HFBoards

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

The Lockout Thread Part I

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2012, 11:18 PM
  #26
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
let it go. We got the guy the front office would have taken if we had won the lottery.
It's not about that. It's about next year. And about providing disincentive for future teams to tank twice in a row.

leesmith is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 11:40 PM
  #27
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,336
vCash: 500
With our luck, they will make it so that the worst team automatically gets the 1st overall pick.

And we'd wind up 2nd to last.

Crede777 is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:00 AM
  #28
FANonymous
Registered User
 
FANonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
They need to revise the lottery so that the same team cannot pick first two years in a row.
What they need to do is have weighted percentages based on how much worse the teams were. A team that finishes last place 30 points below the next lowest team should have a much higher percentage of winning the lottery than a team that finishes last only 1 point behind the next worse team.

I've felt this way for a while and I'm pretty sure one of our own posters went to the trouble of devising a system that worked this way [mayor bee maybe?]

If the team that gets 1st overall 2 years in a row [or 3] is really THAT much worse than everybody else then I have no problem with them getting it. Maybe have a small deduction to next year's percentage for the team that wins the 1st overall pick and/or the lottery?

FANonymous is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 06:28 AM
  #29
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,018
vCash: 500
If the cap is reduced from 70 to 63. What happens? I'm assuming all players take a 10% cut. I don't remember the last time exactly but I remember reading that players took a 20-something % pay cut. I can't see it happening any other way. It would be utter chaos if teams had to cut or force trades to fit under the cap.

Anyone know for sure how it worked last time?

Found this- http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf

Players under contract had their pay cut by 24 percent. Teams
had a one-time opportunity to buy out player contracts for twothirds
of their remaining value, minus the 24-percent cut. No
player can account for more than 20 percent of a team’s total
payroll, which means that no player can earn more than $7.8
million in 2005–06. Minimum salaries were raised from $175,000
under the old agreement to $450,000 in 2005–06. Every 2 years,
the minimum rises again, to $475,000 and finally to $500,000.


Last edited by EspenK: 07-16-2012 at 06:41 AM.
EspenK is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 07:19 AM
  #30
JACKETfan
Real Blue Jacketfan
 
JACKETfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Venice
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
No balls --- CBJ, Vancouver, San Jose

(Somebody had to post it.)

JACKETfan is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 09:47 AM
  #31
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
They need to revise the lottery so that the same team cannot pick first two years in a row.
Don't agree. This suggests intent from an organization to be the worst team in the league.

At any rate, now that I've thought about the first pass at the CBA. As I saw somewhere, this is a declaration of war. I am not hopeful that this gets resolved before the season starts. I'm not sure if the owners are willing to have another year under the old CBA.

The requests. They are going to be miles apart. Some things I don't like. Most of this I'm working through as I type it, so this is going to look unorganized as some of these thoughts are in their infancy.

1. The 10 year gap on UFA. These are not slaves to a franchise because they were drafted. I understand the concept of the draft and player mobility. However, I don't like this as a collective bargaining position and I don't like, even more, that the owners are trying to push this.
2. I don't agree, in principle, that players are allowed a set percentage of league wide revenue from a collective bargaining position beyond setting the cap. I understand the concept of a salary cap, I don't agree withe a salary floor and I don't like the max to individual salaries. The economics in each city are a bit different and I don't like a uniform approach. If a team can't compete and put a reasonable team on the ice, that is a owners concern and should be addressed independent of the players.
3. I don't like salary arbitration to begin with. Seeing that disappear doesn't bother me. There wouldn't be a need for it if the owners didn't want to keep rights to a player for a decade. If they get the 10 year provision, or even if it stays at 7, I think arbitration needs to remain. If players can't look for other employment with another team, you lose your right to dictate contract to the players. I understand the RFA process, but the penalty is too high to poach a player. Get rid of the poaching penalty, or at least scale the penalty based on player age to basically nothing at age 25 and brutal at age 21.
4. I don't see anything about changes to revenue sharing. At least with the articles I've seen. Once again, I don't think this is players concern. But since the league wants to put these restrictions around terms of service, I guess it will need to be in there.

