THN.com Blog: Stoll contract another example of failing CBA
Traded to the Kings earlier this summer, Jarret Stoll signed a deal with the Kings Thursday. (Photo by Andy Devlin/NHLI via Getty Images)
Ken Campbell
2008-09-05 11:08:05
If you’re looking for Reason No. 3,421 why the current collective bargaining agreement isn’t working, look no further than yesterday’s signing of Jarret Stoll by the Los Angeles Kings.
Let’s get this straight: Stoll emerges as a legitimate two-way threat by scoring 68 points in 2005-06. Then gets just seven more points than that over the next two injury-plagued seasons combined and this merits a $1.3-million raise from a team that doesn’t even owe him anything because he has never played for it?
Evidently, it does and Stoll has the owner-friendly CBA to thank for it.
Back when the owners were supposedly putting their feet on the throats of their employees three years ago, they made a horrible mistake. And, as usual, its foundation was rooted in selfishness.
The large-market teams were dragged kicking and screaming into revenue sharing, but they placed a huge caveat on their generosity. They said the poor guys could have their money, but only if they spent to a minimum level, and the salary floor was born.
That floor is $40.7 million for this season and the Kings, woefully under the minimum, had no problem overpaying Stoll in order to get there. So they gave him a $14-million deal over the next four seasons, but will have the added cachet of having Rachel Hunter attend a good number of their home games.
Instead of giving teams the option of opting out of revenue sharing if they didn’t spend to the floor, the owners instead decided to force unnecessary spending on their colleagues. Even deposed NHL Players’ Association czar Bob Goodenow told them not to do it before the mutiny, but they did it anyway.
Related Links
And today we’re in quite a fine mess, aren’t we? The large-market teams are now spending more money in salaries and revenue-sharing payments than they were prior to the lockout and the small-market teams are spending more in salaries than they were four years ago.
And all the while, players such as Stoll are making out like bandits. Most are just being ridiculously overpaid, but Stoll is the first who is overpaid in order to help a team get up to the salary cap floor.
When NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly visits the 30 NHL teams this fall, it will make for an interesting set of meetings. He’ll ask the players whether they have any desire to opt out of the CBA.
After a couple of seconds of silence, they’ll all explode into a fit of laughter.
Ken Campbell is a senior writer for The Hockey News and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog normally appears Tuesdays and Fridays and his column, Campbell's Cuts, appears Mondays.
For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.
daniel (Posted 2008-09-25 07:45:07)
true kings fan... you must not be:) stoll played a grip of different roles while in edmonton and greene is like a matty norstrom type player. i know you are mad like me in losing cammalleri(cancer to the locker room), and visnovsky(only god knows why). everybody was saying that the kings didn't get nothing in the deals lombardi did. i have to disagree. lombardi is going for the future and i think he is doing a good job at it. yeah he traded matty norstrom, jaroslv modry, brad stuart, cammalleri, and visnovsky. he got a total of 13 draft picks out of those trades and stoll and greene. let's just see where it takes us. handzus and calder are heavily overpaid judging by last season yes, but if this experienced coach can light a fire under them and they start playing like the old handzus and calder then watch out. it's better that lombardi went for the experienced coach anyways. why would you want to go with an unexperienced young coach with a team that hasn't proved enything yet. the kings will suprise a lot of people, so be careful what you say because you might just eat your words for dinner. and i hope you do.
jqkeon14 (Posted 2008-09-08 11:04:55)
A significant reason for the rise in the cap is the rise of the Canadian dollar since the lock out to close to par with the U.S. dollar. Since one third of league revenues (a conservative estimate from league comments) are generated by the 6 Canadian teams, and the exchange rate issues are no longer relevant, it is not surprising that total league revenues are up.
The owners should have accounted for the exchange rate issue in the CBA to ensure the CAP rises according to the overall popularity and organic growth of the game and not due to some outside element like exchange rates movements.
Flyer guy 16 (Posted 2008-09-07 14:36:34)
The cap keeps going up because the league was never in as bad a shape as they claimed.Sure, there are some teams on the brink but I don't buy that all of this revenue just appeared after the lock out. We were all scammed by the owners.
I.J.B. (Posted 2008-09-07 14:31:02)
Brett Hull was bang on when he said that players are overpaid crybabies now, compared to the fact that they used to be hardworking hockey players. Does anyone know the reason why the salary cap keeps going up? Why didn't it stay at about 39 or 42 million?
whatsthatsmell (Posted 2008-09-07 12:54:32)
Everyone is right. The CBA is a complete failure. We should have another lockout so we can hammer one out that pleases everybody.
