HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Notices

Around The League - Hockey is back!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 01:45 AM
  #51
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3225--nhl.html

If you read the Puck Daddy anonymous player link above it lays out a reasonable POV if you're a player. It speaks to serious revenue sharing which I think is where Fehr is going to try and push the league. Certainly the players aren't going for more give backs which all of these leaked proposals are.

Don't forget, the players were content playing under the old CBA. It's the owners who gave notice to cancel it. This could get uglier than I first expected.
A careful read shows he also endorses moving markets that can't keep up with the runaway inflation.

Quote:
If we are going to be serious about creating an environment in which all teams can be financially successful, then it's going to take considerably more thought than simply reducing the cap by 10-15 percent. Maybe there are some markets in which it's simply not realistic to expect that the situation can be salvaged. I don't know.
The players want all the teams to succeed, and to do so in their current locations. With that said, there are probably some cases in which revenues could be improved via relocation. Look at the bump in revenues that the players and the League enjoyed with the Atlanta to Winnipeg move. The players have no input into these matters and share in none of the relocation fees. We do, however, share in the benefits of healthy, profitable franchises.
Translation - Hi! We are the players. We don't give a damn about you fans or the support you've given us if there's a market somewhere else that will up league revenue so the cap goes up and we get more cash! Have a nice day! And buy our jerseys!

It's completely mercenary, just well written. At least the owners appear to actually want to support the current markets.

Ducks DVM is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:20 AM
  #52
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Exit Dose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,358
vCash: 500
I don't think it's meant to be as mercenary as that. I think the broader point is that if the league wants to run as many teams as it does, then they can't expect the players to be the ones providing the bailout every time. So, the owners may have to take the hit and offer a more generous revenue sharing agreement. At least that's what I took away from it.

On a side note, does anyone else think the player in question is Parros?

Exit Dose is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:13 AM
  #53
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Dose View Post
I don't think it's meant to be as mercenary as that. I think the broader point is that if the league wants to run as many teams as it does, then they can't expect the players to be the ones providing the bailout every time. So, the owners may have to take the hit and offer a more generous revenue sharing agreement. At least that's what I took away from it.

On a side note, does anyone else think the player in question is Parros?
I think there was a thread earlier in the season where guys really analyzed it to the Nth degree based on him talking about some prior year trade deadline deal involving his team. I'm not sure they resolved it but they definitely eliminated a lot of guys. Parros didn't seem to be in the running.

Eddie Shack is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:51 AM
  #54
GreatBear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan View Post
NHL proposal to players:
1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %.
2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
3-contracts limites to 5 years
4-no more salary arbitration.
5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
In any negotiation:
A. You will never get more than your request.
B. You need to first decide what you will accept, and then negotiate to that
point from your first request.

The NHL "offer" is plain old fashion theater, just as I am sure that the NHLPA has an equally silly position to offer first. No one expects the league to hold firm on any of these positions. What this offer does do is tell us that the issue is again all about money, and the split in the ownership between large market owners and small market owners.

The NHL approach is to lower the cost of players, so that even the small market team can make money. The players are going to take the position that it is not their responsibility to ensure the profitability of all 30 teams. Instead the players are going to push the league for more revenue sharing, so that the large market teams, rather than the players, help support the small market teams.

In the end there will be an agreement, since both sides have too much at stake to not reach a settlement. The player have offered to play the season under the old CBA and there is no real reason why the league would not do so. In reality, the clubs have acted as if the ceiling and floor are 54 and 70 million, so they might as well play the season.

The clubs are not going to want to risk an antitrust challenge by unsigned players, such as Shea Weber, if the CBA expires on September 15 and no one is willing to sign Weber. He would not be under contract and the labor agreement binding him to Nashville will have expired, legally making him able to sign with any team. If all of the teams refuse to try to sign him under those circumstances, then he would have a reasonable legal claim against the league and the individual clubs. Even riskier, for the clubs, is the possible wash out of the 2013 draft. If there is no CBA agreement in effect there is a significant legal risk in holding the draft.

I suspect in the end, the clubs will get some sort of salary relief, but there will also be some sort of enhanced revenue sharing. I do not expect a cap rollback, but I do expect a new cap formula, with the existing cap grandfathered in until the new cap exceeds the old cap. I can see four year ELC's, as that transfers money from younger players to older players. I can also see something like an eight year limit on new contracts, as that doesn't hurt the players too badly, and help to resolve some of the large/small owner issue.