Normally the free market would dictate salaries, baring owner collusion. However it would appear the owners are trying to severely limit player mobility.

Normally I am not a big union guy, but I think in this case the owners are trying things the players should push back on.

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 09:54 AM
  #32
Stretch Factor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Has anyone ever studied the cap in depth enough to know if it actually helps the small market teams as it was designed? My guess is it actually helps the big market teams make more money, because it forces them to spend wisely.

Seems to me it hurts (salary floor) as many small market teams as it helps. Take Columbus for example- if we believe the ownership (big if), they lose money every year because they have to spend at least X to get to the floor, let alone how much more they have to spend to be competitive. In addition, they can't get big name free agents to come here without spending more than other teams.

I'd like to see a study of what would happen if the salary cap were removed and they went to a pure luxury tax model. But, here's the catch, the luxury taxes paid would go directly to other teams payroll.

Here's an example of a possible luxury tax system.
There is no hard cap or floor, but every dollar a team spends over $50m is taxed at a rate of 3-1, i.e. if they spend $60m on salary they are $10m over the "threshold" and would pay a $30m fine. The $30m goes into a pool to be dispersed to teams which are under the "threshold". There would need to be some accounting system to disperse the money to teams which need it the most and are not gaming the system.

Stretch Factor is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:08 AM
  #33
Feicht
Registered User
 
Feicht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Twin Cities
Country: Austria
Posts: 7,287
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feicht
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
let it go. We got the guy the front office would have taken if we had won the lottery.
Sadly, this is pretty much true.

Anyway, I'm not too worried right now. If they still haven't agreed to anything in one month, then I'll start to wonder.

Feicht is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:17 AM
  #34
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
What they need to do is have weighted percentages based on how much worse the teams were. A team that finishes last place 30 points below the next lowest team should have a much higher percentage of winning the lottery than a team that finishes last only 1 point behind the next worse team.

I've felt this way for a while and I'm pretty sure one of our own posters went to the trouble of devising a system that worked this way [mayor bee maybe?]

If the team that gets 1st overall 2 years in a row [or 3] is really THAT much worse than everybody else then I have no problem with them getting it. Maybe have a small deduction to next year's percentage for the team that wins the 1st overall pick and/or the lottery?
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1089523

I strongly disagree with the idea of punishing or penalizing the team that has the first overall pick down the road. I remember the Nordiques teams that ended up with three straight first overall picks, and they were atrocious. I remember Ottawa being the worst team in the league four straight years, and they were even worse.

The thing is, neither of those teams saw immediate short-term benefits from their drafting. Quebec had Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros...all of them were traded before the team really began to contend and win. And even with the return on those players, it wasn't until the Patrick Roy deal (largely unrelated to those three players) that they began to actually shape into a contender. They had good teams in 1992-93 and 1994-95, but they weren't really serious contenders.

And with Ottawa, they picked Daigle, Bonk, Berard (traded for Redden), and Phillips.

Penalizing a team for "picking too high" is a long-term problem to a short-term issue.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:22 AM
  #35
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
If the cap is reduced from 70 to 63. What happens? I'm assuming all players take a 10% cut. I don't remember the last time exactly but I remember reading that players took a 20-something % pay cut. I can't see it happening any other way. It would be utter chaos if teams had to cut or force trades to fit under the cap.

Anyone know for sure how it worked last time?

