What does the Vanek offer do exactly.

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

What does the Vanek offer do exactly.

Post by tantalum » Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:52 pm

I haven't seen it on the caunck boards as much but there are so many boards that are livid because this offer is driving salaries up and the league is back to where they were before the lockout. yadda yadda yadda.

Simply put no it is not. The average salary for the players does not go up with this offer or ANY offer. That is set with the linkage and cap. Players will always get 54-57% of the revenues. No more and no less. Simple as that (well more if revenues get to significantly higher levels).

The only thing this and the huge extension Crosby will sign and the ever larger extension all young players are signing is increase salary disparity amongst the players. Because of linkage a move like this ultimately does nothing to league wide payrolls and average salaries. Which is the exact point of the linkage. If the NHL is going to move towards a system where young stars are given a far bigger piece of the payroll pie than before, then by necessity other players are going to eventually take a hit because there is actually a limited amount of money to go around now. Perhaps, you'll see older UFAs not get the money they want. Or most immediately your third and fourth liners won't be making 1-1.5 mil anymore but instead be near the minimum.

If anyone is to be concerned about this switch it's those middle and lower tier players who will begin to find it very difficult to get that big contract. Those players are of course the majority of the PA membership so don't be surprised if the next go round of CBA negotiations revolves less around cap or not cap but instead how the PA wants to guarantee money to the majority of the membership.

The PA will need to figure this out for themselves...how to reward the star players handsomely as they do drive the league while taking care of the over 50% of the membership that is being hurt because of it. It won't just be a bigger percentage of revenues though they will fight hard for it. I'm guessing we are going to see $1 mil minimum salaries next CBA go round, if not higher.

And really that may not be an issue with the NHL as a high minimum salary is going to keep those lower tier guys from flocking to European markets.

User avatar
Meerschaum
MVP
MVP
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Post by Meerschaum » Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:29 pm

The funny thing is that the increased League revenues, that have permitted the salary escalation, have very little to do with the League's performance and everything to do with the increased value of the Canadian dollar.

Damn those Canadians with their nutty, coloured currency. :lol:
Modo vincis, modo vinceris.

User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2321
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Post by Lancer » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:17 pm

Tant's right. The older, established guys will either take an olympic-sized bath on their next contract or they will have to start looking at the want-ads. As for the 3rd-4th-line players, they'll have to settle for sub-million dollar contracts or face the same prospect.

That said, unless the NHL minimum goes higher, this dynamic will drive more players to Europe. If the 2-3 stars on a team make the lion's share of the team cap, the rest will either be pluggers or AHLers willing to take what crumbs are left just because it's the NHL (beats riding the bus). All those skilled players in between will go to Europe, especially if the Russians are gonna show them better money. Forget the likes of King and Reid going to Europe, but the likes of Kesler, Cooke, etc. I'm not sure what kind of hockey that will produce, but I'm not sure it will be better.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.

User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Post by levelheaded » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:07 pm

Lancer wrote:That said, unless the NHL minimum goes higher, this dynamic will drive more players to Europe. If the 2-3 stars on a team make the lion's share of the team cap, the rest will either be pluggers or AHLers willing to take what crumbs are left just because it's the NHL (beats riding the bus). All those skilled players in between will go to Europe, especially if the Russians are gonna show them better money. Forget the likes of King and Reid going to Europe, but the likes of Kesler, Cooke, etc. I'm not sure what kind of hockey that will produce, but I'm not sure it will be better.
I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. It would create a greater disparity between the best and worst players in the league. You used to be able to notice players like Gretzky and Lemieux every time they stepped on the ice, then a lot more players entered the league and while the superstars were still ahead of the other players, they weren't as far ahead as they once were.

It can only mean good things for the NHL if Crosby and Ovechkin are allowed to dominate every night. It would add excitement and hype to a lot of otherwise meaningless games.

