HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Notices

CBA Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2012, 08:16 PM
  #26
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilgraining View Post
It was a stupid and pointless offer. We all get you have to start off with something they won't accept then "compromise". But that was dog **** in a bag. The only good of that offer was it probably got Fehr to laugh all weekend. I would love the NHLPA to offer 75% and UFA after 2 years or 21, whichever comes first. Now there is no reason to go crazy, because we have 2 months, but at some point they do have to get serious about this.

FYI, this is why certain players got max signing bonus's (in case of a roll back or no games)
Stupid and pointless would be sitting back and not making an offer, even if it is unacceptable. Would you rather they play the game of "you make the first offer" "no, you make the first offer" etc. If the PA came back with an offer anything close to what you suggested, the owners probably say hell no and we'll resume talks when you're actually interested in talking. And I would guarantee you that next conversation wouldn't happen until October, or until the players came back with an offer almost identical to what the owners just put out. There's a difference between making an offer that you can't accept, and insulting the other party.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils731 View Post
The 2 sides probably spent the first 2 meetings arguing who should make the first formal proposal. If you make a reasonable first proposal you're probably going to be crapped on, since you won't budge on almost anything, so you have to make a horrifically bad offer if you're forced to be the first to propose something.
Pretty much. Both sides already have an idea where the line is in the sand on some of the issues at least. A few more will be negotiated to determine those lines, and that's where the give and take comes in. But it all just starts with a wish list. The players offer back is probably going to involve a 55-58% share of HRR, no cap on contract length, and the same policy on free agency age. But that's because they're generally happy with what they have. They know they won't get it, but you have to play the game for a bit before it gets anywhere and both parties know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockie View Post
Which is exactly why the PA might want to give something up here for wiggle room in the main event in these negotiations, which is the revenue share. Adding the limit as a demand was stupid for the owners because it gives the players the right to go "yeah, we can live with that, so long as you do X" if this is as big a non-issue to them as I think it is.

I personally think that, should this be resolved, players will end up taking 52-53% of the pie but give up an increase in UFA age and a limitation in contract years.
Exactly. This doesn't phase the PA on the whole because the overwhelming majority of its members have not, and will not receive offers that are longer than 3-5 years. The PA isn't in the business of only protecting its top stars, and that won't be their negotiating strategy. The big one is always going to be the share of hockey related revenue, so they'll give on something like this which is in line with the way things have operated for years anyway in hopes of saving every percentage point of HRR they can.

I think you generally have a good idea of how things are going to shake out. If I had to make predictions, I would probably say the players are going to get 48-51% of HRR, 6-7 year max on deals, only knock back free agency age to one year later than it is now, and maybe entry level deals will be 3 years with a team option for a 4th. Just a guess/prediction of where the mid point may sit for these things. I also think we'll see a one-time amnesty much like what the NBA has. One per team, likely must be used within a year of when the CBA is signed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilsfan92 View Post
Still two months away from the expiration date, and three from the season... I'll worry later.

And in terms of the revenue sharing... why can't they just meet in the middle? Seems like a fair compromise. 50/50.
From the outside, 50/50 obviously makes sense. But its not so easy for the two parties to say its fair. It's not fair to the players to lose 7% of HRR when the league grew significantly since the last CBA. For owners, whether or not they feel 50/50 is fair comes down to the never ending debate of "what is hockey related revenue." Different definitions of the phrase affects how fair or unfair 50% is to them. But the owners of few sports are probably happy where the players take home a larger share of revenue than they do. That notion alone probably seems unfair to them, as does being on equal ground to some extent.


Last edited by Scott04: 07-15-2012 at 08:25 PM.
Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 08:24 PM
  #27
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,557
vCash: 500
I'm calling:

52% split
7 year max deals
4 year ELCs
1 year pushed back for UFA status - hehe Zajac

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 08:26 PM
  #28
Ilkka Pikachu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Portugal
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I'm calling:

52% split
7 year max deals
4 year ELCs
1 year pushed back for UFA status - hehe Zajac
Is it bad that the only reason I want UFA age pushed 1 or 2 years ahead so that we sign Zajac to a long term deal as an RFA?

