View Single Post
12-10-2012, 10:44 PM
Usually Incorrect
rt's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,245
vCash: 500
I can't believe they won't agree to something. Gary Bettman's list of three hills he will die on are too close to what the NHLPA is offering. And the only places they aren't close are areas that are meaningless to 95% of NHLPA union members.

PA wants a six year out, and NHL is offering eight. Call it a seven year CBA and be done with it.

PA wants 75% variance (absurd but makes not a damn bit of difference to 95% of players) and NHL wants 5% variance. Call it 15%. It's limiting enough on contracts less than eight years to keep contracts from being embarrassing. It curbs overt, shameless cap circumvention and limits the huge gap between rich and poor teams.

NHL wants five year limits on player contracts with new teams and seven year limits for re-signings. If variance is capped at fifteen percent there is no reason worth dying on a hill for. Call it seven year limits across the board. Hell, if it gets a deal done, let re-signings go to nine years. (Age 35-37 capped at five years, 38-39 at three years, and 40+ at two years)

NHL wants no transitional off the books money such as amnesty buy outs or soft caps. This one is a little tough. With make whole, there really shouldnt be. Maybe let teams make one or two trades in which they pay half of the salary and eat half the hit for the length of the deal. That way guys don't get bought out and lose money and the full cap hit is on the books but shared by two teams. No money off the books, no guys losing dollars. Win/win.

This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is offline   Reply With Quote