Toggle sidebar

Kopitar signs 8year/$80M contract confirmed with link

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
mrkolice said:
Real-Time Update on the Kopitar Contract Negotiations
http://mayorsmanor.com/2016/01/real-time-update-on-the-kopitar-contract-negotiations/

some background info here.
Click to expand...

From what we have gathered, there have been ongoing conversations, where Lombardi has tried helping Kopitar understand the value to the franchise with this type of deal (compared to the contract signed by Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane) – where they can keep driving towards getting better – and how this will define the Kings for the next eight years.
Click to expand...

Well f*** Dean, that was like talking to a brick wall obviously. Then you consulted Rob Blake? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
The cap is a concern, and its going to be even a bigger one given the loonies free-fall.

The cap should be going down based on all economics, but I don't see the league or the players letting that happen. There are mechanisms in the CBA that allow for things to be amended. For example, how HRR is calculated can be changed if both sides are on-board.

The drop of the CDN has a very significant impact on the league obviously, the question is it a major enough impact that a drastic measure like discussing CBA amendments is undertaken. Something like increasing player share of HRR in the short term with a reduction in the last couple years of the CBA.

I can't think of an instance where an agreement of this magnitude was amended, but if it gets serious enough it wouldn't surprise me to see the NHLPA and NHL at least look at it. I'm not talking about something to excuse poorly managed teams with average players and a high cap hit, but just enough to not punish those teams which have been doing a decent job of it. The bottom line is the NHL is in a unique situation where the currencies of two different countries is in play.
 
Fishhead said:
The cap is a concern, and its going to be even a bigger one given the loonies free-fall.

The cap should be going down based on all economics, but I don't see the league or the players letting that happen. There are mechanisms in the CBA that allow for things to be amended. For example, how HRR is calculated can be changed if both sides are on-board.

The drop of the CDN has a very significant impact on the league obviously, the question is it a major enough impact that a drastic measure like discussing CBA amendments is undertaken. Something like increasing player share of HRR in the short term with a reduction in the last couple years of the CBA.

I can't think of an instance where an agreement of this magnitude was amended, but if it gets serious enough it wouldn't surprise me to see the NHLPA and NHL at least look at it. I'm not talking about something to excuse poorly managed teams with average players and a high cap hit, but just enough to not punish those teams which have been doing a decent job of it. The bottom line is the NHL is in a unique situation where the currencies of two different countries is in play.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting they can somehow change HHR. That number is what it is. Hockey Related Revenue.
Where it would be mitigated by the falling Loonie the new TV deals year over year increase could help keep the cap stable for now. Depending on how fast it rises. And the fact they only took 50% of the initial monies and put into play for this year from that deal.
 
Fishhead said:
The cap is a concern, and its going to be even a bigger one given the loonies free-fall.

The cap should be going down based on all economics, but I don't see the league or the players letting that happen. There are mechanisms in the CBA that allow for things to be amended. For example, how HRR is calculated can be changed if both sides are on-board.

The drop of the CDN has a very significant impact on the league obviously, the question is it a major enough impact that a drastic measure like discussing CBA amendments is undertaken. Something like increasing player share of HRR in the short term with a reduction in the last couple years of the CBA.

I can't think of an instance where an agreement of this magnitude was amended, but if it gets serious enough it wouldn't surprise me to see the NHLPA and NHL at least look at it. I'm not talking about something to excuse poorly managed teams with average players and a high cap hit, but just enough to not punish those teams which have been doing a decent job of it. The bottom line is the NHL is in a unique situation where the currencies of two different countries is in play.
Click to expand...

I am wondering, if I'm an owner operating below the cap and have very little money committed to only a handful of players going into next season, why would I be interested in doing this?
 
KINGS17 said:
Only in that they didn't take of it in the last CBA. They gave their GMs a tool that they thought would be useful, and now they will have to take it away to keep them from paying out $80M to players that are probably worth more like $50M over their remaining useful years as a player.

The owners didn't get to be owners by giving their money away. These guys know how to manage an asset.
Click to expand...

The owners already got their guaranteed price controls with the cap. How the GM spends within the confines of the cap isn't an issue. (The only money losers are buyouts.) GMs are tasked with increasing franchise value by icing a lineup that wins - or at least excites fans - resulting in the growth of ticket sales, media rights, and merchandising.

