View Single Post
11-03-2012, 04:12 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Now there's a beautiful misuse of statistics isnt it? I might save that one for my collection.

Regardless what happened to the mean average for salaries, the total envelope for salary payments maintained complete cost certainty throughout the deal and rose in direct synchronization with revenues - not a penny faster.

Revenue sharing on the other had, which was also supposed to be linked to revenue became decoupled and shrank. The principle of linkage wasnt fought over there.

If the owners have an ounce of sincerity in the media leak they announced of working towards making whole out of their money rather than future players, then of course they would also be de-linking.

It seems rather poor business judgement to refuse a salary freeze from the players on the grounds that a freeze would be de-linking. Kind of misses the forest for the trees?
Well done. I think this touches on the complexity of the issue. I don't think Fehr wants to be giving up player salaries to the likes of TO, NYR and Mont. Not even a little bit. The NHL on the other hand may have the motivation to do so to get them onside with the lockout strategy.

Originally Posted by JAX View Post
I think the PA was thinking the WC was a big leverage point for them that's why the league had to can it when they did besides time restraints. I still believe Fehr will posture for at least another month until he thinks the gun is at his head and hand on the trigger.
I am interested in what Fehr's strategy actually is. He has had the league negotiating against itself and essentially fighting shadows (eg "make whole"). He has also made comments about the timing of the deal about getting the best deal. I would really like him to publicly address Mossey's continuing point about losing so much in pay that continued resistance can never pay. He has been quoted regarding Bettman's posture in the room and as to whether it meant that the best deal was on the table. Is Fehr going after the cap? Is it waiting for his read of Bettman's position? Does he have a Maginot line under the current CBA framework?
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Again, I challenge someone to come up with a realistic CBA that would benefit players so much that they could recoup even half a season of lost wages - nevermind a full season.

If you can't do that, Fehr is not looking out for the player's best interests.
See above comment. I think de-linking has the potential to recoup although I don't think de-linking will happen or that enough will happen to make it better than accepting a linked deal.
Originally Posted by JAX View Post
Yes, it's no secret that Fehr's master plan is to stall but that doesn't mean he can't come up with proposals and present them. If the league won't negotiate off them then he can continue to posture but so far he really hasn't done squat to show he wants to get a deal done.
This is what leads me to believe that he is going after the cap.
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Not if everyone in the world can already see the outcome. If the ultimate outcome is a linked soft landing 54 52 50 50 or something of the sort, this whole plan of inaction was a waste because it resulted in a de facto rollback of player salaries.

Seriously, any one of us could go in there right now and negotiate a linked soft landing. We could probably get movement on the FA terms as well.

Does Fehr think that sometime in December the NHL will just completely cave and get rid of the cap? I think you guys are giving him too much credit here - his tactics worked to a point but now I think he's overextended and he knows it. Goodenow was a good leader too and got the NHLPA a lot of gravy train years, but in the face of actual owner solidarity he didn't have a plan B either.
I do wonder about plan B myself because I don't think he will get the NHL far enough off linkage myself. I also wonder just how united the players are. Will they break at one year like the last time? Shorter? Longer?

Other stuff:

Generally, I think the league's contracting issues are a method to create cost savings for low and mid-market teams without additional revenue sharing. I think these issues are important to both the players and the league where they are on opposite sides of the fence. Allowing movement early caters to a larger number of players. All but the most elite benefit from early movement and even the most elite derive better NPV in the long run off a shorter road to full free agency.

I do think that the second possibility for Fehr is that he is trying to remove the escrow system. This would be something with which the players are more directly irritated. There are other systems, with linkage, that will achieve the same result.

SJeasy is offline