[Signing] Chicago signs Toews and Kane to 8 yr contract extensions ($10.5 mil AAV EACH)

[Oling_Roachinen]

Inevitable contracts, only goes to show how badly teams were cheating the cap that people question these contracts.

Weber's first 8 years of his contract see him make 14M, 14M, 14M, 14M, 12M, 12M, 6M and 6M for 92M compared to their 84M. So they're still making millions less than Weber during their prime and chances are they'll not be making more than 30M after these contracts expire so Weber will make more money playing hockey than these 2.

Parise and Suter will make 80M in their first 8 years on their contracts as well. 10M has been the norm for top talent for awhile, Toews and Kane are just the first people to have cap hits that match the salaries.

[sun]

Unfathomable amounts of money, but if anyone has earned it, it's these two.

[OzSome]

Wow!!! So we wasted almost a season for what again??? I know these guys are good but does Stan Bowman thinks NHL team only have 10 players or something. I like Chicago and Toews but I am hoping the salary cap goes down big time next season. See how Bowman will manage that team.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Wow!!! So we wasted almost a season for what again???

I don't understand?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Wow!!! So we wasted almost a season for what again???

50/50 revenue split and the millions and millions and millions the owners will see because of it.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Wow!!! So we wasted almost a season for what again??? I know these guys are good but does Stan Bowman thinks NHL team only have 10 players or something. I like Chicago and Toews but I am hoping the salary cap goes down big time next season. See how Bowman will manage that team.

We wasted almost a season because of HRR (Hockey Related Revenues).
Players share was previously 57%, now is 50%.
This amounts to over 8 million per owner/ownership group per season transferred from the players to the owners, and rising - which is very significant.

At least, if I understand it correctly

[getbak]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Wow!!! So we wasted almost a season for what again???

To bring the overall players' share of revenue down from 57% to 50% of total league-wide revenue.

Neither side was looking to reduce overall revenue. Neither side was looking to drive down individual salaries as long as teams and players can make them work within the established framework.

The first lockout was about establishing the framework. The second was about fixing the framework that was established. Any future lockouts will be about further tweaking the framework so it works best for both sides.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

We wasted almost a season because of HRR (Hockey Related Revenues).
Players share was previously 57%, now is 50%.
This amounts to over 8 million per owner/ownership group per season transferred from the players to the owners, and rising - which is very significant.

At least, if I understand it correctly

8M?

4B revenue. 7% of that is a lot more than 8M.

Edit: Oh per the 30 ownership groups. Yeah you're right.

[EldrickOnIce]

Actually, at 4B it's more like nearly 10M per owner per season.

I was using old revenue numbers

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

My Math:
4B times 0.07% equals 280M, divided by 30 NHL teams, equals 9.33M per ownership per season.

I was using numbers at the time of the lockout, about 3.6B

Nearly 10M per owner per season.

Yeah, I missed the per and corrected myself before, sorry.

But it does sound a lot more significant when you start talking about the 250M+ going from the players to the owners as a collective.

[T@T]

All I can say is that's some


...for so few candles

[savemedrzaius]

They probably could have gotten more on the open market. I don't see why they should have to take a huge discount. They revitalized the Blackhawks franchise and have made the owners millions. It's the contracts like Clarkson and Bolland that screw everything up and will inevitably lead to another lockout.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

They probably could have gotten more on the open market.

Perhaps as high as 12 million per year, but not worth the risk. Can you imagine turning down $84 million and then blowing out you knee and being forced to retire? Just not worth that risk.

[Inglewood Jack]

forget truculence, I want the filters adjusted so that anytime a new big contract is awarded, the phrase "what did we have a lockout for again?" becomes "#### ### ## #### # ####### ### ######"

if all our blue chip youngins turn out, how awesome yet how painful it will be when it comes time to do this. I would cry if we were still in the early 2000's pre-cap tiny Canadian dollar and budget era.

[bubbsy]

i hope the hawks feel the pinch and aren't able to get the necessary talent around these two to keep them up there as annual cup contenders....

i would have thought $8 - $8.5 million for 10 years would have been a good deal, and would have freed up enough cap space to have another 4 million dollars to help keep/bring in the talent to stay a top team.

I hope that as other top players negotiate their next deals these aren't used as standard templates. the body of work being that these players have led their team to winning the cup twice, and to the conference finals 2 other times in the past 6 years is the major reason for them being paid the way they are. Not just their individual accolades.

who knows though, maybe every first line player will have 9-10 million annual cap hits within the next 2-3 seasons. brutal....

[Jason14h]

i hope the hawks feel the pinch and aren't able to get the necessary talent around these two to keep them up there as annual cup contenders....

Do you hope this so it helps the Flames chances or for some weird anti-chicago signing their own home grown players reason?

i would have thought $8 - $8.5 million for 10 years would have been a good deal, and would have freed up enough cap space to have another 4 million dollars to help keep/bring in the talent to stay a top team.

Good deal for who? The team - Absolutely. You think Kane and Toews should have left 15 million each on the table (2 mil per year) and it would have been a good deal?

who knows though, maybe every first line player will have 9-10 million annual cap hits within the next 2-3 seasons. brutal....

Of course they will. Why is it brutal? The teams have a cap. Why does it matter if the stars get 10 mil and the average player 4 million vs the star getting 8 mil and the average player 6 million?

This was always a given in a cap world. The stars still get their money. Its the middle of the road players who usually see their salaries stagnate

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

They probably could have gotten more on the open market. I don't see why they should have to take a huge discount. They revitalized the Blackhawks franchise and have made the owners millions.

Individually, each probably could have gotten more. There aren't many teams with the kind of cap space and desirability as a landing spot that could afford both together, however. So if they enjoy Chicago and they want to play with each other, then taking less money for those perks makes sense. It's the same thought process many of us use at some point in our own lives - should we take a little less money for a better job? - only on the scale of millionaires.

It's the contracts like Clarkson and Bolland that screw everything up and will inevitably lead to another lockout.

Doubtful. Thanks to the cap and guaranteed split of HRR, a player who signs a stupidly overvalued deal only takes money from his fellow players. If one player takes an overvalued contract, the system balances by forcing another to take an undervalued one.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Doubtful. Thanks to the cap and guaranteed split of HRR, a player who signs a stupidly overvalued deal only takes money from his fellow players. If one player takes an overvalued contract, the system balances by forcing another to take an undervalued one.

Exactly this

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Individually, each probably could have gotten more. There aren't many teams with the kind of cap space and desirability as a landing spot that could afford both together, however. So if they enjoy Chicago and they want to play with each other, then taking less money for those perks makes sense. It's the same thought process many of us use at some point in our own lives - should we take a little less money for a better job? - only on the scale of millionaires.



Doubtful. Thanks to the cap and guaranteed split of HRR, a player who signs a stupidly overvalued deal only takes money from his fellow players. If one player takes an overvalued contract, the system balances by forcing another to take an undervalued one.

Local endorsement money in Chicago is also considerable...they both pitch Chevys and do commercials for Ferrara-Pan Candy Company (Lemonheads...a lemon drop hard candy)...and God/Allah/Elvis/Buddah knows how much they make from personal appearances. These opportunities are more limited in smaller markets...there is some incentive to take a million or two less to stay in big markets, it can be made up with supplemental monies, and for big enough names, the endorsements keep rolling in well into retirement.

[Jason14h]

If they had hit UFA status the Flames would had been 1st in line offering comparable/larger deals I would expect.