Jump to content

Small market teams may not like this deal in the end


Habs77

Recommended Posts

Link here

Small market teams may not like this deal in the end.

_________________________________

Small markets face big trouble

Free agent frenzy looming next year NHL lockout will count as a season

KEN CAMPBELL

SPORTS REPORTER

Upon further review, the new collective bargaining agreement is looking better for the likes of Tomas Kaberle, Jarome Iginla, Joe Thornton and Vincent Lecavalier and potentially disastrous for the small-market teams it was supposed to help.

A source close to the negotiations confirmed a published report yesterday stating that not only does the free agency age drop to 29 next summer, but players under that age who have eight years of NHL experience, will also qualify for unrestricted status. In the summer of 2007, players who are 28 or have seven seasons will qualify. In 2008 — and for the remainder of the agreement — players who are 27 or have seven seasons of experience will qualify.

Also, for purposes of player tenure, last year's aborted season will count as a season played for all NHL players.

All of which means next summer is shaping up to have the strongest free agent crop in the history of the game. Along with Iginla, Thornton, Lecavalier and Kaberle, other potential unrestricted free agents include Martin St-Louis, Marian Hossa, Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Jose Theodore and Ed Jovonovski.

Under the previous CBA, the Leafs wouldn't have had to deal with Kaberle as an unrestricted free agent until after the 2008-09 season. Because he will have been an NHLer for eight years once his contract expires next summer, Kaberle will now be unrestricted.

Liberalized free agency was one of the concessions the owners made in exchange for a salary cap, but critics suggest that this will do nothing to protect the small-market teams. What it does mean is that the effects of arbitration, one of the league's biggest concerns going into negotiations for a new CBA, will not drive salaries for players in their mid 20's because those dollars will now be driven by unrestricted free agency.

But instead of holding a player's rights until age 31, teams will now face the proposition of losing star players because they either won't have enough room under the salary cap or it will force them to spend closer to the cap limit of $39 million (all figures U.S.). In 2003-04, 15 of the league's 30 teams spent under what the cap will be next season.

"Wait until fans of small-market teams like the Ottawa Senators find out about this," said one player agent. "I sure hope they win the Stanley Cup next season because what are they going to do when teams offer Chara and Hossa the cap (of $7.8 million) and Redden $6 million?"

The Calgary Flames will be particularly hard-hit by the CBA for several reasons. If not for the eight-year rule, Iginla would have had to wait one more year to become an unrestricted free agent, but unless the Flames sign him to a long-term deal, he'll be free next summer.

To make matters worse, the revenue-sharing aspect of the deal will also hurt Calgary.

"If you go by 2003-04, they were in the top 10 in revenues so they'll have to share revenues," said an NHL executive. "So now they lose the Canadian assistance plan and they have to share revenues. How exactly does that help them?"

It was always thought that the deal would put a larger importance on drafting and developing players, an area in which the Leafs have been lacking, but this makes player personnel decisions even more crucial.

"Edmonton always complained that they couldn't keep their stars and that they lost Doug Weight and Bill Guerin when they were 30," the agent said. "But now they might lose Eric Brewer when he's 26."

Small market teams might not like this deal in the end, but the Habs will IMO if they can have a crack Vinny next summer.

That would be amazing.

Now our only concern would have to position ourselves to have enough cap room next year to be able to land him... and maybe Chara?.. hehe

Seriously though, Goodenow has always managed to get tons of concessions in the last days of negotiations... and it seems he's done it again the more I hear about the details of the deal.

How disastrous would it be for the NHL to have conceded too much just to be able to say they got the cap?

They were initially very happy with the last CBA as well you may recall.

[Edited on 17-7-05 by Habs77]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially considering that the Cap limits astounding contracts, I think it is good that a player gets more of a decision about his career. It is kinda sad that up to now a player could spend 2/3 of his playing career in a town he hates working for a company he hates.

I dont necisarily see the huge problem for small market teams. If teams are able to spend near the cap they should not be any more disadvantaged by free agency than any other team. I know that in the recent past many teams (prob 5-10) have been wholly incapable of getting near the current cap number. Well, thats what revenue sharing is for and as a GM I would gamble for at least the first year that you're gonna get back 15% of your payroll at the end of the year anyway. I tend to have very little sympathy for the smallest of small markets, there are relatively healthier markets that dont have teams and over-expansion caused a great deal of the salary growth and talent spread that now threatens the integrity of our sport.

Not that it is so huge, but how is the TV contract getting split up? Equally or is part of it allocated to the smal market revenue share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by simonus

Not that it is so huge, but how is the TV contract getting split up? Equally or is part of it allocated to the smal market revenue share?

Speaking of TV contracts, does anyone think that now that the dispte is over, ESPN will sign at least a cheap, 1 year deal to see how it works out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Speaking of TV contracts, does anyone think that now that the dispte is over, ESPN will sign at least a cheap, 1 year deal to see how it works out?

I heard the ESPN was indeed interested... but it would not pay for it, would want a deal like NBC where the NHL would only see a cent if profits are made.

It would be a case the NHL needs the exposure ESPN can provide, and ESPN needs the NHL product to have some more actual sports on it's network instead of poker and the like.

So don't count on TV renevues to be split up... because 0/30 = 0... any way you want to share it.

----------------------

What concerns me about the article above is the mention that a team like Calgary will both lose the Canadian assistance it used to get, and will now be actually one of the teams that pays money to low-revenue teams.

This makes no sense to me... CGY was supposed to be one of the market we would help, not hinder, in the new CBA.

That said, with all the oil money there... you'd think they could support the team sufficiently now.

Still a weird proposition to have the top revenue teams including Calgary... I already hate Montreal being part of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...