Found this- http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/12/art3full.pdf

Players under contract had their pay cut by 24 percent. Teams
had a one-time opportunity to buy out player contracts for twothirds
of their remaining value, minus the 24-percent cut. No
player can account for more than 20 percent of a team’s total
payroll, which means that no player can earn more than $7.8
million in 2005–06. Minimum salaries were raised from $175,000
under the old agreement to $450,000 in 2005–06. Every 2 years,
the minimum rises again, to $475,000 and finally to $500,000.
Unlike last time around, there's already a cap in place. There may or may not be an accompanying salary rollback, but it's tough to say because the way that the cap is calculated may change. I think nearly every one of us who's seen the extremely long extensions signed in the last three offseasons would agree that the annual average method has been...well, it's obvious what's happened.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:32 AM
  #36
Samkow
Global Moderator
Sidney Cosby
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 13,636
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch Factor View Post
Has anyone ever studied the cap in depth enough to know if it actually helps the small market teams as it was designed? My guess is it actually helps the big market teams make more money, because it forces them to spend wisely.
The biggest complaint from the small market teams is that the floor is too high. (It's currently set to be 16 million before the ceiling).

__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Samkow is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:33 AM
  #37
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Don't agree. This suggests intent from an organization to be the worst team in the league.

At any rate, now that I've thought about the first pass at the CBA. As I saw somewhere, this is a declaration of war. I am not hopeful that this gets resolved before the season starts. I'm not sure if the owners are willing to have another year under the old CBA.

The requests. They are going to be miles apart. Some things I don't like. Most of this I'm working through as I type it, so this is going to look unorganized as some of these thoughts are in their infancy.

1. The 10 year gap on UFA. These are not slaves to a franchise because they were drafted. I understand the concept of the draft and player mobility. However, I don't like this as a collective bargaining position and I don't like, even more, that the owners are trying to push this.
2. I don't agree, in principle, that players are allowed a set percentage of league wide revenue from a collective bargaining position beyond setting the cap. I understand the concept of a salary cap, I don't agree withe a salary floor and I don't like the max to individual salaries. The economics in each city are a bit different and I don't like a uniform approach. If a team can't compete and put a reasonable team on the ice, that is a owners concern and should be addressed independent of the players.
3. I don't like salary arbitration to begin with. Seeing that disappear doesn't bother me. There wouldn't be a need for it if the owners didn't want to keep rights to a player for a decade. If they get the 10 year provision, or even if it stays at 7, I think arbitration needs to remain. If players can't look for other employment with another team, you lose your right to dictate contract to the players. I understand the RFA process, but the penalty is too high to poach a player. Get rid of the poaching penalty, or at least scale the penalty based on player age to basically nothing at age 25 and brutal at age 21.
4. I don't see anything about changes to revenue sharing. At least with the articles I've seen. Once again, I don't think this is players concern. But since the league wants to put these restrictions around terms of service, I guess it will need to be in there.

Normally the free market would dictate salaries, baring owner collusion. However it would appear the owners are trying to severely limit player mobility.

Normally I am not a big union guy, but I think in this case the owners are trying things the players should push back on.
To address your points...
1) UFA status used to not begin until age 31, unless a player fell into Group VI (which still exists) or Group V free agency. Group V was for players who had at least 10 years of NHL experience and made less than the league average. That's how Scott Lachance became a Jacket.
2) From a competitive balance standpoint, the salary floor is needed in order to make sure that what happens in MLB doesn't happen here. With MLB, the accusations have been leveled for years that "some teams" (Kansas City) collect revenue sharing checks and pocket it, rather than putting it back into the team.
3) Arbitration is necessary to ensure a player's ability to actually demand and receive a raise. If UFA status began after 10 years, AND there was no salary floor, AND there was no arbitration, there would theoretically be ways to draft a player, sign him to an ELC, and then never give him a raise until he became a free agency...and the player would have no real leverage except the threat of a holdout. That's fine for a few players, but for those who might be later in developing or are marginal, that's a very different story.

If compensation for signing an RFA goes away or is substantially reduced, then what we have is de facto UFA status starting at an early age. That would probably cause the league to revert to what it was in the late-1990s, when there were a clear-cut top-6 or -7 teams, with the rest of the league (especially the smaller markets) acting as a serfdom. Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing better than to have sat up on July 1 and signed Evander Kane to a nice big contract and not had to have paid any real compensation to do so, but it's not good for the league.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 11:10 AM
  #38
Stretch Factor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
From a fan's perspective (I know, fans aren't represented in the negotiations) I'd like to see a model that tries to achieve some of the following.

