View Single Post
12-09-2012, 05:09 PM
Kriss E
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 34,790
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
1) I think 8+2+2 would be satisfyingly long.

Giving the players exclusive renewal power would be a good compromise to signing a deal that favors the owners.

The owners' offer was only an 8 year deal anyway, as both the owners and players would have the power to cancel it after 8 years.

3) The $500,000 figure is made up and arbitrary. I am trying to think up of something the players could get in return for the concession that is term limits.

I think making the no-trade clause universal or nearly-universal might be sufficient.

4) How far back the compensation packages should be dropped would be a matter of negotiation. I think "half" would be a good start but it could be negotiated left or right.
1) 8years with the option of 2 extra. That's almost double what it was. Yet players want a shorter term. Seems to me like you favor the owners when it comes to term length.

3) Players already get a concession with no trade/movement clause, not sure why they should get another one. Now the NHL also wants to prevent the owners/GMs from sending a player down in the minors without it counting against the cap. That favors the players. They don't need any compensation for getting traded. They get their full money, that's good enough.

4) If all teams had to give was two 1st round picks for a guy like Crosby, then every team in the NHL would be given away offer sheets. We're talking about the top compensation here, two first rounders. That's a joke. It would create a problem.
Half of the compensation is huge.
I think the price is set high enough, and shouldn't be lowered.

Kriss E is offline