The Dude (Posted 2008-09-06 22:17:01)
Well if Stoll gets this I suppose Peca is worth $5 Million a year. I can't wait for the NHL to fold and we can watch KHL on pay-per view.
TRUE KINGS FAN (Posted 2008-09-06 20:56:11)
Stoll is not a key piece of the puzzle. You can not have a puzzle when its pieces from 16 different puzzles. Flat out the Kings are a MESS!! Dean is now starting his 3 season and his 6th plan for the team
Year one change a 95 point team. Trade its 2 best players for picks and kids. Keep a player that was a total cancer in the locker room. Hire a coach that had no bissness being in the NHL and DAN CLOUTS
Year 2 Keep that same coach. Move a bunch of players at the deadline to early and not get enough in return. OVERPAY for 5 free agents who all turn out to be busts. Give 4 mill a year to a 4th line center. Charge 11 bucks for a Sam Adams. Try and sneak in the playoffs as the 8th seed. Piss off one of your top players in Arbitration then trade hom for nothing. Win a meeningless game in Phoenix to cost you a franchise forward in the Draft and DAN CLOUTS
Year 3 so far..
Trade away 2 of the teams top 5 players and let a 3rd walk. One of them by far one of the top 10 puck moving D-men in the league(like there a dime a dozen) Get CRAP in return. a 3 line player and a 7th Dman.
Bring in nothing in free agency. Wait 3 months to fire a coach then say your going to hire young then hire a retread who no one was going to hire.
Remeber 3 of your top 5 in the lineups are still Dave Taylor guys.
Dean so far I GIVE YOU grade F
Your the worst GM in the league
GoKingsGo (Posted 2008-09-06 12:09:53)
Quite the discussion here today...From the perspective of a long suffering kings fan, all i have to say is that it is about time the ownership started digging into their pockets. The value of any player varies from team to team, and with the Kings, Stoll is sorely needed. So for his contract to be "inflated" is something I am not willing to say. In Detroit, he wouldn't make the same kind of money because his role would not be as important. My point is, although the CBA has its weaknesses, the same basic principles still apply. In Los Angeles, Stoll is a key piece of the puzzle. Therefore, worth more to the organization. Kudos to his agent for a great deal!
Brian Kemp (Posted 2008-09-06 10:39:18)
Brian P, my mistake. I just thought I remembered the prevailing sentiment being that the owners caved in 95. Mark, the difference is, the teams you mentioned wouldn't have signed him to a 4 year deal on a gamble. They would have brought him in for a year, let him try to prove himself, and then rewarded him if they did. R.C. , the problem is, he hasn't earned his money yet. He might be worth the money at the end of the deal, but too many teams are paying guys for what they haven't earned. It's driving salaries up across the board. If he doesn't turn out to be worth the money, some player agent can still correctly point out his salary as a reason why his client, who also hasn't earned the fat paycheck yet, should get a huge raise. I'm all for paying a guy what he's worth, and I don't blame Stoll (trust me, if someone offered me the money, my response wouldn't be "I haven't earned that yet"), but GM's need to pay guys based on track record. His track record is a guy with potential and injury problems. If I had my way, the maximum salary would be a lower chunk of the total team payroll, allowing teams to keep their young stars together.
daniel (Posted 2008-09-05 23:06:37)
the CBA has always been a joke and something that has been needing revamping ever since the season after they created it. it's been talked about over and over again and will be until the problem is fixed. as for Stoll being overpaid, that isn't anything new for the kings. they pay michal handzus 4 million a year to score 7 goals and 21 points. at the same time the kings need to hit the league minimum so why not overpay him. plus he is a versatile player that can play many different roles, so maybe who knows, he wasn't underpaid. i think he will be good for the kings and the guys got a booming slapshot that can go very well on the point when the kings are on the powerplay. i think the kings paid him right and i think he is gonna have a good season. plus i like the fact that it's a 4 year deal. i wish they would of offered something like this to cammalleri though, maybe he wouldn't of been so much a cancer to the team if he got paid right. now he's playing with iginla, he'll now probably hit 100 points playing with a guy like that. he'll definetly have 40+ goals i think playing with one of the games greastest playmakers in the game today. but stoll will have a good season.