Big picture- successful teams are not punished for being successful and unsuccessful teams are helped as long as they are playing by the rules and doing everything they can to become successful.

CONTRACTS-
1. A team that drafts and develops a player is given every opportunity to keep that player.
2. A player that plays well and earns his contract is given every opportunity to make as much money as the market will allow, with his drafting team getting the right to match the market. (basically a longer RFA period)
a. Rookie contracts are 5 years. Starts the day a player signs his contract. Teams keep draft rights for 3 years. Players not signed in 3 years go into a supplemental draft.
b. RFA for the next 5 years with a reduced penalty for offer sheet. Drafting team can match. Salaries limited on a scale similar to NFL franchise tag. This keeps big markets from throwing the sun and moon at young players.
c. UFA1 for the next 5 years. No maximum salary, drafting team gets a chance to match.
d. UFA2- no restrictions on term or dollars after player turns 33. Drafting team does not get the chance to match.
f. No trade/No movement clauses are gone until a player reaches 33 years old.

REVENUE-
1.50-50 split between players and owners. (ALL team revenues would be made public.)
2. Threshold is set at the average of team spending, i.e. if total NHL payroll is $1.5B then the threshold is 30/$1.5B=$50m.
3. Stiff luxury tax of 3-1 for over the threshold teams.
4. Under threshold teams would share luxury tax revenue assuming they meet criteria determined by the league. Team revenue would have to factor in here so the system would be fair. Not every team would get the same amount of revenue sharing. All revenue sharing dollars must be spent on player salaries.
5. All national broadcast revenue is split evenly among 30 teams.
6. Teams come up for review once every five years. If they can't keep up with a pre-determined set of guidelines for competitiveness they can be taken over by the league and contracted or moved.

TRADES-
1.Trading teams can pay all or part of a traded player's salary. Does not count against threshold. This allows big names with bad contracts to go to small markets.


Last edited by Stretch Factor: 07-16-2012 at 11:17 AM.
Stretch Factor is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 12:23 PM
  #39
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
To address your points...
1) UFA status used to not begin until age 31, unless a player fell into Group VI (which still exists) or Group V free agency. Group V was for players who had at least 10 years of NHL experience and made less than the league average. That's how Scott Lachance became a Jacket.
Informational, but doesn't address anything.

Quote:
2) From a competitive balance standpoint, the salary floor is needed in order to make sure that what happens in MLB doesn't happen here. With MLB, the accusations have been leveled for years that "some teams" (Kansas City) collect revenue sharing checks and pocket it, rather than putting it back into the team.
3) Arbitration is necessary to ensure a player's ability to actually demand and receive a raise. If UFA status began after 10 years, AND there was no salary floor, AND there was no arbitration, there would theoretically be ways to draft a player, sign him to an ELC, and then never give him a raise until he became a free agency...and the player would have no real leverage except the threat of a holdout. That's fine for a few players, but for those who might be later in developing or are marginal, that's a very different story.
Once again, I said that is a owner issue. I understand the link to contracts, but as I said if you remove the RFA penalties to the poacher it's not a concern. If teams would be more willing to offer contracts to RFA's or they become UFA's sooner, that removes the need for arbitration.

Quote:
If compensation for signing an RFA goes away or is substantially reduced, then what we have is de facto UFA status starting at an early age. That would probably cause the league to revert to what it was in the late-1990s, when there were a clear-cut top-6 or -7 teams, with the rest of the league (especially the smaller markets) acting as a serfdom. Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing better than to have sat up on July 1 and signed Evander Kane to a nice big contract and not had to have paid any real compensation to do so, but it's not good for the league.
No. The team owning his rights has the option to matching. That's where the "restricted" comes from. As I stated I am open to a sliding scale on "compensation" based on age.

I appreciate your response, but as far as I can tell you didn't really address any of it with any satisfaction. At least nothing I hadn't thought of and certainly nothing compelling enough to get me to change my mind.

