HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Next year Lockout?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2004, 10:28 AM
  #1
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,680
vCash: 500
Next year Lockout?

I have a question about next years lockout. If there is no hockey next year cause of a lock-out, does that year counts on the players under contract? Martin Lapointehas one year left on his contract. If there is no hockey next year, does he still have is one year left or is he a UFA for the next year?

The logical thing would be that he still have his year under contract (as everybody else who is signed) cause they are paid to play.

I understand that if they play a short schedule like the last lock-out when they played a 48 games schedule, they would be paid in the pro-rata of game played (In the Lapointe case: 48/82 X 5.5M$) and it would count as a year on his contract. But what if there is NO hockey? Does we still have him under contract untill he plays his year (as long as the year would be... be it 82 games, 48 games, etc.)?

Did anybody heard what could/will happen?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 11:15 AM
  #2
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,608
vCash: 500
Yes He Does

The contracts are only honored if there is play.

It will be as if the lost time never happened.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 11:26 AM
  #3
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41
I have a question about next years lockout. If there is no hockey next year cause of a lock-out, does that year counts on the players under contract? Martin Lapointehas one year left on his contract. If there is no hockey next year, does he still have is one year left or is he a UFA for the next year?

The logical thing would be that he still have his year under contract (as everybody else who is signed) cause they are paid to play.

I understand that if they play a short schedule like the last lock-out when they played a 48 games schedule, they would be paid in the pro-rata of game played (In the Lapointe case: 48/82 X 5.5M$) and it would count as a year on his contract. But what if there is NO hockey? Does we still have him under contract untill he plays his year (as long as the year would be... be it 82 games, 48 games, etc.)?

Did anybody heard what could/will happen?
I do not believe he will be under contract for the next year. We are only obligated through next season and if there is a strike or lockout it is tough crap for players under contract.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 11:33 AM
  #4
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,608
vCash: 500
They Will Be Honored Bruwinz..At Least Thats what I Am Told

In the event of a lockout or strike, contracts are suspended until the next season in which play occurs.

They dont get paid while under a lockout. And they wont lose the money that is owed to them by the team. They simply get paid when they play again.

In other words, if they are locked out/strike for 3 years...we are still on the hook for Lapointes final year.

Only way this can be avoided is if the owners and the NHLPA agree to wipe out that years salary.

No way the players agree to losing a years worth of salary.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 12:59 PM
  #5
WBC8
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,476
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Not an expert in labor negotiations, but I think if you are "locked out" you still are due your pay when a settlement is reached. If you go on "strike" you lose your pay and benefits until you are back on the job....

WBC8 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 02:41 PM
  #6
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from Maine
In the event of a lockout or strike, contracts are suspended until the next season in which play occurs.

They dont get paid while under a lockout. And they wont lose the money that is owed to them by the team. They simply get paid when they play again.

In other words, if they are locked out/strike for 3 years...we are still on the hook for Lapointes final year.

Only way this can be avoided is if the owners and the NHLPA agree to wipe out that years salary.

No way the players agree to losing a years worth of salary.

Later
I could be...and probably am mistaken, but I am thinking the opposite. Does it mean that Lapointe will simply be on the team in 2006 if all of 2005 is wiped out?

I know that last lockout the players did not get their full salaries I do not believe. If that logic is extrapolated to a full season then they dont get squat. Like I said I am probably mistaken.

Or how about this scenario. We sign a guy to a three year deal before the lockout. Do we owe him three more years after next if the lockout takes a whole season or do we just owe him the remaining two? I am sure specific writing in the contract would dictate this though.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 02:43 PM
  #7
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8
Not an expert in labor negotiations, but I think if you are "locked out" you still are due your pay when a settlement is reached. If you go on "strike" you lose your pay and benefits until you are back on the job....
If there is no CBA does it really matter if we call it a lockout or strike? It is essentially the same thing. No collective bargaining agreement means no play. I guess it is only considered a strike if the players stop playing during a season where there is a CBA, but to me this isnt much different.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:09 PM
  #8
WBC8
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Da Wood, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 34,476
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruwinz20
If there is no CBA does it really matter if we call it a lockout or strike? It is essentially the same thing. No collective bargaining agreement means no play. I guess it is only considered a strike if the players stop playing during a season where there is a CBA, but to me this isnt much different.
True. I wonder if the deals will expire. It would be nice to get rid of Lapointe's 5 mil.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:14 PM
  #9
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8
True. I wonder if the deals will expire. It would be nice to get rid of Lapointe's 5 mil.
Maybe, but Gonchar (as a lot of other players) would become UFA also...