Gordon (Posted 2008-09-05 21:17:22)
what has always confused me the most is how people would rather support some old rich fat man getting richer instead of the player on the ice making more. the only way i support smaller player salaries is if the NHL made a ticket price cap where people that make an average wage could afford to go more than once every season. until then i hope the players salaries go so high that the NHL ownership makes not a penny. the owners and betman have made the NHL a second rate league over the last ten years.
Flyer guy 16 (Posted 2008-09-05 20:08:12)
Well said Cid, the owners are scam artists and we were all taken during the lock out. If they can't make it with this system let them go down the drain and contract the league.The owners have lost all respect and credibility with this fan, especially after this last free agent summer.
Cid from Indiana (Posted 2008-09-05 19:58:33)
So let me get this straight- the OWNER CAUSED lockout and OWNER APPROVED CBA is screwing over the owners? Please.
eldrick (Posted 2008-09-05 19:02:07)
Campbel'ls point on the cap floor hurting is correct. A team has to be allowed to bottom-out during eco-slowdows to minimize losses and be in a position to rebound. A cap floor drags out costs and the bottoming process, forcing teams to play behind the curve rather than neck & neck. The chances of a DSterling type ownership as a client entertainment vehicle or a CGriffith buy and hold / run it like a ma-pa grocery store are very very slim in current markets.
Rangers57 (Posted 2008-09-05 18:05:27)
This CBA business sure is a mess in my view. While I don't want to see the NHL return to the years of owner dominence, there sure does seem to be something that is out of whack! If I were the owner of a large/big market team, I don't think that I would be to willing to buy into profit sharing with a small market team. Why would I want to share my profits with a team that is struggling, when maybe the answer is to reduce the number of teams in the NHL. During the years of expansion, it was argued by many the (expansion) would create more jobs for hockey players. While that was correct, I think that it also changed the quality of the game in bringing in too many players that maybe shouldn't be playing in the NHL. Again this is only a thought. I'm sure the owners will look at this CBA and want it changed, but I sure don't think that it will be changed for the better.
Brian P (Posted 2008-09-05 17:54:13)
Brian Kemp, I did mean 1995. Most commentators back in 1995 were saying what a great deal it was for the owners, a deal without a salary cap or salaries tied to revenue at all. This is why I laugh when the owners start to cry poor heading into every labour negotiation, because every time they'd negotiated a deal in the past they came out of it convinced they'd crushed the union and had a workable system. And the really sad part is that in some sense, they've been right: every system they've gotten could've worked if management had acted with a bit of common sense. Once again, the NHL's worst enemy is themselves, and until they figure that out nothing they do is going to work.
Pat (Posted 2008-09-05 16:07:49)
Columnists like Ken Campbell like to pick apart the CBA and rip apart the Kings for their apparent inability to reach the cap floor this coming season... YAWN... it's getting old. Do some research. The Kings will not forfeit any games this season because of the cap and their signing of Stoll is a solid move for an up and coming franchise. Get a grip.
nick (Posted 2008-09-05 15:49:47)
As an Oilers fan it was obvious he was not needed in edmonton anymore. He wanted more money, which if he remembered how to multitask after his concussion and remembered how to stand, breathe, and skate he would have fit in. But from the get go he seemed out of place and only got into his niche when the first line was out and kids took over.
He was also frustrated with the team because he did not get the C that he thought he deserved. (not bs)
He is a good player though and will help the kings out immensly, if not on the ice at least on the salary cap.
he is kinda like raffi torres, might be good, might be bad... depends all on what time he got up and where in the sky the moon was that night...
Micha Pesta (Posted 2008-09-05 15:49:39)
Another article from Campbell criticising the CBA, what a shocker. Ken, when are you going to stop telling everyone how bad the CBA is and start offering some solutions? You've got 3000+ reasons as to why its terrible and not a single tidbit as to how you would improve it. Try coming up with a new angle for once.
Dean Lombardi (Posted 2008-09-05 15:09:46)
If this contract was just about the Kings getting to the floor, I doubt they would've signed him to a 4-year deal. I think they genuinely want Stoll to be a part of their future and expect him to improve on last year and get back to what he was before. And if it's true that everyone sees LA as just a punching-bag, they won't for long. There are some very good young players in that organization.
R.C. (Posted 2008-09-05 14:48:51)
As an Oilers fan that knows something about Stoll's history, I need to correct everybody about something.
