HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ladies and gentleman we are going on a strike or lock-out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-19-2012, 10:40 PM
  #301
dutchy29
Registered User
 
dutchy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SIRISAACBROCKVILLE
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
as frustrating... infuriating, as it would be to lose part or a full season...

imagine if the season gets shelved, and we end up in another draft lottery situation, where quite likely we'd end up in the lower-tier(assuming they used a similar formula to last time), thus getting a strong shot at a top-5 pick...

- end up with a top forward prospect like Mackinnon, Monahan, Barkov
- lose a year of Gomez/Kaberle/Bourque
- be in a much more favorable situation to move any of the above since they'd have 1(gomez/kaberle) or 2 (bourque) years left on their deals
- 1 extra year of development for our borderline NHL prospects (Leblanc/Geoffrion/Palushaj/Weber) and for our top young guys they'd surely find spots world-wide where they'd be in starring roles (Maxpac/subban/desharnais/eller) assuming they weren't ripping it up in the AHL.

from an organization pov, losing a year of NHL play might actually be a FF to having a legit contender since it would remove any pressure on the management team to make any "win now" moves, it would give us a great shot at another lottery pick (without having to suffer through a lottery-pick season), it would give our talented young assets an extra year to develop away from the intense pressure/scrutiny of Montreal, and it would bring the talented prospects we already have 1 year closer to being NHL assets (Gally, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi et.)


more I think about it, more it might actually turn into a "silver lining" for us... once you get away from the hole "year without NHL hockey" suckiness.
well your right, but its one of those things that we will accept if there is a lockout, but
I think we will all be upset if we miss a season without hockey.
I can't see anyone acutually hoping for a lockout. what else are we going to do this winter

dutchy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 10:48 PM
  #302
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH4 View Post
who is eligible to go back to hamilton? I guess PK, Eller, Paccio and desharnais aren't, right?
The problem will be the scenario of the half-season. You won't want to send these guys down, in case that in the middle of January they manage to get this done(new CBA) and then you need them back up. (Assuming waivers will apply)

I don't know their waiver status one by one, someone can chip in? (And no it's not because you have a 2 way that you are still waiver-free)

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2012, 11:11 PM
  #303
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
The problem will be the scenario of the half-season. You won't want to send these guys down, in case that in the middle of January they manage to get this done(new CBA) and then you need them back up. (Assuming waivers will apply)

I don't know their waiver status one by one, someone can chip in? (And no it's not because you have a 2 way that you are still waiver-free)
Whenever they start the season all the players will be on the Habs roster, then they have training camp, preseason and during that time will be when the players they aren't keeping will get sent down.

Waivers won't apply for what you're thinking.

Frozenice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 12:28 PM
  #304
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaner View Post
I can't help but think that this Weber offer sheet will have dire implications for the new CBA negotiations. I am now expecting a protracted battle. Whether Nashville matches or not, the money being thrown around should strengthen Fehr's resolve. If a small market team is able to match a 110$M contract - after the head whiner himself, Leipold, doled out 198$M - why should the PA make any concessions to a league crying foul abut finances?

The new wrinkle I foresee because of the Weber deal is massive dissension within the owners. With changes needed to the revenue sharing system, how is Bettman going to be able to get a consensus with all this (presumed) bad blood within his own camp? How will Geoff Molson feel, having recently invested a ~half billion in his team, if his payments into revenue sharing double or triple? How will the Jacobs, Snider, et alia of the league feel if a new deal with teeth legislates away their competitive advantage (lots and lots of cash to burn)?

Obviously, the scenarios are quite different, but the one comment of Fehr's from the 1994 MLBPA strike that sticks out was something to the effect of "The only reason this (strike) is happening is because large market teams (the Yankees) and small market teams (the Expos) simply couldn't come to an understanding on how to divide revenue between themselves."
This is exactly what I've been posting like a maniac. This is about big market vs. small market teams, not players vs. owners. And in this case, unlike the Expos, god love them, we are a BIG market team. Really big.

Do you think Yankees fans gave a **** about the Expos? Not. And I don't give a **** about the Coyotes. Why should I ? Why should you?
I want to see the Habs play, and if 6-10 useless teams have to fold for that to happen, I don't give a ****. The Habs remaining opponents will only get better, as will the Habs.

But this will not happen. These teams will not fold, and we will go on and on with the Cap, the CBA, and lockouts. Here's why:

This Cap and CBA ******** will go on and on, every 5 years, if the NHL and Bettman, the agents and his ilk insist on having hockey where it does not fit, or make money. They do this for their TV deals, and their 10 percent. That is all. That is why this is happening. It's not the players. It's not the owners. It's Hollywood agent useless middleman manager bloodsuckers that will cause this lockout, again.

