View Single Post
Old
12-08-2012, 11:42 PM
  #392
aceface33
Registered User
 
aceface33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Herkimer, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
Some miscellany.

1. Lightning beat reporter Damian Cristodero interviewed B.J. Crombeen. Among other things , regarding the reports that Fehr urged players to hold out for more : "I can say with 100 percent certainty that is 100 percent false"
Well even the supposed source within the PA didn't say that message came from Fehr himself but "trickled down" from other players. Even if it's not true I can see why Fehr would say this- the owners keep offering more the longer the players hold out. At some point they have to sign a deal though if they want a paycheck this season. That point has to be coming up soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
This past week indicates to me that the NHL was hoping to have a distinct advantage in closing a deal with owners directly negotiating with players. Quite obviously, a deal would not have been signed unless the Fehrs eventually became involved again. If in fact owners balked at that idea, or simply insisted on their package proposal being accepted without modification, then it truly was a waste of time and apparently nothing more than a tactic trying to get the best deal out of less informed negotiators (players).

It seems the biggest cog in negotiations now is contract term limits. I can't recall this issue being a central complaint prior to October. Who was ever talking about how long contracts were ruining the game? It was all about big dollars and circumventing cap structures. No other league has such term limits in their CBAs. If almost everything else could be compromised on except this, and the owners drew a line in the sand over a 5 year limit, I can't help but think they are being unreasonable or willing to wait out players at the expense of the game. Since when should contract term limits be an issue worth ending a season over? I understand the desire behind them, and that there are other issues not ironed out yet, but it seems to have taken center stage this week. Seems like a rather ridiculous mandate by owners if they could actually manage to keep contract dollars mostly consistent from season to season.

Bettman has said that the owners are negotiating against themselves, without a willing partner in the NHLPA. From my point of view, owners are simply trying to impose such hardline demands over contracting rights because they and their GMs can't control themselves and agree to reasonable and efficient contracts. They are their own worst enemies.

It's just like the players wanting to make certain rule or equipment changes that may hurt the game. If they could just stop trying to blind-side head shot each other (or the league imposes consistent suspensions that mean something) it wouldn't be an issue.
I believe the NBA has some sort of limit on contract extensions but I could be wrong. Anyways, yes something has to be done to control contracts because in a free market system teams will always spend more to move closer to a championship on the ice. That's just the way it works whether anyone likes it or not. It's not good or bad. However, this free market disadvantages many teams and causes them to lose money, so restrictions have to be put in place to keep the league healthy. It's like in a free market economic system, the purpose of businesses are to make the greatest profit possible. That's not good or bad, that's just how it works. If they can make a bigger profit by employing kids or paying employees 25 cents and hour, they will do it. That's why restrictions are necessary to prevent those things.

aceface33 is offline   Reply With Quote