He is one year removed from a good season. Prior to his concussion problems, he has steadily improved every single season. The year he got hurt (the middle of the season two years ago), he was on pace for his best season, and was easily the Oilers best player. And he finished the season last year playing close to it too.
Stoll, at his best, is one of the top faceoff players in the game, a decent two way player that can player that can play even strength, on the point on the PP, and short handed. He is physical, can keep up in a good skating system, and is a leader in the dressing room. He was a candidate for captian material, and is an assistant captian. His usefullness, especially to a young team like the Kings will be greatly valued. I bet you he will return to form and will easily be worth his contract.
Mark (Posted 2008-09-05 14:29:03)
It ain't the contract, it's where he signed it. More and more I believe that most of the rest of the NHL just sees the Kings (and a few other teams) as necessary punching bags--a date on the calendar where more popular/more successful teams are pretty much guaranteed a victory. While that's probably true for this year and a few more, any attempt to pull us out of the cellar by taking any kind of risk is met with open scorn, and not just from a few homer fans.
If Stoll had started here rather than in Edmonton, gotten hurt, and then signed the same contract in, say, Detroit, this guy would be crowing about the \"sound management policies\" of an established contender who reached down and lifted up a \"potential gem\" out of the rubbish heap of a failed organization. In Colorado or Dallas, it would've been a \"smart gamble\" from a \"great front office\". Here, it's a black mark on the league itself.
Apparently the Kings are supposed to be the one team that helps the league keep salaries tightly in check, unless the hometown of the hack writing the piece has an overage, overpaid former star to dump off. Then it's OK to take on the payroll, provided we gratefully provide our best and brightest for their trash, and say thank you for the privilege.
Brian Kemp (Posted 2008-09-05 14:06:55)
Brian P, do you mean 2005? Because I don't think any commentators were saying the owners got a good deal in 1995. Stoll got grossly overpaid, worse than the deal for Ryder, who was at least one season removed from being a good player. It's not as bad as the Finger signing, though. When the CBA is up, you better believe the owners are going to be looking to change some things, although I'm not sure the big market guys will be as willing to put up with another whole season lost to stupidity. The small market teams "won" the last lockout, and they'll be the ones whining the most next time around. I'm thinking the owners will want to change things, but they won't all be going in the same direction.
Brian P (Posted 2008-09-05 13:50:55)
Y'know, I remember way back in 1995, when every commentator was saying what a killer the new CBA was for the players, and what a great deal the owners got with it, how thye'd finally be able to get ahold of costs and, as Bettman put it, level the playing field. Man, those were the days.
John (Posted 2008-09-05 13:46:15)
I don't see the sense in criticizing the cap floor. Without a minimum you end up with a subset of teams whose owners spend nothing and are perennial losers so they can maximize profits while getting top draftpicks to draw fans. Bad idea. What this CBA lacked, and the next one needs, is real profit sharing and/or an additional hedge against currency fluctuation.
Carter (Posted 2008-09-05 12:46:05)
AND...
The Kings bought up 3 years of Stoll UFA status, and overpayed him a bit for that.
Carter (Posted 2008-09-05 12:44:23)
The we're never at any great risk of not reaching the floor once you factor in the contracts they still have to give out to O'Sullivan and Richardson, and when you consider the cap hit ($3.5 roughly) of signing Doughty.
The CBA is failing, but not so much for this reason.
Yves Thomas (Posted 2008-09-05 12:43:02)
Dumb move by the kings, they should of given him a high 1 year salary because they have players in for a raise, Kopitar will ask for a minimum of 5 million next year with the contract that stoll got? They should keep there salary cap low like in basketball so when you want Zeeterberg or Hossa next year you could outbid everybody and get him.
Adam (Posted 2008-09-05 11:29:26)
Im the GM of the Kings in my fantasy league and only payed Stoll 2.5 million, but I had to give Teppo Nummined 4mill to get to the cap floor
Advertisement
What should the Ottawa Senators do?
"Contrary to what is being reported by the media, I have made no decisions with respect to any personnel changes within the Senators organization. Winning remains our No. 1 priority and there is a collective focus by our management, our coaching staff and our players to deliver this to our fans."
- Senators owner Eugene Melnyk on a possible coaching change.
Our Partners
The Hockey News Corporation. All Rights Reserved © 2008 Transcontinental
Standards: XHTML 1.0 STRICT + CSS 2. V 1.5 17.09.2008