Ilkka Pikachu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 08:56 PM
  #29
dpedan2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Piscataway NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockie View Post
Is it bad that the only reason I want UFA age pushed 1 or 2 years ahead so that we sign Zajac to a long term deal as an RFA?
You're probably not the only one who feels that way.

dpedan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2012, 09:27 PM
  #30
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 21,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpedan2 View Post
You're probably not the only one who feels that way.
No he's not. If that happens and Zajac is a RFA as a result, that would be a TREMENDOUS thing for Lou who could AT LEAST make sure Zajac gets a nice LONG extension.

glenwo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 09:34 AM
  #31
Devils86
Registered User
 
Devils86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenwo2 View Post
No he's not. If that happens and Zajac is a RFA as a result, that would be a TREMENDOUS thing for Lou who could AT LEAST make sure Zajac gets a nice LONG extension.
yea..no way even UFA contracts will ever again be like the ones Mr and mrs Suter signed...

Devils86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 09:38 AM
  #32
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,557
vCash: 500
Well if they push back UFA years, Lou is just going to sign him to 1 year and wait til UFA anyway. Something about time on your side and paying extra or losing everything for it.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:31 AM
  #33
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
The one issue with capping things like contract $ and terms is that it makes free agency less competitive. If contract bidding becomes less of a differentiating factor, players will favor teams that are already very good, or collude on where to sign.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:40 AM
  #34
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
The one issue with capping things like contract $ and terms is that it makes free agency less competitive. If contract bidding becomes less of a differentiating factor, players will favor teams that are already very good, or collude on where to sign.
That's true. I don't want an environment that resembles the NBA at all.

Would just making the salary+bonuses earned each year count as the caphit be enough to deter insane contracts though? I think that the is the main thing they are trying to get away from; circumvention is out of hand in the league right now.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:40 AM
  #35
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,575
vCash: 118
I like the 10 years until free agency thing, it rewards teams that produce their own talent through drafting and undrafted signings.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:46 AM
  #36
Flame Demers*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Asbury Park, NJ
Posts: 760
vCash: 500
I agree the 5 year thing is silly. but they need to do something to fix the front loaded contracts. . .

Please lord no lock out.

Flame Demers* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:50 AM
  #37
CFD
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
CFD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 18,087
vCash: 500
...make the cap hit the actual salary if you want to change the front-loaded contracts.

CFD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 10:53 AM
  #38
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkson Falls Down View Post
...make the cap hit the actual salary if you want to change the front-loaded contracts.
It could still happen though, I can see wealthier teams frontloading even more extreme if that were the case. I would.

Pay the star 14 for 3 years then pay him 1 mill caphit in a few more years too.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 11:06 AM
  #39
Goose Huckabee
Registered User
 
Goose Huckabee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Teams shouldn't be limited to the commitment they want to make in a player. Fixing the super front-loaded contracts is so easy. Don't allow the actual salary to exceed the average salary by more than 50% in any year, or be less than 50% the AAV. Something like that.

i.e. Kovy's cap hit would have actual salary max and mins of $10M and $3.33M. Not that offensive for either side.

I assume the owners primarily want the sharing % to be more even more than anything. Players aren't gonna give up the ability to get long-term security and reduce their salaries on top of that.

Goose Huckabee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 11:24 AM
  #40
Devils86
Registered User
 
Devils86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
It could still happen though, I can see wealthier teams frontloading even more extreme if that were the case. I would.

Pay the star 14 for 3 years then pay him 1 mill caphit in a few more years too.
The way to get around that is the cap hit for a certian year is the salary for that year or the AAV which ever is greater...so say it is 12 12 12 2 2 2 ...You'd still have a 7 mil cap hit on the last 3 years

Devils86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 11:26 AM
  #41
kyle evs48
No words needed
 
kyle evs48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 29,021
vCash: 500
The frontloading will be addressed one way or another, and I feel like both sides know it.

kyle evs48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 11:28 AM
  #42
CFD
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
CFD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 18,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
It could still happen though, I can see wealthier teams frontloading even more extreme if that were the case. I would.

Pay the star 14 for 3 years then pay him 1 mill caphit in a few more years too.
It could still happen if your the Islanders. But if you're a team that spends to the cap, a 12M player takes up a lot of room and probably hurts your overall roster.

