HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Notices

The Lockout Thread Part I

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2012, 03:34 PM
  #51
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
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.
But that puts us right back into whether a player prefers money or security. The current CBA has seen the advent of extremely long-term contracts, which inherently involve a major loss of money. Several players three years in are underpaid relative to their actual market value, and yet they signed the contract regardless.

This was another issue in the 1990s, when salaries were really taking off. A player would sign a contract, be underpaid two years in, and then hold out for a renegotiation. It was ridiculous.

In any case, I don't think for a second that removing arbitration will happen. Don't forget that 2004 CBA negotiations opened up with the NHL wanting the elimination of qualifying offers as a raise, AND the elimination of arbitration. Neither one of those happened; I'd imagine both come off the table fairly quickly.

Quote:
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).
There's a 3rd possibility, which is that teams don't feel like taking on some of the headaches that go with having to pay an enormous amount (in salary) to get an RFA. We saw in baseball when the salaries exploded that young players were getting buried on the bench behind non-producing players who simply were making too much to not play. Nearly every clubhouse had issues with a new player coming in and making an enormous amount more than everyone else.

And the problem with RFAs in the NHL is that it's almost entirely based on the potential of that player down the road. In order to get an offer sheet signed by the player AND stand a chance at getting him (compensation be damned), his salary would have to be astronomical. Personally, it makes no difference to me whether Evander Kane was making a ton while playing in Columbus. But I'm not inside that locker room.

The other issue has to do with salary escalation. You know as well as I do that salary is based off of comps to similar players. If an RFA is signed for a huge amount, it ratchets up the salaries around the league. How many GMs and owners are willing to add a player for a huge amount, then have to throw in at least an addition million per year for every other guy on the roster who's looking at re-signing in the near future?

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 03:44 PM
  #52
Stretch Factor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by candyman82 View Post
I'm calling BS. It is way too early and they stand way too much to lose to go through this again.
What do they have to lose? After the last lockout- attendance went up, revenues went up, TV viewership went up. There is a reason the cap went to $70m so quickly and it's not because the lockout was devastating to the owners.

Stretch Factor is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 03:54 PM
  #53
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
But that puts us right back into whether a player prefers money or security. The current CBA has seen the advent of extremely long-term contracts, which inherently involve a major loss of money. Several players three years in are underpaid relative to their actual market value, and yet they signed the contract regardless.
That's between them and their agents. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Certainly not a problem worth considering. They did discuss max contract lengths, I'm not opposed to that.

Quote:
This was another issue in the 1990s, when salaries were really taking off. A player would sign a contract, be underpaid two years in, and then hold out for a renegotiation. It was ridiculous.
Nothing I said re-enables that situation. I only see that being an issue of contracts are, suddenly, not guaranteed. If you hold out you aren't paid. That is something that can be addressed in the CBA, players can't renegotiate existing contracts.

Quote:
In any case, I don't think for a second that removing arbitration will happen. Don't forget that 2004 CBA negotiations opened up with the NHL wanting the elimination of qualifying offers as a raise, AND the elimination of arbitration. Neither one of those happened; I'd imagine both come off the table fairly quickly.
If things are set up right you don't even need arbitration.

Quote:
There's a 3rd possibility, which is that teams don't feel like taking on some of the headaches that go with having to pay an enormous amount (in salary) to get an RFA.
Who cares. They are doing it now anyway. Look at what a guy like Stamkos is getting. What's the difference?

Quote:
We saw in baseball when the salaries exploded that young players were getting buried on the bench behind non-producing players who simply were making too much to not play. Nearly every clubhouse had issues with a new player coming in and making an enormous amount more than everyone else.
Apples and oranges. I don't see what this has to do with anything with the NHL.

Quote:
And the problem with RFAs in the NHL is that it's almost entirely based on the potential of that player down the road. In order to get an offer sheet signed by the player AND stand a chance at getting him (compensation be damned), his salary would have to be astronomical. Personally, it makes no difference to me whether Evander Kane was making a ton while playing in Columbus. But I'm not inside that locker room.
I don't see that much of an issue to be honest. Where this starts to help is the second tier guys that teams won't be able to afford when they get their starts signed. A guy like Stamkos, for example, will get his RFA offer sheet matched. But by doing that they might expose another player. Another situation is that valuable second tier player might be an offer sheet and force his team to make a decision that might leave Stamkos vulnerable.

