Re: Hockey's CBA

"Ben F" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ian Merrithew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > That's the theory.  However, it only takes one or two spend-thrift
owners
> > to "raise the bar" for everybody else, especially in the middle of the
> > salary range.
>
> You don't describe any mechanism that would actually produce that effect.
>
>  Combine that with a collective agreement that requires
> > owners to at least match a player's previous salary in order to retain
> > his rights (prior to his qualifying for unrestricted free agency at 31),
> > and you wind up with a pyramid scheme.  A player who has a career year
at
> > 24 or 25, signs a big deal with his owner or another, now has that
salary
> > locked-in until he hits 31, unless the team wants to risk his walking
> > away as a UFA.  The next player who hits those numbers or similar says,
> > "I'm as good or better than he was," and raises the bar a little more.
> > And so on and so on.
>
> And the other owners are not allowed to offer him less? There's no reason
> why other players would receive that much. Teams aren't given rights to
> players by God, it's not unfair that they might risk losing the player if
> they are unwilling to pay him the market price.

Player A, in the last year of his contract, hits career numbers, that make
his production equivalent to Player B, who has been around longer, and is
making 3 or 4 times what Player A made in that final year of his contract.
Under the current CBA, if Player A is under 31 years old, and is making less
than the league average salary, for the team to keep the right to match any
other contract offer, they must offer him at least 110% of what he made in
the last year of his contract.  If he's making more than the league average,
then they have to offer what the player earned in that last year of the
contract, or they make the player an unrestricted free agent.

That's a part of negotiation, and I can handle that.  Where I have a
problem, is where Player C takes an extra year to develop and has his
breakout season a year later.  All we hear about is Player C holding out for
more money...refusing to play if he's not compensated.  Conversely, if
Player D goes out and does sign that big contract and then has a lousy year,
the *only* option the team has is to trade the player...they can't hold out
on the player.  I would like to see something in the CBA that said if a
player with a valid contract sits out for any reason, that the team be
automatically compensated.


>
> > This system was best demonstrated by Paul Kariya; he signed a 5-year,
$50
> > million contract with Anaheim, but his production numbers never seemed
to
> > justify that contract, especially last season when the Ducks moved
toward
> > a defense-oriented style.  The Ducks had to either match Kariya's salary
> > to retain his rights in the offseason or he would become a UFA;
>
> There's nothing biased against the owners with this system. The Ducks
> thought Kariya wasn't worth his salary, so they let him become an UFA.
They
> still were allowed to sign him, correct? There's no systematic reason that
> any players would be given overmarket salaries.
>
>  they
> > gambled, cut Kariya loose, and Kariya went to Colorado.  (Then the Ducks
> > turned around and signed Sergei Fedorov to $40 million over 5 years.)
>
> I don't know very much about hockey, but I don't see where the problem is.
> The Ducks decide let a player go, use the money they paid him to pay
another
> player who they presumably felt was a better fit for them. Kariya received
> whatever Colorado thought he was worth.
>
> One reason why superstars should cost comparatively more in other sports
> than compared to baseball is that you cannot choose to give Barry Bonds
more
> at bats, but you can choose to give the puck/ball to one player greater
than
> their fair share.
>

Maybe that argument works for football, but not for hockey.  There is no way
to give the puck to a player more.  Certainly you can try, but it's not
going to work, in the long run.

The problem with Kariya's contract, was that he signed it, and was paid it.
His numbers did not warrant that contract, but the team couldn't do
anything.  However, if he had put together a monster season, say in year 3
of the contract, he could have sat out, and forced the team to re-negotiate,
but the team didn't have reciprocal rights.

      Daryl Turner