Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
cw said:
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
I'm going to disagree with cw here. I think the next CBA will give teams an out clause for these mega-year contracts and so the risk of Luongo becoming a complete albatross is not that high.
link
Media Question: "Are you going to ship a lot of big contracts to the minors through waivers?"
Burke: "You?re assuming you?ll still be able to do that, I?m not sure that?s the case. We?re going into a new CBA."
NHL teams that have not been sending big contracts to the AHL have a legit gripe as it being a way to circumvent the CBA. The above is just one example of it being acknowledged. I wouldn't bet on the practice surviving the new CBA. It might but I'd say the odds are against it because it's pretty tough to defend as not circumventing the CBA and a much smaller portion of NHL teams can afford and therefore, would continue to support the practice. Naturally, the NHLPA would favor continuing the clause but the NHL could counter to adjust the cap and giggle the rules in a more equitable way.
If it were not for that expectation, I'd be far more open to taking on Luongo because according to Capgeek, he doesn't have a no move clause - just a NTC. The Leafs could afford to eat the latter years of his deal if he didn't retire and couldn't maintain his level of play.
I expect we'll have a better indication before July 1 because I would anticipate a record number of buyouts this summer if the GMs collectively feel this is the way it's going to go.
But another point here is that GMs will have an important say on what's in the new CBA. They obviously have the ear of their owners. My feeling is that if the big market teams want to be able to continue burying contracts -- and if the little-market teams want to keep get shared revenue from the big markets
-- then a way will be found around it.
If you review the P&Ls of the teams, most are roughly break even or losing a few mil. A very small handful are actually making big money => (from 2009) the Leafs & Habs take home 60% of the profits - and the Leafs alone take home 43% of the league profits.
Some of that will be improved with the players taking less of the revenue in this go round - probably dropping from 56-57% to something closer to 50%.
But rather than the old revenue sharing formula of the highest revenue team kicking in $10 mil, 2nd $9 mil, 3rd $8 mil, etc (or whatever the actual amount is), I expect it will get more exponential - rather than straight line or tied to actual revenues. When the Leafs & Habs whine about it, the vast majority of the other 28 teams will tell them to get stuffed in a vote. The Leafs lost much of what they wanted in the current CBA for the same reason.
28 teams and the NHLPA can't help but gun more for a bigger piece of the Leafs big dough. If I'm one of the other 28 teams, why not? My team wouldn't exist purely to line MLSE's pockets - which for many clubs, it's the way that it currently is. And before someone rips my head off for saying so because the Leafs do contribute a bunch to the league, I'm just presenting it from the other guy's perspective with some regard to how the league is governed => each team gets one vote.
In my opinion, the OTPP knew the return on investment was going to take a hit with the new CBA and their valuation was likely to take a hit with the increasing (and ultimately inevitable) threat of a second Toronto team which fueled their desire to dump it. They're not stupid people when it comes to evaluating return on investment and when to get out.
I think the odds of the Leafs having to pay increased revenue sharing under the new CBA are very strong. They only get one vote. And with that, there will be some correction to burying contracts via waivers. Along with that, Burke will probably be granted his desire that teams don't have to trade 100% of the dollars in a contract - a portion could be carried like buyouts in a team cap calculation. And maybe to help sell that to larger market teams and the NHLPA, the overall cap goes up a point or two more (landing at 51-52%) or the cap floor doesn't go up quite as much. There are a bunch of tradeoffs available. But the bottom line will be the Leafs won't be as well off.
Because of that, Luongo's contract would make me nervous for cap reasons and MLSE themselves may find potentially eating his contract even less appealing if they're having to also kick in more to revenue sharing.
I don't think the changes to the current CBA will be nearly as large a step as they were the last time but I do think changes roughly like the above are darn near inevitable.