The Los Angeles Kings had an estimated value of 205 million dollars in 2006 when Lombardi came on board. It's now estimated to be worth 580 million, due in part to the decisions Dean Lombardi has made in icing a winning team. The money lost in settling Mike Richards' contract, for instance, is negligible in the overall picture.

A smart owner will not micro-manage, and not care about a particular player's theoretical value vs pay in the latter years of his career when his team has doubled in value.
 
Choralone said:
The owners already got their guaranteed price controls with the cap. How the GM spends within the confines of the cap isn't an issue. (The only money losers are buyouts.) GMs are tasked with increasing franchise value by icing a lineup that wins - or at least excites fans - resulting in the growth of ticket sales, media rights, and merchandising.

The Los Angeles Kings had an estimated value of 205 million dollars in 2006 when Lombardi came on board. It's now estimated to be worth 580 million, due in part to the decisions Dean Lombardi has made in icing a winning team. The money lost in settling Mike Richards' contract, for instance, is negligible in the overall picture.

A smart owner will not micro-manage, and not care about a particular player's theoretical value vs pay in the latter years of his career when his team has doubled in value.
Click to expand...

...and how would limiting the max length of contracts to say 5 or 6 years, effect the GMs ability to ice a competitive team in any way?
 
KINGS17 said:
...and how would limiting the max length of contracts to say 5 or 6 years, effect the GMs ability to ice a competitive team in any way?
Click to expand...

Players aren't going to want to take a massive paycut, so their cap hits rise, meaning you can have less good players because you can't get them on 8 year contracts.
 
Brad Doty said:
The attention paid to us today is weird :laugh:

Is this approaching Lebron Signing Day territory yet?
Click to expand...

Not for Kopi but add Kopi into the LA marketplace today and it's probably eclipsed it. Rams to LA, possible Chargers to LA, Kopi new deal done.
Then add that ESPN didn't include either the Kings or Galaxy in the championship expo they did for after getting the Rams.
Jammed full sports coverage of LA today.
 
Brad Doty said:
The attention paid to us today is weird :laugh:

Is this approaching Lebron Signing Day territory yet?
Click to expand...

CYoNMxPUMAEYPIA.jpg


They are talking to a damn Ram on television... SO I would say yes
 
bshodokai said:
Players aren't going to want to take a massive paycut, so their cap hits rise, meaning you can have less good players because you can't get them on 8 year contracts.
Click to expand...

It's the same pie, cut 50%. The only difference is as an owner, I waste less money on buying out players that should have never been signed to 8-year deals.

As a GM, I know this is the NHL and not the NBA. I can't hand out max contracts to 3 guys and even come close to winning. I probably can't even hand out one max contract and win.
 
GMs are going to want to end contracts as soon as their projected usefulness declines. Players are going to want to extend those contracts for as much time as possible. They'll compromise somewhere in the middle, and voila - there's the market.

If you want to pay a player for his projected "usefull" years only, so that he has to renegotiate after his value has declined greatly, he's simply going to demand (and get) a dollar premium for that kind of team-friendly term. A GM is not going to get ideal dollar AND term.
 
KINGS17 said:
The Hawks are fortunate that Kane is having an insane season. That won't happen every year, or more likely never again.
Click to expand...

The Hawks have done a great job of filling the roster out with young cheaper skill that plays well for them. And when they are forced to trade contracts to trim from the cap they seem to get good value back. Another huge bonus is Keith signed at 5.5 what a steal.
 
Choralone said:
GMs are going to want to end contracts as soon as their projected usefulness declines. Players are going to want to extend those contracts for as much time as possible. They'll compromise somewhere in the middle, and voila - there's the market.

If you want to pay a player for his projected "usefull" years only, so that he has to renegotiate after his value has declined greatly, he's simply going to demand (and get) a dollar premium for that kind of team-friendly term. A GM is not going to get ideal dollar AND term.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying about GMs is correct. GMs will want to get as many talented players as they can sqeezed under the cap. Owners will want to end contracts as soon as a player is no longer useful.

The way owners do this is via the CBA.
 
go4hockey said:
The Hawks have done a great job o f filling the roster out with young cheaper skill that plays well for them. And when they are forced to trade contracts to trim from the cap they seem to get good value back. Another huge bonus is Keith signed at 5.5 what a steal.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on Keith, but other than Kane, the Hawks are not much to write home about this season when it comes to offensive production. The Kings have a much more balanced attack up front.

Panarin's numbers are being inflated by Kane. Let's see where he is at when Kane's numbers return to normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom