Craig Leipold, Ryan Suter

Not every money-losing owner is a Leipold

24 Comments

Let’s start off with a little math:

If each team in the NHL had spent just enough to reach the salary cap floor in 2011-12, 57 percent of hockey-related revenue would’ve gone to the players.

Last year, 57 percent of hockey-related revenue was $1.87 billion.

On the other hand, if each team in the NHL had spent to the salary cap ceiling in 2011-12, 57 percent of hockey-related revenue would’ve gone to the players.

Last year, 57 percent of hockey-related revenue was $1.87 billion.

Sometimes it seems like not everyone understands this. Or, they’re choosing not to publicly.

“We’re agreeing to pay our players a certain percentage of our revenues. That’s a fixed dollar amount,” deputy commissioner Bill Daly told FAN 590 earlier in the week.

Again, “That’s a fixed dollar amount.”

In the new, yet-to-be-negotiated CBA, the NHL wants a reduction in the percentage of revenues going to the players because the league thinks 57 percent is too high. Such a reduction would result in the loss of salary for players via escrow, which is used to reconcile any “shortfall” or “overage” to the players as it relates to the revenue split.

Losing money to escrow would not be a new thing for the players. Five times since the 2005 CBA was introduced the players haven’t received as much as their contracts said they were supposed to receive.

Of course, twice they received more than their contracts said they were supposed to receive. You just don’t hear them talk about that very much.

Not once have the players received the exact amount their contracts said they were supposed to receive, because another contract – the CBA – overrides all.

So to those arguing it’s the damn owners that are paying the players too much, the owners, as a group, don’t have a choice. Last year, the players were going to get $1.87 billion, regardless of what total player salaries added up to on paper.

As individual teams, however, the owners have a choice. Take the case of the Minnesota Wild, which now boasts one of the league’s highest payrolls thanks to the massive contracts the club awarded Zach Parise and Ryan Suter.

That, for lack of a better term, may have been dumb. Minnesota is a mid-level market; it’s not Toronto or New York.

“Some clubs may spend poorly,” admits Daly.

But Wild owner Craig Leipold believed it was the kind of investment that needed to be made in order to reconnect with fans, get the team back into the playoffs and kick-start future revenue growth. And the only way he was going to get those players was to give them the kind of front-loaded deals the NHL wants to do away with.

Absolutely Leipold was hoping to claw back some of that salary in a new CBA. Was it distasteful? Perhaps. But Parise and Suter knew the score. So the players can spare us with the babe-in-the-woods routine (h/t FBI agent in Goodfellas).

From a public-relations standpoint, what Leipold did looked awful, and you can bet Gary Bettman wasn’t pleased. Most everyone would agree that owners who take massive financial gambles should have to feel serious financial hurt if they don’t work out. That’s business. And no owner should be guaranteed a profit every season.

But it’s unfair to throw Leipold in with all the other small- to mid-market owners that adhere to their self-imposed budgets. It’s those owners that need help, be it through more revenue sharing or reduced player expense. Chances are it will be through both. To which degree of each is the question.

Ultimately a new CBA won’t guarantee every team a profit, and nor should it. If an owner spends his money poorly, then that owner should lose money.

But as it stands, there are owners that could spend their money well and still lose money, and that’s not a sustainable model.

Fortunately, a deal is possible — this isn’t a broken industry.

Which is what makes all this so frustrating. We can see the deal through all the rhetoric and posturing and pandering to fans.

It just needs to happen.

Capitals accuse Letang of leaving his feet, hitting Johansson in head

17 Comments

Get this: the Washington Capitals and Pittsburgh Penguins seem divided on the legality of Kris Letang‘s hit on Marcus Johansson.

(Take a moment to gather your thoughts amid this shocking revelation.)

You can watch the hit over and over in the video above. This post features some takes on that check, which the NHL’s Department of Player Safety is reportedly reviewing.

Generally speaking, the three things people discuss regarding the check is how late it might be, if Letang used his feet and if Johansson’s head was the principal point of contact.

Letang told his side of the story:

The Capitals disagree:

While Barry Trotz pleads the Fifth after his previous comments about Brooks Orpik‘s suspension:

No doubt about it, Letang’s status is the top story to follow in this series between Games 3 and 4. We’ll find out soon enough how it all shakes out.

Penguins ride Murray’s masterpiece to 2-1 series lead vs. Capitals

22 Comments

If Marc-Andre Fleury suiting up bothers Matt Murray, then the rookie goalie channeled those feelings into a masterful performance on Monday.

The Washington Capitals absolutely dominated Game 3, but Murray was even better, stopping 47 shots as the Penguins stole one 3-2 to take a 2-1 series lead.

(Capitals fans might see some parallels to Washington’s Game 5 loss to the Philadelphia Flyers; they fell 2-0 despite a 44-11 shots on goal edge thanks to Michal Neuvirth‘s heroics.)

Murray stopped chance after chance before Alex Ovechkin finally broke through for his first goal of this series. Justin Williams then brought the Penguins’ lead down to 3-2 to make for a hold-your-breath final minute.

A driven Ovechkin and strong overall play from the Capitals (despite this defeat) aren’t the only reasons why Game 4 might present some twists.

First things first: Kris Letang might get suspended for Game 4 (if not for more than one game) thanks to this controversial check on Marcus Johansson.

Beyond that, there could be some bumps and bruises from this contest.

Bryan Rust left during the first period and didn’t return to the game after blocking a shot. Brian Dumoulin seemed shaken up after an Alex Ovechkin hit in the third period. The Capitals might have a player or two to look at, as well.

In other words, the Penguins could really lack for quality defensemen with Letang possibly suspended and possible injury absences for Dumoulin and Olli Maatta.

This series is living up to the hype … and really building up the hate.

Yes, NHL is reportedly looking at Letang’s hit on Johansson

22 Comments

It remains to be seen if Kris Letang will get suspended for his hit on Marcus Johansson … and if he does, for how long.

(You can read initial reactions and some analysis about the specifics of the check vs. the one that got Brooks Orpik suspended here.)

There are a few things we do know already.

For one thing, the NHL’s Department of Player Safety is reportedly looking into it.

Another factor that could help Letang avoid a suspension or limit the duration of supplemental discipline: Marcus Johansson returned during the second period.

In fact, Johansson delivered some hits on Letang.

There have been some nasty moments in Game 3, and more might be coming. The Penguins lead 2-0 with a few minutes remaining in the middle frame.

Kris Letang may face suspension for hit on Marcus Johansson

99 Comments

Update: Reports indicate that the NHL’s Department of Player Safety is indeed looking into the hit.

***

As thrilling as this Pittsburgh Penguins – Washington Capitals series has been, it seems like every game presents another controversial hit.

Game 3’s most noteworthy entry (so far?) came when Kris Letang was whistled for interference on Marcus Johansson.

Penguins fans griped that Brooks Orpik didn’t get a major penalty for his hit on Olli Maatta … now Capitals fans likely feel the same about the check Letang delivered.

Watch it in the video above. Also, Stefanie “My Regular Face” has it in GIF form:

Things could get ugly in Game 3:

One factor in a suspension happening – or at least the duration of the suspension – would be what the point of contact was:

Also, lateness of the check:

The Penguins ended the first period up 2-0 against the Capitals, even though Washington played one of its best 20 minutes of the series. Expect more drama.

Update: The Penguins won the game 3-2.

Read reactions to the check here.