I think that if there is no 2004-2005 seson, than Lapointe would still be on the hook for 5M$ in 2005-2006 but if there is a short schedule like in 94-95 when they played 48 games, than the players would get paid in pro-rata and a year would run off the contract... i may be wrong...

Anybody knows for sure what would happen? Maybe some of our insiders knows?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:15 PM
  #10
Bruin_Ron
Registered User
 
Bruin_Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8
True. I wonder if the deals will expire. It would be nice to get rid of Lapointe's 5 mil.
Is there any chance he would renegotiate for a longer term contract?

Say $8 million over three years or something?

Bruin_Ron is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:23 PM
  #11
neelynugs
Registered User
 
neelynugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vote Quimby!
Posts: 29,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin_Ron
Is there any chance he would renegotiate for a longer term contract?

Say $8 million over three years or something?
lapointe should be ecstatic to get 8 million more from boston. i wouldn't pay him more than 1.5 million per year
if he signed a 3 year deal for 4.5 million, i think he'd become a fan favorite

neelynugs is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:26 PM
  #12
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin_Ron
Is there any chance he would renegotiate for a longer term contract?

Say $8 million over three years or something?
I hope Lapointe realises he rubbed the Bruins and sign for 1M$ a year after his present contract. I really love Lapointe but he is way overpayed. He is what he is. A very energetic sight-and-destroy type of 3rd-4th liner but he's paid like a top 6 player. The year we signed Lapointe i was so bummed cause i couldn't understand why they gave Lapointe that kind of money while letting Allison go over money. But i like Lapointe and i would keep him on my team as a third-fourth liner (and getting paid like one...).

Your idea is a good one and O'C should explore that option. If he could renegociate with Lapointe and giving him 8M$ over 3 years, it would be like us signing him 2.5M$ for 2 years after this year. So it would look more like 3-2.5-2.5 than 5.5? It would give the Bruins more flexibility for this year and we would keep a good veteran for 3 years. Would Lapointe does this? I don't know. But if i was O'C, i would at least ask...

And if Bruwinz20 is right, than if there is no hockey next year, Lapointe contract would be over the year after...

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 04:36 PM
  #13
Bruin_Ron
Registered User
 
Bruin_Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,008
vCash: 500
I wholeheartedly agree with you about $1.5 million and Lapointe becoming a fan favourite.

The thing is there's little incentive for Lapointe to renegotiate a 3 year/$4.5 million dollar contract when he's due another $5 million next year alone.

Basically with my 3 year/$8 million proposition, we're giving him his $5 million for next year and then the next two at $1.5 million.

Bruin_Ron is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 05:49 PM
  #14
mattkaz
Registered User
 
mattkaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 847
vCash: 500
Nest question.... Do hockey video games continue with release if there's a lockout???

mattkaz is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 06:30 PM
  #15
erfus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41
Maybe, but Gonchar (as a lot of other players) would become UFA also...

I think that if there is no 2004-2005 seson, than Lapointe would still be on the hook for 5M$ in 2005-2006 but if there is a short schedule like in 94-95 when they played 48 games, than the players would get paid in pro-rata and a year would run off the contract... i may be wrong...

Anybody knows for sure what would happen? Maybe some of our insiders knows?
I think in Gonchar's case, if he refuses arbitration, he wouldn't technically be under contract. When play starts up again (say, if they lose the whole year), would not he be an UFA due to his age and the fact that he has no contract?

I'd guess 'yes.'

erfus is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 07:31 PM
  #16
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,658
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by erfus
I think in Gonchar's case, if he refuses arbitration, he wouldn't technically be under contract. When play starts up again (say, if they lose the whole year), would not he be an UFA due to his age and the fact that he has no contract?

I'd guess 'yes.'
Not unless the next CBA pushes the FA age to 32!

