HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Rumor

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2004, 08:43 AM
  #1
Hankenstein
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
CBA Rumor

My boss is a very good freind of Don Lagreca from ESPN and here is an e-mail he sent me this morning:

Don said this is this closest solution on the table right now to avoid a NHL work stopage:

31 Million hard salary cap. Every team keeps the player they want to keep, all of the rest go into a draft. Once a team picks a player from the free agent pool of players, the team he came from has to pay his salary until the contract expires.

So if the Rangers cant keep Holik because he makes too much and puts NY over the 31 Million, he'll go into the pool of players. Say the Bluejackets re-draft him, the Rangers have to keep paying him.

It would be beneficial for the players to re-work existing contracts.


Thoughts??

Hankenstein is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 08:47 AM
  #2
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 500
I can't see how that players would agree to this.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 08:56 AM
  #3
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
We may not see hockey for two seasons if this is the deal. Don't we live in a free market society?

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 08:57 AM
  #4
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99
I can't see how that players would agree to this.

Thought the same thing. I can't see Bobby Holik allowing his service to go 1st overall in a veteran draft to the Atlanta Thrashers.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:01 AM
  #5
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,169
vCash: 500
I cant see large market teams doing this. No team wants to pay a player thats going to help another team win. I cant see the Large Market Owners backing this proposal.

free0717 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:04 AM
  #6
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,161
vCash: 500
The bad thing, is that Bettman continues to behave as though his first option is to cancel the season. What is even worse than that, is that is seems that Bettman has actually convinced himself that cancelling the season is good for the game. Unless this cretin has a major changeover in his thinkingm the NHL is doomed.
I used to think that MAYBE hockey could survive a 1 year lockout, definetly not 2. But recently I have changed my mind. Attendance dropped like a rock following the most successfull season in NHL history (1994) when they started the season several months late. This time, the NHL will die if the cancel just 1 season. And the damage that the league would suffer (fan-wise, so that means future attendance-wise) from even a 3 month late start would be incalculable.

True Blue is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:21 AM
  #7
RinkOnEStreet
Registered User
 
RinkOnEStreet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 1,064
vCash: 500
...somebody certainly made that up...what a load of crap...I sure as hell hope that isn't the "best" offer out there...because the NHL will die if it is.

RinkOnEStreet is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:25 AM
  #8
L.I.RangerFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Enemy Land - Long Is
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobis13
My boss is a very good freind of Don Lagreca from ESPN and here is an e-mail he sent me this morning:

Don said this is this closest solution on the table right now to avoid a NHL work stopage:

31 Million hard salary cap. Every team keeps the player they want to keep, all of the rest go into a draft. Once a team picks a player from the free agent pool of players, the team he came from has to pay his salary until the contract expires.

So if the Rangers cant keep Holik because he makes too much and puts NY over the 31 Million, he'll go into the pool of players. Say the Bluejackets re-draft him, the Rangers have to keep paying him.

It would be beneficial for the players to re-work existing contracts.



Thoughts??
What happens if a player like Holik isn't drafted? Still leaves teams over the cap and paying the salary.

For the attorneys here: What is the legality of something like this. I know Rodent had a write up awhile ago :

http://www.leaderboard.com/RODENTZM.HTM (Part 1)
http://www.leaderboard.com/RODENTZN.HTM (Part 2)


which questions the legality. IMHO I believe that US and Canadian labor laws would be violated in some way.

L.I.RangerFan is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:28 AM
  #9
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burny
...somebody certainly made that up...what a load of crap...I sure as hell hope that isn't the "best" offer out there...because the NHL will die if it is.
I think larry brooks had the same thing not to long ago. So i guess somebody did make it up

Hey it makes good conversation on a slow news day. If this is the deal on the table then it makes me think the league would settle for a 45 million hard cap. My reasoning is they can say it beats a 30 million dollar hard cap. I don't think the players will make a deal if a hard cap is involved. I predict there is no hockey next season and this thing ends up in court next summer. That's how baseball came back in 1995. I do think teams are losing money but..................... that's all on the owners. You can't blame a player for taking money the owners are willing giving them. I think there needs to be some sort of market correction but negotiations in bad faith from both sides is not going to settle this thing.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 09:34 AM
  #10
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.I.RangerFan
What happens if a player like Holik isn't drafted? Still leaves teams over the cap and paying the salary.

For the attorneys here: What is the legality of something like this. I know Rodent had a write up awhile ago :

http://www.leaderboard.com/RODENTZM.HTM (Part 1)
http://www.leaderboard.com/RODENTZN.HTM (Part 2)


which questions the legality. IMHO I believe that US and Canadian labor laws would be violated in some way.
Arne't the sports leagues exempt from some labor leagal issues b/c they are essentially legalized monopolies? If the NHL IMPOSED a rule that the players disagreed with, they could strike and a file a law suit, but I don't think the dept. of labor (or labour for our nothern neighbors) would just step in.

Forechecker is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:00 AM
  #11
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobis13
My boss is a very good freind of Don Lagreca from ESPN and here is an e-mail he sent me this morning:

Don said this is this closest solution on the table right now to avoid a NHL work stopage:

31 Million hard salary cap. Every team keeps the player they want to keep, all of the rest go into a draft. Once a team picks a player from the free agent pool of players, the team he came from has to pay his salary until the contract expires.