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:08 PM
  #40
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Informational, but doesn't address anything.

Once again, I said that is a owner issue. I understand the link to contracts, but as I said if you remove the RFA penalties to the poacher it's not a concern. If teams would be more willing to offer contracts to RFA's or they become UFA's sooner, that removes the need for arbitration.

No. The team owning his rights has the option to matching. That's where the "restricted" comes from. As I stated I am open to a sliding scale on "compensation" based on age.

I appreciate your response, but as far as I can tell you didn't really address any of it with any satisfaction. At least nothing I hadn't thought of and certainly nothing compelling enough to get me to change my mind.
I'm starting from the fact that I don't know how much you remember of the pre-1995 CBA (in which players could be moved as compensation) or the 1995-2004 landscape.

What we saw starting in 1996 (or 1990, if you're the Blues) was a movement that threatened to divide the league in two: the well-heeled and the serfs. We saw the Rangers offer Joe Sakic a 3-year, $21 million offer sheet, which contained only $6 million in salary and a $15 million signing bonus. That meant $17 million the first year for an ownership group that was barely breaking even. The compensation due would be 5 first-rounders, and the Rangers didn't care because they figured that Sakic would push the team into the bottom-five of every first round for about 10 years or so. Philadelphia signed Chris Gratton to a massive offer sheet, and thought nothing of losing 4 first-rounders in the process.

But it wasn't just with RFAs that that happened. The trade of Teemu Selanne, Joe Nieuwendyk, Theo Fleury, and several other players based in Canada are all directly traced to the divide that occurred...their teams couldn't compete with UFA salaries when that day came, but they also couldn't match a large offer sheet either. It was better to trade the player and get something now (usually picks and prospects) rather than spread out the compensation over multiple years. Calgary got lucky with getting Jarome Iginla rather than Todd Harvey in the Nieuwendyk trade, and Winnipeg whiffed badly with Tverdovsky and Kilger for Selanne.

In my opinion, heavy RFA compensations are needed. If there's a heavy penalty for signing a 22-year-old, but not a 25-year-old, then the team that develops and endures the growing pains with a young player will lose him for nothing or close to nothing just as he's really beginning to produce at a high level. We can look no further than MLB to see a system that is largely structured around that very idea.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:27 PM
  #41
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,018
vCash: 500
I agree on the RFA comp issue-it has to hurt to sign one. As much as I would like it to be different for the Jackets sake, someday they will have an RFA that is coveted by other teams and I'd hate to see that guy go for a pittance.

As for the salary cap, without any real study, I believe it works to the advantage of the big market teams with their deep pocket owners and large local TV contracts in addition to better attendance. The only way around this is to make revenue sharing more penal to the big guys and then make sure the teams are putting it back into the team (ie.salary cap floor). But as Blah said, that is an owners issue, not a CBA one.

EspenK is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:38 PM
  #42
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,459
vCash: 500
That's why there would be the ability to match by the team with rights. If they are up too close to the cap to match, that's their problem.

As far as signing bonus's go, if that doesn't count against the cap shame on the owners.

You seem to be dancing around without fully explaining why it's any issue. Yes, I understand the structure has to be set up right. But what the league is proposing is crap. 10 years under a crap franchise is garbage (and that's just to start).

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 02:24 PM
  #43
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
I agree on the RFA comp issue-it has to hurt to sign one. As much as I would like it to be different for the Jackets sake, someday they will have an RFA that is coveted by other teams and I'd hate to see that guy go for a pittance.

As for the salary cap, without any real study, I believe it works to the advantage of the big market teams with their deep pocket owners and large local TV contracts in addition to better attendance. The only way around this is to make revenue sharing more penal to the big guys and then make sure the teams are putting it back into the team (ie.salary cap floor). But as Blah said, that is an owners issue, not a CBA one.
Bob Costas suggested that the following take place to eliminate massive disparities in the (non-capped) world of MLB.
1) Gate receipts are partially split; something like 90% to the home team, and the remainder going into a common pool.
2) National TV revenues are all into the common pool.
3) Local TV revenues are 50% to the team, 50% to the common pool.

