some players are bitter over the last CBA and I think Fehr will be getting some stuff back like pad and protection
The vetoing of the new alignment was the warning shot--unless you think that is a minor thing--the basis of almost everything happens during the year got nuked
The veto was a bargaining tool. They'll agree to it in order to get something else they want, likely a lessening of the escrow payments which the owners will also agree to as long as their percentage share is still guaranteed.
The NHLPA has remained silent which is a bit concerning but I cant imagine them pushing for anything, especially not as dramatic as a removal of the salary cap. That ship has sailed, the owners will never agree to remove it even if they have to lock the players out for 5 years. Only a very few teams would agree to a luxury tax system.
The veto was a bargaining tool. They'll agree to it in order to get something else they want, likely a lessening of the escrow payments which the owners will also agree to as long as their percentage share is still guaranteed.
The NHLPA has remained silent which is a bit concerning but I cant imagine them pushing for anything, especially not as dramatic as a removal of the salary cap. That ship has sailed, the owners will never agree to remove it even if they have to lock the players out for 5 years. Only a very few teams would agree to a luxury tax system.
Fehr seems to want to talk to each player before making any rash decisions. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
2 things i think we will see is teh NHLPA fight to not have players buried in the AHL redden, avery,souray etc. this has to make them a bit sour that a vet player is stuck there for no reason other than salary. another thing will be the NTC where a player demands a trade. this is forcing owners/GM's into a bad spot. once you formally ask to be traded, you wave your NTC imo.
This could work out 2 ways for the owners as players will be less demanding on wanting a NTC and if they do demand a trade they team isnt handcuffed. Players earn the right to NTC's and the idea is so they dont get packed up to CLB without knowing first. But you cant have one and then use it as an out, thats bad form and i think it will be one of the owners biggest arguements this time around.
2 things i think we will see is teh NHLPA fight to not have players buried in the AHL redden, avery,souray etc. this has to make them a bit sour that a vet player is stuck there for no reason other than salary. another thing will be the NTC where a player demands a trade. this is forcing owners/GM's into a bad spot. once you formally ask to be traded, you wave your NTC imo.
This could work out 2 ways for the owners as players will be less demanding on wanting a NTC and if they do demand a trade they team isnt handcuffed. Players earn the right to NTC's and the idea is so they dont get packed up to CLB without knowing first. But you cant have one and then use it as an out, thats bad form and i think it will be one of the owners biggest arguements this time around.
The problem with the asking for a trade is the player will just never come out and admit that he asked for a trade. I like Lawton's idea of a limited one where your list is 8 or so teams that you won't go to.
I agree that both are issues, how they are dealt with will be interesting.
I predict a shortened season, but not a cancellation of the entire season. Fehr is going to want to show his boys that he was the right hire, so will push for things like no salary caps. I don't think he realistically thinks he will get it, but he will push hard for it. The salary cap is essential for this league. I doubt there will be much changes to the current CBA when all is said and done.
I think the NHL will push hard for salary reductions comparable to the NFL and NBA, but will come up short. I think there will be some reduction though.
I doubt there would be amnesty introduced. Fehr will win this one.
I do think they will put some type of restriction on long contracts. Whether it is the length or the amount of separation from the amount paid in one year compared to the next. This was a huge issue for the league. I don't think the league will get exactly what they want, but it will be an improvement.
They will change the divisions, but the more to the way Fehr publicly wants it. This will appear to be a win for him, but really, the league wins as well.
Last edited by ponokanocker: 03-05-2012 at 04:41 PM.
I predict a shortened season, but not a cancellation of the entire season. Fehr is going to want to show his boys that he was the right hire, so will push for things like no salary caps. I don't think he realistically thinks he will get it, but he will push hard for it. The salary cap is essential for this league. I doubt there will be much changes to the current CBA when all is said and done.
So pushing hard, getting no results,and his players losing money shows them that he means business?
They will change the divisions, but the more to the way Fehr pubicly wants it. This will appear to be a win for him, but really, the league wins as well.
The veto was a bargaining tool. They'll agree to it in order to get something else they want, likely a lessening of the escrow payments which the owners will also agree to as long as their percentage share is still guaranteed.
The NHLPA has remained silent which is a bit concerning but I cant imagine them pushing for anything, especially not as dramatic as a removal of the salary cap. That ship has sailed, the owners will never agree to remove it even if they have to lock the players out for 5 years. Only a very few teams would agree to a luxury tax system.
I don't see how they would reduce escrow (at least in principle) and retain the fixed percentage. Escrow is ther precisely to make sure that the fixed percentage is met. The only other way would be to ask each player to cut the league a cheque for the amount they owe after the season is over.
So pushing hard, getting no results,and his players losing money shows them that he means business?
Shows incompetence to me.
Yeah exactly if you;re suggesting that he's gonna push hard for things he knows he isn't going to get. Fehr isn't an idiot he isn't going to waste anyones time.
So pushing hard, getting no results,and his players losing money shows them that he means business?
Shows incompetence to me.
It does to me as well, but this is the way union heads work. I was part of a union before and my wife is now. The guys at the top try hard to make you think you are winning the war. They will always point out every little win that they get for you, no matter how stupid it is or if they lost the war.
I'd like them to give 3 points to a team that wins win regulation.
I'd also like to see teams that go into overtime tied at 1-1 or 2-2 not win any points.
I like the lame duck clause I've been hearing. If every team is allowed to eat a contract without it counting against the cap that means we could rid ourselves of Horcoff's horrid contract and have the cap space to go after Suter and still have tons of capspace down the road to resign all of the kids.
I'd like them to give 3 points to a team that wins win regulation.
I'd also like to see teams that go into overtime tied at 1-1 or 2-2 not win any points.
I like the lame duck clause I've been hearing. If every team is allowed to eat a contract without it counting against the cap that means we could rid ourselves of Horcoff's horrid contract and have the cap space to go after Suter and still have tons of capspace down the road to resign all of the kids.
I'd really like to see them correct the 3 points in some games, 2 in others. I just don't understand the logic what-so-ever. I don't care how they fix it, but make every game have the same amount of points given out if they are going to do a point system.
I'd really like to see them correct the 3 points in some games, 2 in others. I just don't understand the logic what-so-ever. I don't care how they fix it, but make every game have the same amount of points given out if they are going to do a point system.
Normally i would agree since i dont like the 3 point game (would rather see them go back to ties, but i know a lot of people like the shootout gimmick), but if they get the realignment to go ahead, it would actually reduce the effects of the 3 pointer since you only have 7 or 8 teams in your division instead of 15 in a conference, you only have to worry about 3 point games that involve half the teams that the current system does. In other words, if say 2 western conference teams are in a 3 point game, but only 1 of those teams is in your division, your only affected by one team getting a point (or 2), the other team in that game has no bearing on your conference standings or your playoff race. I definitely agree with the fact that all games should have the same number of points since some games are decided in reg time while others are decided in OT or SO, which makes it an unfair system (there are always a few teams every year getting screwed by the 3 point games by the time the season is over).