Right now teams can attempt force a player into a contract because they are up against the cap and the player kind of has to agree with it or go to arbitration. Remove the poaching penalties and teams will have to be a lot more aware of who is eying their players.

Quote:
The other issue has to do with salary escalation. You know as well as I do that salary is based off of comps to similar players. If an RFA is signed for a huge amount, it ratchets up the salaries around the league. How many GMs and owners are willing to add a player for a huge amount, then have to throw in at least an addition million per year for every other guy on the roster who's looking at re-signing in the near future?
That's why the cap exists. Salaries can only escalate so far.

You are mostly listing problems that will resolve themselves.

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 09:38 PM
  #54
Fred Glover
Chief of Sinners
 
Fred Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,055
vCash: 2000
I predict that there will be a work stoppage due to Donald Fehr. If there is a lock out, look for a settlement late this year with the Winter Classic as the first game of the season

Fred Glover is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:19 PM
  #55
CBJ Tiffin
Registered User
 
CBJ Tiffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
No problem. If the NHL doesnt want my money, the NCAA or ECHL will get it.

CBJ Tiffin is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 01:43 AM
  #56
FANonymous
Registered User
 
FANonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJ Tiffin View Post
No problem. If the NHL doesnt want my money, the NCAA or ECHL will get it.
Can I have it?

FANonymous is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 03:55 AM
  #57
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,458
vCash: 500
Fehr will destroy the owners. The guy is simply too good. The owners may as well give in early. They always give in at the end of the day. Fehr knows it. The owners know it.

I look for approximately 55% of revenue to go the players and no fundamental changes to UFAs, RFAs, length of contracts or anything else ownership wants to change.

Cyclones Rock is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:15 AM
  #58
KeithBWhittington
Going North
 
KeithBWhittington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brick by Brick
Country: Hungary
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclones Rock View Post
Fehr will destroy the owners. The guy is simply too good. The owners may as well give in early. They always give in at the end of the day. Fehr knows it. The owners know it.

I look for approximately 55% of revenue to go the players and no fundamental changes to UFAs, RFAs, length of contracts or anything else ownership wants to change.
The owners seemed content to shut down the last labor retracted season.... Define "giving in early".

Yes, Fehr is "battle tested" and all that, but I think even he sees this for what it is, a negoiating ploy.

I look at it similar to what Howson's "initial demands" were for Nash. If you don't start high, you undercut what you would ultimately "want". The Owners know there's no way in hell they will get all of this, but if they get half of it, they probably are well beyond satisified.

KeithBWhittington is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:39 AM
  #59
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJ Tiffin View Post
No problem. If the NHL doesnt want my money, the NCAA or ECHL will get it.
Pretty much this, I can go watch pro hockey a lot closer for a lot cheaper.

Skraut is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 07:55 AM
  #60
CBJ Tiffin
Registered User
 
CBJ Tiffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
Pretty much this, I can go watch pro hockey a lot closer for a lot cheaper.
#LEMTUDU at Panini.

CBJ Tiffin is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 08:32 AM
  #61
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
Pretty much this, I can go watch pro hockey a lot closer for a lot cheaper.
Pretty much like saying "I'll go and see the Clippers to watch pro baseball". The only reason I go to watch them is to chat with my friends.

While they are no longer amateur in the strictest sense, it's not the same. Not even close. It's part of the reason I'm so neutral on college football. You have like 3 guys total, if you are lucky, from both teams that might make the NFL someday. I find all the big mistakes annoying at that level.

That's not to say I don't enjoy more amateur sports, but it's certainly not going to satisfy my desire to watch competition at a very high level. No, I'm not trying to say you don't have the right to enjoy it or that it is somehow wrong to enjoy it. Just saying that watching NCAA or ECHL (or even AHL) is almost like watching a different game completely. I end up just nitpicking the players to death.

At least with high school sports (and below), I can put the game in perspective and enjoy watching what I see. For some reason I can't do that with the next level of those sports. It really hurts my enjoyment. Perhaps because at that level I've got my scouting hat on and there is usually no one worth scouting.

blahblah is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 08:49 AM
  #62
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Pretty much like saying "I'll go and see the Clippers to watch pro baseball". The only reason I go to watch them is to chat with my friends.

