much as a dollar. If Brian Campbell gets a bit more from San Jose than he would have from Buffalo, that's a little bit more escrow held back from every other player.
You're right, but I wonder if there's something to be said for the length of term involved, as in, perhaps the PA is looking to get as much guaranteed money (via term) on the table as possible?
Just a thought.
And as Andy mentioned, just because it's logical doesn't mean the union isn't still exerting some sort of pressure for players to push for the best deals they can get.
The NHLPA has no reason to want to torque the salary of any individual player
Actually, I don't think that's necessarily correct. It depends on who carries influence within the NHLPA and who they see as their constituency: the high-end marquis players, or the players as a whole. If the leadership is in the hand of the marquis players, they may very well have a strong interest in ensuring that contracts for their players go high, denying salary revenue to the jobbers that probably make up the majority of the league.
Wouldn't be the first time there's power politics within a union.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage the players get is a maximum, not a minimum right? So the PA would have motivation to ensure the total is not less than the max, even if it means paying more escrow, so that nothing is left on the table.
# posted by : March 03, 2008 8:53 am
: March 03, 2008 8:53 am Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage the players get is a maximum, not a minimum right?
You're wrong. It's neither (or both, if you prefer): it's an exact amount. If revenues are determined to be $2.4B and the players get 55% per the CBA, then the players in total will be paid exactly $1.32B as a group. If total salaries are $1.42B, then $100M of escrow is retained by the league and distributed.
You're right, but I wonder if there's something to be said for the length of term involved, as in, perhaps the PA is looking to get as much guaranteed money (via term) on the table as possible?
Matt's completely right. The PA has no interest in this, other than maybe, arguably, seeing him get money guaranteed for after the CBA's expiry date, on the grounds that maybe it won't be a capped league then.
Of course, Campbell's contract isn't going to be market setter six years now, if history is any indication, so that doesn't really make much sense. Not to mention, if I was him having the NHLPA tell me to hold out for longer term would really piss me off because I'm the guy carrying the injury risk.
I can't see why the PA would care.
# posted by : March 03, 2008 10:38 am
: March 03, 2008 10:38 am Post a Comment
<< Home
