View Single Post
10-24-2012, 11:18 PM
Registered User
hockeydoug's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Leaving out all the contractual negotiations, which were far better after the lockout then they were offered before the lockout.
It was better after than before no matter how you slice it.

42.5 cap with no link to revenue <<<<<<< 39 cap with link ended up being a MAJOR win for the PA. Of course the 24% rollback was a loss, and thats why there was a lockout.

And this is why we have another lockout, the players are tired of being pushed around, and the owners want to put an end to the contract terms that the PA fought for in the last lockout.
I think you are mistaken. The offer was not for 7 years and was not a hard 42.5 by comparison to the deal they took later.
  • They lost 750 million through the lost partial 05' season
  • They lost about 75 million from that offer in 06'
  • Another 60+ million was lost (from 05' offer, mostly escrow) in 07'
  • They PA netted + 100 million from the 05' offer after 08'
  • Escrow killed them in 09' minimizing their gains to maybe 100 million despite a huge uptick in salaries.
  • In 2010 they probably made about 200 million above the 05' offer even though they were hammered on escrow losses again
  • They made more still in 2011 with smaller escrow losses netting about 350 million ish over the 05' offer.

My numbers (I'll happily post sites to support but it's a boring enough topic) do NOT include inflation which would be 20% + based on the U.S. dollar over Feb 2005 to the end of 2011. I also did not include all the 24% wiped off of the contracts.

There is almost no way to calculate that the PA took a net gain on the second offer in total compensation through 6 years, and they lost after all adjustments made with reasonable assumptions of spending on average of a few million below the cap ceiling. I believe that's why we hear the players talk about what they gave up. The overwhelming majority of individuals took a net loss. Many never played another NHL game and any player who retired the first 5 years after the lockout did not have enough time to recoup their losses.

Had the players taken the first offer, not only would their negotiating position had been stronger for the next CBA (last year) but they would have kept more money overall.

On a different note, I guess loosely relevant because of the lockout, I can't believe Verlander was chased so early tonight.

hockeydoug is offline