While they are no longer amateur in the strictest sense, it's not the same. Not even close. It's part of the reason I'm so neutral on college football. You have like 3 guys total, if you are lucky, from both teams that might make the NFL someday. I find all the big mistakes annoying at that level.

That's not to say I don't enjoy more amateur sports, but it's certainly not going to satisfy my desire to watch competition at a very high level. No, I'm not trying to say you don't have the right to enjoy it or that it is somehow wrong to enjoy it. Just saying that watching NCAA or ECHL (or even AHL) is almost like watching a different game completely. I end up just nitpicking the players to death.

At least with high school sports (and below), I can put the game in perspective and enjoy watching what I see. For some reason I can't do that with the next level of those sports. It really hurts my enjoyment. Perhaps because at that level I've got my scouting hat on and there is usually no one worth scouting.

For me, I can watch an AHL team 10 minutes away, or an NHL team 130 minutes away.

For the reasons you mentioned, the NHL team USUALLY wins.

But, take away the NHL for a season, and you take away the chance that the AHL player you like will get called up, leading to more continuity in teams.

Take away the NHL, and I can forget that the AHL players I'm watching will go and play for one of my most despised teams (Colorado)

Take away the NHL, and the money I spent on quarter season upper bowl tickets, suddenly becomes a full season 2 rows from the glass at the AHL.

Take away the NHL, and I would spend less time talking about a last place team, and spend more time enjoying a playoff team.

Add in having seemingly the only 6 month old in the world that doesn't sleep in the car, and if the NHL goes away for a year, I could be perfectly happy with the AHL.

Skraut is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 11:10 AM
  #63
IBleedUnionBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedUnionBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,118
vCash: 500
I will spend alot of weekends in Gatlinburg and go up to Knoxville to watch the Ice Bears. I will also go to watch hockey in Ft. Wayne and U of Miami.

IBleedUnionBlue is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 11:23 AM
  #64
joshjoshjosh
ಠ_ಠ
 
joshjoshjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guam
Country: Eritrea
Posts: 2,265
vCash: 500
  • Redefine what is "hockey revenue (HR)" so less of the league's revenue is included
  • Lower the player's share of "HR" from 57% to 46%


Asking for both at the same time seems ballsy.

"We want to take some money out of your left pocket, and then we wanna take some money out of your right pocket."

joshjoshjosh is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 11:31 AM
  #65
PuckNerd
Registered User
 
PuckNerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJ Tiffin View Post
No problem. If the NHL doesnt want my money, the NCAA or ECHL will get it.
I wouldn't mind the same long drive to watch a couple Buckeye games if the NHL goes into a lockout. Also would road trip it to a few different venues from Cyclones to Icemen. Or finally get to catch an SPHL game. Having said that I don't want a lockout, but there's other options to see hockey if it comes down to it.

PuckNerd is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 02:51 PM
  #66
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post
For me, I can watch an AHL team 10 minutes away, or an NHL team 130 minutes away.

For the reasons you mentioned, the NHL team USUALLY wins.

But, take away the NHL for a season, and you take away the chance that the AHL player you like will get called up, leading to more continuity in teams.

Take away the NHL, and I can forget that the AHL players I'm watching will go and play for one of my most despised teams (Colorado)

Take away the NHL, and the money I spent on quarter season upper bowl tickets, suddenly becomes a full season 2 rows from the glass at the AHL.

Take away the NHL, and I would spend less time talking about a last place team, and spend more time enjoying a playoff team.

Add in having seemingly the only 6 month old in the world that doesn't sleep in the car, and if the NHL goes away for a year, I could be perfectly happy with the AHL.
During the lockout year of 2004-05, the quality of AHL hockey was unreal. It was almost like watching an NHL game. In fact, "almost" isn't needed when one is a Jackets fan.

From the 2004-05 Cincinnati Mighty Ducks, these TEN players all played a full season 7 years later in the NHL in 2011-12: Joffery Lupul, Zenon Konopka, Kurtis Foster, PA Parenteau, Shane O'Brien, Chris Kunitz, Dustin Penner, Tim Brent, Sheldon Brookbank and Ilya Bryzgalov. That's probably more NHL retention that most NHL teams have had since then. There were many other outstanding players on that Ducks team.

