[News] Friedman's 31 Thoughts, Sept 10, 2019: Tense RFA waiting game hits final stages

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Teams have always had budgets though, hard cap or not. I understand the point you are making, but even in the 80's, if a player negotiated hard and got more money, most owners were still operating on a budget and would have to give less to someone else. Not that many teams of the 30 had what seemed like unlimited funds.

It's also no different than a regular persons job. You walk into your bosses office and ask for a raise, and you get it.........someone else isn't getting that money or a portion of it because most businesses have planned budgets for salary and or salary increases. The more you get, the less someone else gets. It's not really a unique thing to these hockey players, it's kind of just how a free market economy works.

It is different though.

Imagine if your co-worker got a raise, and as a result, the company started withholding 5% of your salary. Your view on their raise would be a little different, no?

And with respect to the operating budgets, before the cap... that wasn't the same either. Despite the best intentions of the owner/manager, salaries got pushed up, and budgets got pushed up. It wasn't a firm, unchangeable number. And again, it didn't cause other players' salaries to be carved back.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

It’s a business for both team AND the player. He might be putting himself before the team in terms of money, but as you stated, that’s what he should be doing. And if everybody is doing that, how can players be mad at other players for something they would do themselves?
He’s also not taking money out of this teammates pockets. Those teammates either sign somewhere who will pay them what they’re worth when they’re UFA’s or if the player is good enough, the team will make changes to ensure they stay.
The business side is definitely ugly and there’s very little loyalty, but that's pro sports. There are tens of millions of dollars on the line and if I or anyone else on this forum were in Marner's shoes, we'd be doing the same thing.

It literally does though. For players with signed deals, the more new contracts push total salaries above the HRR number, the more every player gets carved back. That is what escrow does.

And that is why the players hate escrow. Their hatred is misguided though - escrow is just the messenger.

[Enoch Root]

Just looking at the Leaf's situation a little more on CapFriendly.

If Marner were to get $11M (it is rumoured that he already turned that down), they would have 4 forwards earning a total of $40+M. That is enough even to make the Oilers blush.

But on top of that, they will be in an even worse situation next year. Their entire D core, except for Rielly, are free agents after this year. Harper and Schmaltz will be RFAs, everyone else UFAs.

Somehow, despite being all over the cap ceiling already, they will need to re-sign or replace almost their entire D. They will also need to sign or replace Hutchison in net.

They are right fooked. And yet Leaf fans think Dubas is the greatest thing to ever happen.

[yourbestfriend]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It literally does though. For players with signed deals, the more new contracts push total salaries above the HRR number, the more every player gets carved back. That is what escrow does.

And that is why the players hate escrow. Their hatred is misguided though - escrow is just the messenger.

What, why does escrow matter at all for his teammates. Yes, technically when a player signs a huge contract he's contributing to increasing the amount of escrow, but that's not just to his teammates, but for everyone in the league, including himself. Any incremental increase in salaries over HRR will take money out of players pockets. It's a bit disingenuous to say Marner is the reason why his teammates are getting paid less.

That's also assuming the HRR number doesn't increase as much as salaries increase. HRR is expected to increase quite a bit in the next few years with multiple new revenue streams for the league so the increase in escrow shouldn't be an issue. Increase in revenue means cap will rise, which means players will start to get paid even more. The current UFA's and RFA's want some of that action.

[neo45]

I think Dubas, outside of the Muzzin acquisition where he paid fair value, has been an unmitigated disaster in Toronto.

Knows he’ll play Boston in the first round and just keeps making the team softer with every move.

[dino7c]

Yeah they should have hired an adult

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just looking at the Leaf's situation a little more on CapFriendly.

If Marner were to get $11M (it is rumoured that he already turned that down), they would have 4 forwards earning a total of $40+M. That is enough even to make the Oilers blush.

But on top of that, they will be in an even worse situation next year. Their entire D core, except for Rielly, are free agents after this year. Harper and Schmaltz will be RFAs, everyone else UFAs.

Somehow, despite being all over the cap ceiling already, they will need to re-sign or replace almost their entire D. They will also need to sign or replace Hutchison in net.

They are right fooked. And yet Leaf fans think Dubas is the greatest thing to ever happen.

For the D you forgot Dermott he's an RFA after this year. I think the plan is finally bring in Sandin and Liligren after this year so that's 4 D right there.

With those 3 guys (Muzzin, Barrie and Ceci) entering UFA that gives the Leafs over 10 million. They likely resign either Muzzin or Barrie for 6 million roughly per and then they gave the leftover money to get another D.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by yourbestfriend

What, why does escrow matter at all for his teammates. Yes, technically when a player signs a huge contract he's contributing to increasing the amount of escrow, but that's not just to his teammates, but for everyone in the league, including himself. Any incremental increase in salaries over HRR will take money out of players pockets. It's a bit disingenuous to say Marner is the reason why his teammates are getting paid less.

