View Single Post
11-15-2012, 06:05 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,191
vCash: 500
I generally agree with your line of thought but maybe see a few of the details in a different light.

Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
To the owners yes, but not to the players which makes the owners' position all the more puzzling. Assuming long term deals and expensive 2nd contracts count against the players' share (which they would), then those things won't have one iota of an effect on teams' bottom lines. I can understand wanting to end long term retirement contracts, but the rest of the stuff is silly.
You're pretty much right about this. On an economic basis, the owners shouldn't really care how their spend on salaries will be distributed if the players' share is hard-linked to revenues. At the same time, the players should as a whole also be somewhat indifferent - some players will gain from the changes and some will lose (vets hitting UFA status will be able to consume a bigger portion of the players' share, while younger players will suffer). Adding everything up, it's a zero sum game for both parties. This is what leads me to believe that both sides are really just posturing on this issue and that it is not the sticking point that is holding up a deal.

The only reason why I think it would make sense for the NHL to want all of these rules is because it would allow less attractive destinations to keep talent longer and give less wealthy teams a way to ice competitive teams at a price point at the lower end of payroll scale. Basically it means that talented young players will be a bargain relative to their on-ice impact.

Overall, I really don't like the NHL's proposed changes. Although as a fan I do look back fondly at the pre-free agency days when teams owned players for life, the current system is really pretty fair in my opinion. It strikes a good balance between allowing teams the chance to retain talent and letting the big money go to the most deserving talent.

Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
The NHL's last offer was very close to the NHLPA's 3rd proposal from Oct. 18th in terms of dollars, but they're still miles apart in terms of the other stuff. If the NHL offered something close to the status quo on contract rules but with their last offer in terms of dollars I suspect we'd have seen a deal done. The fact that they're not even negotiating right now suggests to me that the NHLPA sees those issues as being very important.
I think that you're right that the structure of the NHL's last offer is actually pretty close the the PA's 3rd concept that day. The thing is though, look at how the PA responded to the NHL's offer. Instead of presenting a counter-offer within that same framework, one that the PA first proposed, it instead comes back with a 3 year offer with fixed raises. This tells me that the PA simply wasn't ready to deal at that point. Fehr thinks he has time to hold out for a better offer, so he basically decided to shut down negotiations and continue the game of chicken. It has worked so far, right?

In the meantime, the PA starts fuming about a secondary issue. The NHL doesn't want to give up that negotiating chip without resolution on the economic issues, so things go nowhere until the 11th hour nears.

Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Part of successful negotiating is figuring out what means a lot to the other side but doesn't affect you all that much and using that as a carrot to get what's important to you. The NHL has failed in this regard.
You're right about this principle. In my mind though, the only thing that matters to either side is the money, which is where we disagree. As far as I can see, this whole lockout comes down to money and nothing more.

Last edited by Chubros: 11-16-2012 at 02:46 AM. Reason: Punctuation
Chubros is offline