NHL hockey is a very replaceable commodity for a real hockey fan when the product is as good as the AHL in a lock out/strike situation.

Even the ECHL will become a much better product with a labor stoppage.

I hope (and think) that the situation will resolved without any stoppage. Fehr is tough and the owners and players don't want another stoppage.

Also, if anyone might care, former Jacket Andrew Cassels will not be returning for a second season as an assistant coach for the ECHL Cincinnati Cyclones. I don't know why, but am assuming that he did not want to relocate himself and/or family from his home in the Columbus area.

Cyclones Rock is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 05:27 PM
  #67
Xoggz22
Registered User
 
Xoggz22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 4,237
vCash: 500
Sorry all but I haven't read this thread. Just a random thought to get me into the discussion. I believe the expiring CBA has the revenue sharing tied to the cap figure right? It's been an issue to have a floor and a ceiling on where to spend. Why wouldn't it make sense to allow teams to stay below the cap floor but forfeit revenue sharing in some manner based on their relative position to the rest of the league? I know the ceiling was implemented because there are teams/owners that can spend, spend, spend which could be an unfair advantage (potentially) but if a team chooses to not spend and be competitive, why not just take away....no free money for you?

Just wondering.

Xoggz22 is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:18 PM
  #68
Matt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,946
vCash: 500
This discussion is moot. The season will not start on time

Matt is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:59 PM
  #69
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,384
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
This discussion is moot. The season will not start on time


Personally, I'm planning on waiting 'till September before I even start prognostications.

...that said, that didn't stop me from being really rather annoyed with the owners after I heard the initial offer. If that's their "start high as part of negotiations" bit, I worry about their intended goal.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 12:44 PM
  #70
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,767
vCash: 500
Got to place limits on these signing bonuses as they relate to the cap. You pay it, it counts against the cap that year. None of this front bs with cap hits spread over umpteen years. If not, small market teams should start their own league and tell the big 8 or so to gft.

EspenK is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 01:38 PM
  #71
Fred Glover
Chief of Sinners
 
Fred Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,055
vCash: 2000
After seeing the Flyers offer to Weber, and hearing Fehr's response (the offer speaks for itself, tweeted by Elliott Friedman) I can guarantee this season won't start on time. So at least we get a break from watching bad Blue Jacket hockey for a while

Fred Glover is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 01:48 PM
  #72
Nordique
Registered User
 
Nordique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,048
vCash: 500
I don't think the players have the appetite for a lockout like they did 8 years ago. They'll blink first and only ask for a concession on % of HR.

I expect the 5 year limitation on contract duration to go in, along with a modest reduction in player % of Hockey Revenues (from 57% to somethink like 50-52%)

Nordique is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 06:48 PM
  #73
KeithBWhittington
Going North
 
KeithBWhittington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brick by Brick
Country: Hungary
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Glover View Post
After seeing the Flyers offer to Weber, and hearing Fehr's response (the offer speaks for itself, tweeted by Elliott Friedman) I can guarantee this season won't start on time. So at least we get a break from watching bad Blue Jacket hockey for a while
This. How did the PA not start laugh hysterically when this happened? After what they put in front of the players just a few days ago, this is a joke.

KeithBWhittington is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 02:28 AM
  #74
joshjoshjosh
ಠ_ಠ
 
joshjoshjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guam
Country: Eritrea
Posts: 2,265
vCash: 500
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...8910--nhl.html

Quote:
"That's some impudence. I would only answer for myself — this variant is not acceptable.
I gotta work "That's some impudence" into the lexicon.

joshjoshjosh is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 03:06 AM
  #75
mt-svk
CBJ/OTT fan
 
mt-svk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClevelandJacketFan View Post
The Owners would be foolish to lockout the players. The game is in a good financial state and the league is growing.
Not all team are in the green numbers, a lot of teams in the red.

If lockout is the positions of KHL will be stronger. Not so good like in NHL but stronger and it can be very important. Plus, the situation in the world isnt pink and nobody know what can happen. We will see.

mt-svk 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 01:35 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.