User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Post by tantalum » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:10 pm

Meerschaum wrote:The funny thing is that the increased League revenues, that have permitted the salary escalation, have very little to do with the League's performance and everything to do with the increased value of the Canadian dollar.

Damn those Canadians with their nutty, coloured currency. :lol:
Indeed. But that's the good thing about linkage, the market will balance itself out. The revenues drop and the salaries drop. THey rise and salaries do. If players start to make more money at a younger age some other groupf players takes a bath. If a GM makes a poor assessment of a players future exploits they lose their job.

Lowe did nothing wrong in making this offer. I will become common place. What he did wrong was target a guy he had no hope in getting. it was clear from day 1 of the offseason the Sabres plans revolved around Vanek. Not Drury and not Vanek. Imagine, instead of Vanek at $10 mil this season and a cap hit of $7 mil overall with proper forethough and assessment they could have Drury and Vanek for a $9 mil cap hit for 4 years.

User avatar
Canuck-One
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:49 am
Location: Living the Life

Post by Canuck-One » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:14 pm

I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. It would create a greater disparity between the best and worst players in the league. You used to be able to notice players like Gretzky and Lemieux every time they stepped on the ice, then a lot more players entered the league and while the superstars were still ahead of the other players, they weren't as far ahead as they once were.

It can only mean good things for the NHL if Crosby and Ovechkin are allowed to dominate every night. It would add excitement and hype to a lot of otherwise meaningless games.[/quote]

Let me understand your comment. Are you saying that by watering down the league by having the mid skilled players moving to Europe that will make the NHL a better product because it allows the stars to shine brighter?

User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Post by levelheaded » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:20 pm

HappyCanuck wrote:I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. It would create a greater disparity between the best and worst players in the league. You used to be able to notice players like Gretzky and Lemieux every time they stepped on the ice, then a lot more players entered the league and while the superstars were still ahead of the other players, they weren't as far ahead as they once were.

It can only mean good things for the NHL if Crosby and Ovechkin are allowed to dominate every night. It would add excitement and hype to a lot of otherwise meaningless games.
Let me understand your comment. Are you saying that by watering down the league by having the mid skilled players moving to Europe that will make the NHL a better product because it allows the stars to shine brighter?[/quote]

Yes.

The NHL needs someone to start going after records, and with the way the sport is right now that's not going to happen any time soon. Players and teams are too good at shutting down star players. If there are fewer mid-range talented players in the league it makes the top players look better then they are.

Let me put it another way, do you think Gretzky would have been anywhere near as dominant in today's NHL?

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Post by rikster » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:20 am

I think its a mistake to think that linkage is a safety net which protects against bad business decisions...

Bad business decisions are bad business decisions, and unless you have a bullet proof safety net, then they eventually lead to a broken business....

Mind you, if you had a bullet proof safety net there would never be bad business decisions but the new CBA was never thought to be a bullet proof system...

Matching long term fixed salary costs to variable and unstable revenues is a bad business decision....

The league lost a season because it had costs that exceeded the value they brought in return, and what we witnessed this past week suggests that many owners have short memories...

What Lowe did was a bad business decision because he offered a player a contract that was exuberant for the value he would bring to his team...

He set himself up over the course of a number of bad business decisions to being forced to resort to being a crisis manager making short term thinking, desperate decisions which will have long term implications...

Linkage works if the cap is not a magnate, and if revenues are evenly spread over its 30 teams and if revenues are fixed over periods that match the length of its players contracts and if those revenues are trending up for reasons other than exchange rates or the league had underestimated its revenues coming out of the lockout, but that is not the case....

I sided with the owners during the lockout, but am now of the opinion that they made their bed so they can sleep in it, but unfortunately many players will be negatively affected because of these bad decisions....

I'm sure agents are building escrow considerations into their demands, but what about the players who agreed to very reasonable, and in some cases undervalued contracts who will lose a percentage of that contract because of bad business decisions like the one Lowe made yesterday?...

Some teams are showing that they can manage their business very competently under this CBA, but then there are teams like the Oilers who are a bumbling group who are making mistake after mistake after mistake and impacting other teams while doing so...