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 11:41 PM
  #17
erfus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruwinz20
Not unless the next CBA pushes the FA age to 32!
Hmm...I wonder if I've stumbled upon a "tactic" to be used by those restricted FAs that want a change in scenery and a shot at UFA. If the UFA age is, as many have speculated, to be lowered to 28 or so, then (if you're 28 and over) why not refuse arbitration, suffer through the year-long lockout, and come back looking to cash in?

To answer my own question: 1) a flooded market may screw up the supply/demand curve, 2) the new CBA may be less favorable than what you'd make in arbitration. Still, there are positives (long term contract offers security, ability to move to a more desirable team, etc.)

erfus is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 08:45 AM
  #18
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,608
vCash: 500
Bruwinz

Hey...

Like you, and everyone else, I am no expert on this, but here are a few things that I am all but positive of...

1. Very FEW players have any lock out related language in their contracts. A contract is simply an extension of the CBA. They are not really documents that differ from player to player. Its all written in the same language, same structure etc... Only thing that differs are the figures. Bonuses are all from the same formula as well.

2. There is a BIG difference between a lock out and a strike. During a lock out, the players are technically being prohibited from plying their trade. Yet, they WILLING become a non-union enitity once the CBA runs out, by not agreeing to extend it by another year. The CBA language states that it is to be renewed from year to year unless the parties choose not to...kind of like an automatic rollover. Once the CBA is ended, the players essentiall lose all of their rights....except the right to have their existing contracts honored.

3. Your correct about pro-rated contracts if the sides agree to resume play after a lock-out. This happens because the sides agree to a new CBA. But if they sit out a full year, their is no agreement to honor and contracts dont start up again. Thusly, the contracts are suspended until play resumes.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 09:36 AM
  #19
Jesarino
Verified!
 
Jesarino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bahston's Nawth End
Country: United States
Posts: 839
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Jesarino Send a message via MSN to Jesarino Send a message via Yahoo to Jesarino
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkaz
Nest question.... Do hockey video games continue with release if there's a lockout???
I do contract work for a company that is coming out with a new simulation style game this summer... ...so I know a little about this. The current CBA does not say anything about video games...but the NHLPA does control the licensing of player names and team names. I have an electronic copy of the current CBA . There's some very interesting stuff in there and it's 120 some odd pages. It really makes you think that they will never get a new one done if they have to go over every single thing in the old one.

My guess would be that if there is no hockey, the games would still come out, but perhaps with the labor issues they could decide to not give out any licenses. This would mean that the player names would be replaced by fake names.

Another interesting thing about video games and the NHL. The NHLPA freaks about salaries being in a game. Thats why so many games nowadays have a points based budget.

Jesarino is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 09:41 AM
  #20
Jeff from Maine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,608
vCash: 500
The Games Are Going To Be Released

ESPN news actually did a feature on them last night...pretty cool if anyone got the chance to see it.

Reps from the game industry said that they are without question going to be released on time and names WILL be in the game.

Only thing that may end up being a hitch in their plans will be players who move from team to team....may not be enough time to compile accurate rosters.

One game, ESPN Hockey 2005, has actually added the American Hockey League and its rosters to their new game.

Sounds pretty cool if you like that sort of thing.

Later

Jeff from Maine is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 11:51 AM
  #21
Terry O
Registered User
 
Terry O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NH:WILDCAT Country
Country: United States
Posts: 2,217
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Terry O
CBA link

Here's a link to the CBA agreement, if you need something to put you to sleep. http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/index.html

Terry O is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 12:00 PM
  #22
Mike B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 500
I think the very restrictive UFA rules imposed by the owners actually helped to do them in!

It seems to the owners' advantage not to allow players to become UFAs until age 31.

Over 99% of NHL players have already seen their best days by the time they are 31 and become UFAs.

But, the owners failed to understand this when it came time for them to bid on UFAs. As a result, they spent top dollar on what usually turn out to be second tier players.

This caused the RFAs in their late 20s to want more money, since the top ones were, in most cases, outproducing the UFAs who had signerd big contracts.

That kind of huge imbalance betwwen the actual top players and the top salaried players is what has caused a lot of the problems between management and players.

Mike B. is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.