So if the Rangers cant keep Holik because he makes too much and puts NY over the 31 Million, he'll go into the pool of players. Say the Bluejackets re-draft him, the Rangers have to keep paying him.

It would be beneficial for the players to re-work existing contracts.


Thoughts??
Makes no sense, and I don't see how this would happen.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:29 AM
  #12
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
there is absolutely zero chance of this ever happening...the NHLPA will never agree to that and the owners of teams like the rangers, flyers, red wings, etc would sue the league if bettman tried to force them to pay for players on other teams

NYR469 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:37 AM
  #13
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
makes perfect sense..

the Rangers have to pay for other players that are not on their team. And everybody else with payrolls over $31 million, which is going to include New Jersey and other teams. This is horrible. We in New York will have to pay the inflated ticket prices so players the Rangers signed can play elsewhere. Oooo, where do I sign up? We may never see NHL hockey again at this rate. A stoppage, even for a few months, will hurt immensely as it will be the second stoppage in 10 years. A prolonged strike could be very detrimental.

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:40 AM
  #14
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
the Rangers have to pay for other players that are not on their team. And everybody else with payrolls over $31 million, which is going to include New Jersey and other teams. This is horrible. We in New York will have to pay the inflated ticket prices so players the Rangers signed can play elsewhere. Oooo, where do I sign up? We may never see NHL hockey again at this rate. A stoppage, even for a few months, will hurt immensely as it will be the second stoppage in 10 years. A prolonged strike could be very detrimental.
the devils right now have a 55 million dollar payroll. Thats good news to me because lou will has a lot of standing with the board of govenors. I don't think there will be hockey next season but i'm hopeful there will be. This is the owners trying to police themselves and its BS

Son of Steinbrenner is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 12:56 PM
  #15
Hankenstein
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
Just to clear things up....

Personally I think the idea is ridiculous. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

I just wanted to pass it along to start some conversation since it's been pretty dead the past few days...

Hankenstein is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 02:31 PM
  #16
L.I.RangerFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Enemy Land - Long Is
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker
Arne't the sports leagues exempt from some labor leagal issues b/c they are essentially legalized monopolies? If the NHL IMPOSED a rule that the players disagreed with, they could strike and a file a law suit, but I don't think the dept. of labor (or labour for our nothern neighbors) would just step in.
I don't think that they are totally exempt. I remember awhile back, when the idea of replacement players came up, someone mentioned that Canadian law would not allow it.

I also remember baseball losing the collusion battle in the courts.

L.I.RangerFan is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:01 PM
  #17
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 500
Any rules that would govern player movement would have to be included in the new CBA, otherwise it couldn't happen. That's exactly what the CBA is there for. So, this whole discussion is pretty moot. If the union agrees then there's no debate. If the union doesn't agree, then this doesn't happen.

As for the likelihood of anything like this happening. I wouldn't bet money on it but it's not a totally insane concept. Having one team pay a portion of a player's salary after trading him happens often enough in team sports. Jagr was traded and the Caps are still paying out half his salary. It doesn't take that much of a leap to get from that situation to this dispersal draft idea.

Chief is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:07 PM
  #18
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,032
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Um, how would this help? The money is still being payed...

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:08 PM
  #19
Skroob*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,064
vCash: 500
arent like 25 of the teams already well over 31M?

Skroob* is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:10 PM
  #20
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,892
vCash: 500
Considerign where the Rangers sit salary-wise

this option wouldn't really hurt them but then I look at this realistically and say, giggle giggle snicker snicker

Paying a players contract while he plays for another team is like owning 2 teams in the same league. What conflict of interest?


If this is what Bettman wants he's absolutely insane. ABSOLUTELY INSANE

pld459666 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:13 PM
  #21
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,892
vCash: 500
mis-information

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief
Any rules that would govern player movement would have to be included in the new CBA, otherwise it couldn't happen. That's exactly what the CBA is there for. So, this whole discussion is pretty moot. If the union agrees then there's no debate. If the union doesn't agree, then this doesn't happen.

As for the likelihood of anything like this happening. I wouldn't bet money on it but it's not a totally insane concept. Having one team pay a portion of a player's salary after trading him happens often enough in team sports. Jagr was traded and the Caps are still paying out half his salary. It doesn't take that much of a leap to get from that situation to this dispersal draft idea.
The Caps sent a large chunk of money to the Rangers, the Rangers are actually paying him the full 11 million a season, just a portion of that was subsidized with the up front money from Washington.

As for paying a player while he plays for another team? Would NEVER HAPPEN.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
07-15-2004, 10:16 PM
  #22
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,205
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
this option wouldn't really hurt them but then I look at this realistically and say, giggle giggle snicker snicker

Paying a players contract while he plays for another team is like owning 2 teams in the same league. What conflict of interest?


If this is what Bettman wants he's absolutely insane. ABSOLUTELY INSANE
Yep, that about sums it up. :lol

Brooklyn Ranger 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 03:43 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.