Take care...

User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Post by tantalum » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:42 am

rikster wrote:I think its a mistake to think that linkage is a safety net which protects against bad business decisions...

Bad business decisions are bad business decisions, and unless you have a bullet proof safety net, then they eventually lead to a broken business....
Did I say it protected against bad businee decisions? No I didn't. I said it protects against an uncontrolled increase in player salaries. If one group beings getting more money another group of players will take a hit because of it.
Mind you, if you had a bullet proof safety net there would never be bad business decisions but the new CBA was never thought to be a bullet proof system...
Exactly and nor should it be. In fact I think it put more pressure on a GM to be a good GM. It doesn't matter what CBA is in place bad management will hamstring an organization.
Matching long term fixed salary costs to variable and unstable revenues is a bad business decision....
It can be indeed. It can also be smart if you feel that revenues will tend to increase as the typically do.
The league lost a season because it had costs that exceeded the value they brought in return, and what we witnessed this past week suggests that many owners have short memories...
No it doesn't mena naything to owners. Owners still know players can only receive 54-57% of revenues. NOthing more and nothing less. They also have there own internal budgets to hit. The only thing it does is put the attention more on the GM because with players hitting free agency status earlier the GM is going to have to be better. The lockout was to achieve linkage and guard against TOTAL player salaries outpacing the leagues growth. This doesn't change that at all. If it happens more all it does is create salary disparity which will have immediate implicaitons within the PA membership first and then possibly the NHL as a whole if the minimum salary does not prevent players form going to Europe.
What Lowe did was a bad business decision because he offered a player a contract that was exuberant for the value he would bring to his team...
You can't say that. The guy had 40 goals last year. If he scores 50 this next year he's worth the money.

This falls into the camp of expected value...you may not think he's worth that but Edmonton did and CLEARLY Buffalo did as well or they wouldn't have matched (or they would have worked out a trade).

This is a growing part of a GMs job if we continue to see it (and we will given Crosby will most likely sign an big extension and Iginla and Regher just signed extensions). They now have to be accurate in their assessment. If they aren't they are going to hurt their team and be out of a job. It's a shift in job duties and responsibilities nothing more.
He set himself up over the course of a number of bad business decisions to being forced to resort to being a crisis manager making short term thinking, desperate decisions which will have long term implications...
They could but not always. He made an offer to a guy who had offers from half the league. his may have been the highest but ultimately the Sabres accepted that deal so there are atleast 2 teams who feel he is worth that money.
Linkage works if the cap is not a magnate, and if revenues are evenly spread over its 30 teams and if revenues are fixed over periods that match the length of its players contracts and if those revenues are trending up for reasons other than exchange rates or the league had underestimated its revenues coming out of the lockout, but that is not the case....[/linkage]

And that is risk any team makes when they sign a guy to a long term contract. They are all assuming a trend in revenues up or they atleast stay the same. Linkage doesn't guarantee revenues but linkage does guarantee there is an immediate market correction.
I sided with the owners during the lockout, but am now of the opinion that they made their bed so they can sleep in it, but unfortunately many players will be negatively affected because of these bad decisions....
That is the PA's responsibility NOT the owners.
I'm sure agents are building escrow considerations into their demands, but what about the players who agreed to very reasonable, and in some cases undervalued contracts who will lose a percentage of that contract because of bad business decisions like the one Lowe made yesterday?...
They take it up with the PA who is responsible for negotiating the changes to a CBA or even a new CBA. It's why they have a PA.
Some teams are showing that they can manage their business very competently under this CBA, but then there are teams like the Oilers who are a bumbling group who are making mistake after mistake after mistake and impacting other teams while doing so...
Lowe made a mistake in targetting this player because the Sabres were always going to match. He didn't make a mistake in targetting a RFA. It was built into the past CBA and this CBA for the prupose of this strategy being used. The players liked it and the owners liked it ebough for it to be ratified as part of the CBA.