That's also assuming the HRR number doesn't increase as much as salaries increase. HRR is expected to increase quite a bit in the next few years with multiple new revenue streams for the league so the increase in escrow shouldn't be an issue. Increase in revenue means cap will rise, which means players will start to get paid even more. The current UFA's and RFA's want some of that action.

How much will HRR rise? Everyone banking on the US TV deal but certainly doesn’t seem other revenue streams are growing at a rapid pace.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How much will HRR rise? Everyone banking on the US TV deal but certainly doesn’t seem other revenue streams are growing at a rapid pace.

Two new American teams in two major markets, including the first pro team in Vegas. That'll pique the interest of the networks.

The ratings for hockey aren't poor - it's not like there's no following for it. It's bankable content.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Two new American teams in two major markets, including the first pro team in Vegas. That'll pique the interest of the networks.

The ratings for hockey aren't poor - it's not like there's no following for it. It's bankable content.

I thought national ratings for hockey in the US were tiny? I’m not arguing the point, just looking for some real data on this. Has Vegas helped grow the pool of HRR?

I do know the current deal for hockey TV coverage is peanuts so nowhere to go but up. With Disney bundling ESPN+ with their new streaming service, they may be looking for content there. Maybe they could be the pay platform instead of Centre Ice.

[getbak]

Game 7 of this year's Final was the most-watched NHL game in the US in over 45 years. Overall, the average audience for this year's Final was the third largest since the Finals returned to network tv in the mid-90s. The only 2 Finals that had a larger average audience were 2013 (Chicago-Boston) and 2015 (Chicago-Tampa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanle...vision_ratings


Overall, the NHL's national ratings in the US are much smaller than the other major leagues, but it's a generally consistent audience.

One big change that has happened in recent years is that overall tv ratings have declined sharply, but live sports have generally remained steady (or at least declined less than most primetime tv). Of the 5 games of the Final that aired on the main NBC network, all of them averaged more than 5 million total viewers. Of the 20 scripted series that aired on NBC last season, only 6 averaged more than 5 million viewers per episode. The 8.7 million people who tuned in to Game 7 of the Final was higher than the average viewership of any of NBC's scripted shows last season.



The NHL's new tv deal won't come close to the multibillion dollar deals that the NBA, MLB, and NFL have, but it should still see a significant rise over the current $200 million per year deal.

The current NBA contract pays the league about $2.7 billion per year. If the NHL can get a deal that's worth a quarter to a third of that, it would be a huge jump.

If the new deal were to increase by $320 million per year to $520 million, it would effectively raise the players' share (and the cap) by $5 million per team. If the new deal were to increase by $640 million per year to $840 million (still less than a third of what the NBA takes in), it would increase the players' share by $10 million per team.

[united]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

My intuitive reaction to this is that all this indicates is which players are more willing to fire the puck because they have a high degree of confidence in their shooting skill, and which players are more likely to hold off and wait for a high-chance opportunity to score before letting er' rip. I don't have any data on this, but how much do you want to bet that Alex Tanguay barely ever had any of his shots blocked?

Excellent question/thought and I would guess the same.

Results:

Spoiler!

While data is only captured from 2007-08 on, from the start of that season to the end of his career, Alex Tanguay had 20.2% of his shots blocked!

The result is very surprising to me, which, by the way, I absolutely love. Simple things like these are what allows us to investigate why our initial "eye test" was incorrect and re-calibrate our inherent biases moving forward as yet another step in our continuous education of a constantly evolving game.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by getbak

Game 7 of this year's Final was the most-watched NHL game in the US in over 45 years. Overall, the average audience for this year's Final was the third largest since the Finals returned to network tv in the mid-90s. The only 2 Finals that had a larger average audience were 2013 (Chicago-Boston) and 2015 (Chicago-Tampa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanle...vision_ratings


Overall, the NHL's national ratings in the US are much smaller than the other major leagues, but it's a generally consistent audience.

One big change that has happened in recent years is that overall tv ratings have declined sharply, but live sports have generally remained steady (or at least declined less than most primetime tv). Of the 5 games of the Final that aired on the main NBC network, all of them averaged more than 5 million total viewers. Of the 20 scripted series that aired on NBC last season, only 6 averaged more than 5 million viewers per episode. The 8.7 million people who tuned in to Game 7 of the Final was higher than the average viewership of any of NBC's scripted shows last season.

The NHL's new tv deal won't come close to the multibillion dollar deals that the NBA, MLB, and NFL have, but it should still see a significant rise over the current $200 million per year deal.

The current NBA contract pays the league about $2.7 billion per year. If the NHL can get a deal that's worth a quarter to a third of that, it would be a huge jump.

If the new deal were to increase by $320 million per year to $520 million, it would effectively raise the players' share (and the cap) by $5 million per team. If the new deal were to increase by $640 million per year to $840 million (still less than a third of what the NBA takes in), it would increase the players' share by $10 million per team.

Thanks. NBA final viewership was down this year (14 million) largely because of Toronto after averaging around 18 to 19 million last three years. So a quarter of the NBA deal certainly seems very realistic. Although I guess the Finals are just a small piece of the equation and maybe viewership of the weekly games is the challenge.