CFD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 12:07 PM
  #43
Scott04
Registered User
 
Scott04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
The one issue with capping things like contract $ and terms is that it makes free agency less competitive. If contract bidding becomes less of a differentiating factor, players will favor teams that are already very good, or collude on where to sign.
That's why the limit can't be so strict, as the 5 year proposal would be. But its also all relative to where the free agency age is set. Say free agency age is set to 28 years old (if its by age and not experience for example). Put in an 8 year max contract and teams may not want to throw 8 years at a guy. The way cap hit is determined would also play a big role in what is a feasible max contract length anyway. Its really not a competitiveness issue because teams will still have to have the cap room to offer these deals, especially if the front loading/cap manipulating is taken care of. Another caveat that could keep players with bad teams could be to allow teams to pay more for their own players to re-sign. The NBA has this, but I think that takes it to a weird extreme. Lets say the max contract length is 7 years for signing a new UFA, but you can give up to 8 for your own player. I don't know if I would tweak the amount of money one team can offer vs. another. But something in terms of years could make it beneficial for players to stay with their teams as opposed to all bolting for the top teams in the league. Although the NHL hasn't really had a huge issue with people trying to jump ship to the top teams like in the NBA, where a team's impact is all determined by having 2-3 stars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
That's true. I don't want an environment that resembles the NBA at all.

Would just making the salary+bonuses earned each year count as the caphit be enough to deter insane contracts though? I think that the is the main thing they are trying to get away from; circumvention is out of hand in the league right now.
That's probably enough to deter it. If nothing else it will deter front loading. This will then raise the issue on back loading though depending on how buy out rules are established and whether or not teams can stash guys in the AHL (much like Wade Redden and the Rangers). That would be the means through which teams try to circumvent down the line. Give a guy small money early on, then the middle/late years are loaded. The player will collect his money, but possibly get bought out or sit in the AHL and collect massive paychecks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkson Falls Down View Post
...make the cap hit the actual salary if you want to change the front-loaded contracts.
Hopefully they do something like that. Pretty much just the easiest option. Just needs to be established what kind of annual increases/drop offs are allowed. Back loading is still an option if its not defined well enough.

Scott04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 01:16 PM
  #44
Goose Huckabee
Registered User
 
Goose Huckabee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
It's too bad the negotiation process isn't different. It would be better if it was something like a non-binding arbitration. Let both sides present their ridiculous homerun proposals, an arbitrator whittles it down to something sensible for both sides, negotiate from there knowing extreme deviations will likely result in games not being played.

Goose Huckabee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 01:37 PM
  #45
Scottyk9
Goals? Please!
 
Scottyk9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: East Rutherford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 25,087
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Scottyk9
Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice

Forgot to mention earlier that Lou Lamoriello said he will not be involved in CBA negotiations this time around. Was in 2004-05.

Scottyk9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 01:43 PM
  #46
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 21,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottyk9 View Post
Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice

Forgot to mention earlier that Lou Lamoriello said he will not be involved in CBA negotiations this time around. Was in 2004-05.
Translation : "I'm getting too old for this ****."

glenwo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 02:38 PM
  #47
Ilkka Pikachu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Portugal
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottyk9 View Post
Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice

Forgot to mention earlier that Lou Lamoriello said he will not be involved in CBA negotiations this time around. Was in 2004-05.
Sounds like not even he's worried about his cap.

Ilkka Pikachu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 05:16 PM
  #48
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Would just making the salary+bonuses earned each year count as the caphit be enough to deter insane contracts though? I think that the is the main thing they are trying to get away from; circumvention is out of hand in the league right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose Huckabee View Post
Teams shouldn't be limited to the commitment they want to make in a player. Fixing the super front-loaded contracts is so easy. Don't allow the actual salary to exceed the average salary by more than 50% in any year, or be less than 50% the AAV. Something like that.

i.e. Kovy's cap hit would have actual salary max and mins of $10M and $3.33M. Not that offensive for either side.
Both of these seem like sensible solutions to the frontloading issue. Naturally, that's why they won't happen.

Saugus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2012, 05:31 PM
  #49
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 21,474
vCash: 500
^ Logic never prevails in these scenarios where the CBA is concerned. It's a fact of life, Saugus.

glenwo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2012, 01:24 PM
  #50
Devils86
Registered User
 
Devils86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,938
vCash: 500
interesting article http://www.bergerbytes.ca/2012/08/ex...tarting-jan-1/

Devils86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:48 AM.

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.