The bad business decision in all of this was made by the Sabres. They had the chance to lock up Vanek, Drury, and Briere last summer for about $15 mil a year for atleast the next 4 years. They walked away from all those deals. Don't let Regier off the hook when he made the biggest errors and he has paid for it this offseasson. He failed to protect his assets. He failed to see the obvious that GMs would try this type of things. Or if he did see it he ignored it. He failed to do his job and the Sabres have paid dearly for it.

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Post by rikster » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:27 am

The bad business decision in all of this was made by the Sabres.
You assume alot with this comment, which is silly considering you are not privy to their negotiations with Vanek...

I shake my head at the comments that because somebody offered Vanik a salary greater than what the MVP of the NFL makes, that somehow reflects on the Sabres?...

And unlike the MVP of the NFL, the NHL offer was for guaranteed money....

Lowes offer was based on his hope that the Sabres would be unable to match, it had nothing to do with what they thought Vanik was worth...

That is bad business ...

Take care...

User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Post by tantalum » Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:29 am

rikster wrote:
The bad business decision in all of this was made by the Sabres.
You assume alot with this comment, which is silly considering you are not privy to their negotiations with Vanek...
I don't assume anything. It's quite common knowledge that Vanek and his agent put a $16 mil/4 yr extension on the table that the Sabres walked away from. Hence the reason Regier was asked about it in the press conference nad his response was "well if I had a crystal ball like you" to the reporter. Thing is. IT was obvious this type of thing could happen. Hence the bad business decision by Regier. He made a similarily bad decision by negotiating terms with Drury last summer that both sides were supposedly happy about and the the Sabres walked away. That was made known after Drury signed his contract with the Rangers. It's why Drury was upset with Buffalo management. They were expecting the deal to be finalized last summer and it wasn't. Again a bad business decision. Briere was in the same boat with a long term deal last summer that was for the $5.5 a year range that the Sabres walked away from. The Sabres screwed up big time in the past 12 months when dealing with these three players. NO doubt about it. Kypreos said the same things last night. I may not like Kypreos but his information is good and the information goes with everything we've heard from these camps over the past 12 months. Absolutely no doubt the Sabres messed up in a big way on Vanek, Briere, and Drury. They clearly need to learn from it.
I shake my head at the comments that because somebody offered Vanik a salary greater than what the MVP of the NFL makes, that somehow reflects on the Sabres?...

And unlike the MVP of the NFL, the NHL offer was for guaranteed money....

Who the heck cares what goes on in another league in another sport? Seriously, it doesn;t matter what Vanek is making. It doesn't matter if this starts a trend. It really doesn't. The money has to come from somewhere and the only place it can come from in a linkage/cap system is the player piece of the pie. All this is is a potential shift in how teams have to do business. These shifts happen as leagues get older.
Lowes offer was based on his hope that the Sabres would be unable to match, it had nothing to do with what they thought Vanik was worth...

That is bad business ...

Take care...
You are the one presuming it's bad business. If Vanek pots 40+ goals in each of teh next 7 years and has 85+ points it isn't bad business at all. It was a good gamble to take.

Island fan
CC Rookie
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:02 am
Location: Victoria/West Van

Post by Island fan » Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:05 pm

Isn't Russia not too much of a worry because of their foreign player limit?
For some reason this off season feels longer than normal.

User avatar
VHF
CC Rookie
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Vancouver - Yaletown
Contact:

Post by VHF » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:26 am

tantalum... good comments all-round.

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Post by rikster » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:03 pm

tantalum... good comments all-round
Since I am the one arguing with Tant, no surprises when i say that I think you are being naive and not thinking this thru on a long term basis....

I can see a whole number of potential land mines being exposed this off season and as a result am not surprised that we are starting to see the business media voicing similar concerns...

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/stor ... ockey/home

And I think this article only begins to skim the surface of problems awaiting this edition of the CBA...

Take care....

Post Reply