The common pool is then divided among all 30 teams equally. When he first proposed all of this, the idea of YES was only on the board and hadn't yet been put into practice, but the possibility of the Yankees stacking the deck to put a quarter of a billion dollars right into the team via local TV while the Royals were begging for $10 million locally was a big part of it. The Royals would still have $5 million and the Yankees $125, but the rest would be derived from the pool.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 02:27 PM
  #44
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
That's why there would be the ability to match by the team with rights. If they are up too close to the cap to match, that's their problem.

As far as signing bonus's go, if that doesn't count against the cap shame on the owners.

You seem to be dancing around without fully explaining why it's any issue. Yes, I understand the structure has to be set up right. But what the league is proposing is crap. 10 years under a crap franchise is garbage (and that's just to start).
We've never seen the possibility of snagging an RFA in a cap-strapped world though. The closest we've seen involved the Dale Tallon qualifying offer fiasco. And as far as lacking the foresight with signing bonuses, that seems to be another thing that was just like cap-evading contracts...the warning was "don't even think about it", then the league didn't address it when it happened.

I'm not sure what issue you're specifically referring to. Is it the lack of movement among RFAs, the very nature of it from a moral/ethical standpoint, or what?

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #45
CBJBrassard16
Sergei BobTrollsky
 
CBJBrassard16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,096
vCash: 500
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...lay-next-year/


CBJBrassard16 is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 02:34 PM
  #46
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
I'm calling BS. It is way too early and they stand way too much to lose to go through this again.

candyman82 is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 02:44 PM
  #47
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
Should this actually happen (which I doubt)...
Do we pick first?
Do we get the 2014 All-Star Game?

leesmith is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 03:06 PM
  #48
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
Should this actually happen (which I doubt)...
Do we pick first?
Do we get the 2014 All-Star Game?
There would probably be a full-league lottery, similar to 2005. This is where losing the 2012 lottery might actually work out for the better...the BPA (Murray) for the team was drafted anyway, and the possibility of having another extremely high pick.

2014 is up in the air because of the Sochi Olympics, which will probably be a CBA issue this time around as well. That said, both Atlanta and San Jose lost an All-Star Game and then got one two games later. San Jose was 1995, then became 1997...Atlanta was 2005, then became 2008 (2006 had no game for the Olympics).

Both also improved their All-Star logos dramatically in the meantime.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 03:09 PM
  #49
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
We've never seen the possibility of snagging an RFA in a cap-strapped world though.
A player should not get a lesser salary because you can not manage your cap space. Teams would have to be very careful with the cap and upcoming RFA's. I don't see any issue. As a matter of fact, I like that situation a lot. Right now calling a RFA a FA is a bit of a joke. It mainly means they are a slave without a contract. There only avenue of recourse is arbitration and the owners want to extend that out 3 years and remove arbitration?

No thanks and I'm normally so far removed from union agenda it's not even funny.

There are two issues.

#1. GM's don't want to be "that guy" for fear of being poached.
#2. The players that you want to poach would take a great deal of draft picks to acquire. Who wants to become a target of poaching because they picked up a 4th line role player?

Frankly I think they need to get over the hangups. Don't match if it's going to kill their cap space by overpaying for a player (remove all single salary limitations).

Quote:
I'm not sure what issue you're specifically referring to. Is it the lack of movement among RFAs, the very nature of it from a moral/ethical standpoint, or what?
With almost no chance of a player being offer sheeted, on top of extending it out to 10 years, you've created a situation in which Nashville could keep Weber even if he wanted out for a lot longer.

Players should not be slaves to a team. I understand the ELC from a development perspective. But players should control their own destiny sooner than age 27.

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 03:29 PM
  #50
FlaggerX
Registered User
 
FlaggerX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,172
vCash: 500
However they pick, Columbus won't get the pick.

http://youtu.be/KhIGpLylH-c

FlaggerX 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 07:12 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.