October 28 2012 05:26PM
This new, regular feature on NHLNumbers will share interesting stats-related posts from around the web almost every day.
Welcome to edition number two of the rebooted Number Chains. In this space you will be able to find the best analytical hockey writing from around the internet on a close-to-daily basis. Subject matter will include statistical evaluation, financial analysis, contractual issues, and (sometimes) closely-related tangential works. If you have something you would like to submit for a future edition (your writing or that of someone else) feel free to send it to me via Twitter @JoshL1220 or leave a comment.
Happy Sunday. We begin today with a piece Tom Tango posted at his site insidethebook.com. Tom explored the question as to whether or not the owners should be obligated to honor player contracts signed with terms that extended past the current CBA. Tom's main point is one that has been reported some in the media, but not nearly enough when discussing the issue:
It’s important to note that even under the old CBA, these “dollar” contracts were really “monopoly dollars”. If these monopoly dollars totalled more than 57% of the revenues the league collected, the players would not be “made whole”.
So, why would the players necessarily be made whole under a new CBA where the players get 50%? Just because they signed a contract that went years beyond the previous CBA?
At the same time, if the teams don’t honor those contracts outside the original CBA years, then those contracts should therefore be declared null and void. That is, the teams have a choice: “make whole” on the contracts (out of their own pockets, not the players), or release the players from their contract altogether. The player has the option to either accept being released from their contract, or accept that they won’t be made whole.
More lockout coverage than you can shake a stick at after the jump.
*From sportingnews.com we have an interview conducted by Jesse Spector with AHL President David Andrews where they discuss the economic impact of the NHL lockout on the AHL and how to grow the league further once the NHL returns.
*Craig Custance of ESPN.com got some funny quotes from Ryan Suter:
"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it," Suter said. "(Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."
As part of their identical contracts, both Suter and Parise received $10 million signing bonuses that were protected from the lockout.
It's amazing that the players are able to play the naive card so well when every major contract signed over the past year has included major signing bonuses as a hedge against contract rollbacks under the upcoming CBA.
*Chris Peters of The United States Of Hockey recently discussed the potential impact of the CBA restrictions on entry level contracts on NCAA hockey and other issues relating to the NCAA.
*Finally today from Hockey Prospectus we have two entries from Matthew Coller. The first is a discussion of 30 players who will be irreparably damaged by the lockout. The second is a story chronicling his lockout inspired trip to see the Binghampton Senators take on the Syracuse Crunch in some AHL action. The final words of his post are an appropriate way to end this edition of Number Chains:
We remembered that the lockout had brought us here, and we hoped we'd never have to come again.