GreatBear is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 11:50 AM
  #55
Twindad*
Father of Twins
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cali-for-ni-a
Country: United States
Posts: 5,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan View Post
NHL proposal to players:
1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %.
2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.
3-contracts limites to 5 years
4-no more salary arbitration.
5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

Lockout.
So, an entry level contract is proposed to be 5 years, and contract totals are 5 years, but you can't be a UFA until 10 years, does that make someone coming off an ELC a RFA?

Twindad* is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:10 PM
  #56
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twindad View Post
So, an entry level contract is proposed to be 5 years, and contract totals are 5 years, but you can't be a UFA until 10 years, does that make someone coming off an ELC a RFA?
As long as you have ELCs and UFAs, then by default anything in between has to qualify as some type of RFA. Doesn't it?

Eddie Shack is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:24 PM
  #57
Gliff
Nick Bonino
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,068
vCash: 500
Max limit to 5 years I assume.

Gliff is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:48 PM
  #58
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 23,275
vCash: 50
I'd expect a 7 or 8 year limit, personally. I have to think the Player's Association might have a real issue with only a 5 year limit. It's not just the teams that like seeing certain players signed for longer terms. Short-term contracts are great when your career is on the rise, and you expect to increase your pay with every contract, but the players have to be thinking about job security too. In a sport like hockey, where injuries aren't just possible but expected, I think some of the players are just going to want a better guarantee than 4 or 5 years. Those that can ask for it, that is.

Sojourn is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:56 PM
  #59
Twindad*
Father of Twins
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cali-for-ni-a
Country: United States
Posts: 5,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Shack View Post
As long as you have ELCs and UFAs, then by default anything in between has to qualify as some type of RFA. Doesn't it?
Just seems odd to be a RFA for 5 years. If you don't come to an agreement with your current team, then what? Are you a UFA?

Twindad* is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 04:03 PM
  #60
Eddie Shack
RIP KevFist
 
Eddie Shack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twindad View Post
Just seems odd to be a RFA for 5 years. If you don't come to an agreement with your current team, then what? Are you a UFA?
Well obviously the owners wouldn't go for that. Barring any negotiated change it would be just like now (except maybe no arbitration per the owners' new demands). You can't go from RFA to UFA just by not agreeing with you current team. There is no way the owners would ever agree to that.

Eddie Shack is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 04:40 PM
  #61
Lord Flashheart
Squadron Commander
 
Lord Flashheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bananaland capital
Country: Croatia
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatBear View Post
<snip>
The point is though, when the two sides are so far apart on as many counts as they are, lockout seems inevitable. Look up last years NBA lockout.

Lord Flashheart is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 07:14 PM
  #62
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,786
vCash: 500
There's shooting high in a negotiation, then there's this. Yowza.

I know it would never happen because I'm sure there would be worries of "creative accounting." But it seems to me that they should split profits, not revenue. So say players get 66% of hockey profits.

snarktacular is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 11:55 PM
  #63
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,334
vCash: 500
According to Dreger Weber has signed a $100M+ offer sheet with the Flyers for 14 years. Holy **** if true. The Preds will surely match it, Weber is one of the few guys in the league worth that kind of money.

Paul4587 is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 11:57 PM
  #64
Unholy
Moderator
 
Unholy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,550
vCash: 500
Just saw that. Well that's one way of making some new noise around here.

Have to think they will match that. They got to.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=96509&type=sigpic&dateline=1325746233
Unholy is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:04 AM
  #65
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,334
vCash: 500
I wonder how anxious Perry and Getzlaf are to sign extensions while we're still under the current CBA, especially after what Weber, Suter and Parise got. If Murray refuses to give them contracts now while they can still get big $$ and term, will they hold it against him and not re-sign here? The longer Getzlaf and Perry have to wait the more guaranteed money it could potentially cost them.

Paul4587 is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:08 AM
  #66
Lord Flashheart
Squadron Commander
 
Lord Flashheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bananaland capital
Country: Croatia
Posts: 3,061
vCash: 500
Holy ****!

EDIT: Weber is absolutely worth the money, but having that cap till he's 40-41 is crazy.

Lord Flashheart is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:21 AM
  #67
Jesus Teemu
Registered User
 
Jesus Teemu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,029
vCash: 500
wut.

Jesus Teemu is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:25 AM
  #68
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,374
vCash: 500
Moves like this is what I meant when I said Paul Holmgren can be an asbolute retard. Ironically, there is nothing worse he could've done in his pursuit to add Weber to his roster than signing him like this.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:31 AM
  #69
Paul4587
Registered User
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,334
vCash: 500
It's not all bad. Weber is either a Flyer or a Predator for life (probably more likely to be a Predator). It keeps him out of the Eastern conference for his whole career. The Flyers would have been among many bidding next offseason and the chances of them getting him then would be pretty small and if someone like Pittsburgh signed him it would not bode well for Philadelphia.

Paul4587 is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:39 AM
  #70
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 23,275
vCash: 50
This is what is wrong with the NHL. It's absolutely silly stupid that you can put together a contract like this. You know it's going to be front-loaded in such a way that there is an obscene amount of money being paid the first year. One of the biggest goals of the salary cap was parity, and to try to put every team on the same level(or close to it), without the big markets and richest owners having such a significant advantage. It's a shame the deal put together was so short-sighted.

Sojourn is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:41 AM
  #71
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul4587 View Post
It's not all bad. Weber is either a Flyer or a Predator for life (probably more likely to be a Predator). It keeps him out of the Eastern conference for his whole career. The Flyers would have been among many bidding next offseason and the chances of them getting him then would be pretty small and if someone like Pittsburgh signed him it would not bode well for Philadelphia.
Unless they had no shot of trading for them, which seems unlikely given their young assets, then it's a pretty dumb move. This basically ensures he won't be a Flyer, and probably ensures that Voracek has an offer sheet coming his way pretty soon(likely for around $4.7 mil, meaning compensation is only 1+3 and they Flyers are pretty much screwed cap-wise by matching).

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:46 AM
  #72
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
This is what is wrong with the NHL. It's absolutely silly stupid that you can put together a contract like this. You know it's going to be front-loaded in such a way that there is an obscene amount of money being paid the first year. One of the biggest goals of the salary cap was parity, and to try to put every team on the same level(or close to it), without the big markets and richest owners having such a significant advantage. It's a shame the deal put together was so short-sighted.
This scenario, a big market team trying to use huge money up front to poach a franchise player from a small market team, is probably what will bring in shorter contract limits and not allowing wild swings in year-to-year salary increases/decreases.

Can't see why Nashville wouldn't match, though. They were prepared, at the very least, to pay Suter and Weber $16 million combined for the first few years, and probably higher than that(I believe Poile said he was disappointed his didn't have the opportunity to match Suter's offer). The most they'll pay Weber through the first couple years is less than that, and they can't afford to lose him for so little.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:46 AM
  #73
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 23,275
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Unless they had no shot of trading for them, which seems unlikely given their young assets, then it's a pretty dumb move. This basically ensures he won't be a Flyer, and probably ensures that Voracek has an offer sheet coming his way pretty soon(likely for around $4.7 mil, meaning compensation is only 1+3 and they Flyers are pretty much screwed cap-wise by matching).
I can only see the Flyers making the offer if they front load it to such a degree that Nashville just might have trouble affording it. Basically trying to bully Nashville into not matching.

Sojourn is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:49 AM
  #74
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 23,275
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
This scenario, a big market team trying to use huge money up front to poach a franchise player from a small market team, is probably what will bring in shorter contract limits and not allowing wild swings in year-to-year salary increases/decreases.

Can't see why Nashville wouldn't match, though. They were prepared, at the very least, to pay Suter and Weber $16 million combined for the first few years, and probably higher than that(I believe Poile said he was disappointed his didn't have the opportunity to match Suter's offer). The most they'll pay Weber through the first couple years is less than that, and they can't afford to lose him for so little.
Agreed. I'm very curious to see what Nashville does. Philly could be doing them a huge favor, even though I find the method repulsive

Sojourn is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:51 AM
  #75
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn View Post
I can only see the Flyers making the offer if they front load it to such a degree that Nashville just might have trouble affording it. Basically trying to bully Nashville into not matching.
Nashville's stated that money isn't an object in retaining both Suter and Weber, after losing one money won't be an object in retaining the other. Holmgren might've just done all of Nashville's negotiating for them.

I don't doubt Holmgren thinks he has Nashville backed into a corner here. The keyword being thinks. But IMO this is the best thing that could've happened for Nashville.

Gibsons Finest 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 04:50 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.