Ever ask yourself why a DVD costs so much? It's the useless marketing, agent and management middlemen that make it so.

That is the culture Bettman brought to the NHL. Hollywood live off other people's talent culture, and make everything cost much more because of it.

Using others talent. In this case not Brad Pitt, but Brad Richards, same thing.

I curse the day that ****er Bettman came near the NHL.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 12:43 PM
  #305
Mathradio
Go Roy Munson!
 
Mathradio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
This is exactly what I've been posting like a maniac. This is about big market vs. small market teams, not players vs. owners. And in this case, unlike the Expos, god love them, we are a BIG market team. Really big.

Do you think Yankees fans gave a **** about the Expos? Not. And I don't give a **** about the Coyotes. Why should I ? Why should you?
I want to see the Habs play, and if 6-10 useless teams have to fold for that to happen, I don't give a ****. The Habs remaining opponents will only get better, as will the Habs.

But this will not happen. These teams will not fold, and we will go on and on with the Cap, the CBA, and lockouts. Here's why:

This Cap and CBA ******** will go on and on, every 5 years, if the NHL and Bettman, the agents and his ilk insist on having hockey where it does not fit, or make money. They do this for their TV deals, and their 10 percent. That is all. That is why this is happening. It's not the players. It's not the owners. It's Hollywood agent useless middleman manager bloodsuckers that will cause this lockout, again.

Ever ask yourself why a DVD costs so much? It's the useless marketing, agent and management middlemen that make it so.

That is the culture Bettman brought to the NHL. Hollywood live off other people's talent culture, and make everything cost much more because of it.

Using others talent. In this case not Brad Pitt, but Brad Richards, same thing.

I curse the day that ****er Bettman came near the NHL.
And the other sports are afflicted also.

Mathradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:43 PM
  #306
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathradio View Post
I thought that, once an offer sheet is matched, a team had to keep the player for an entire season before they could trade him...
I didn't know that. If so, it would be prudent to allow Weber to depart and accept the compensatory draft choices, as was the case with Phil Kessel. The Preds will have to rebuild over a number of years because they'll also be missing Suter, Radulov, and AKost. All were key players.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2012, 04:55 PM
  #307
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I didn't know that. If so, it would be prudent to allow Weber to depart and accept the compensatory draft choices, as was the case with Phil Kessel. The Preds will have to rebuild over a number of years because they'll also be missing Suter, Radulov, and AKost. All were key players.
Not really. They were having a great season without those two in the line-up. Not to say they aren't serviceable players, but Nashville can do without them.

It would be a huge mistake to not match the offer. The odds of finding an equally talented player as Weber with those four picks--who will almost certainly be very low 1st rounders--are thin. Weber is one of the best defensemen in the league. He is very very well-rounded. Nashville without Suter can still win next year. They have a bunch of young, talented guys coming up the pipes in Ellis, Blum and Josi. They can give more ice time to Klein who did pretty well in the playoffs. And they have a good veteran in Gill. These guys, coupled with Trotz' great coaching, should do good. Remove Weber from the equation though, and you don't have much. He needs to be their general at the blue line and to teach the kids.

Don't get me wrong, losing Suter hurts. But it's not all doom and gloom for the Preds.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 07:54 PM
  #308
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
According to a memo from Fehr, the league's offer is actually for the players to get 43% percent of revenue ("43% and change") based on the current calculation. Combine that with entry level where the owners can opt out after 2 years or hold them for up to 5, no arbitration, 10 yr free agency....

This is huge huge cash grab by the owners (albeit only as an opening gambit) but what's most interesting is there is. Zero new money committed to revenue sharing. The idea is to set up a structure where even a sunbelt team can be profitable and let the already profitable teams just rake in mountains of cash.

Be interesting to see how the PA responds.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 10:48 PM
  #309
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Revenue sharing is in the game's long-term interest. It's important to grow the sport, as it will attract more fans, get new and better TV and merchandise deals, and potentially new expansion fees.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2012, 10:52 PM
  #310
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
Not really. They were having a great season without those two in the line-up. Not to say they aren't serviceable players, but Nashville can do without them.
Yes and No. They were a much better team statistically once those two joined the team, though obviously some of the credit goes to Hal Gill (not much since he was injured) and Paul Gaustad.

Radulov had 7 points in 9 games and Kostitsyn had 12 points in 19 games. They will miss those guys even more now that they're lacking Suter. They can no longer count on their defense to produce their offense.

We're getting a great 2nd rounder in 2013.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 06:30 AM
  #311
Uwey
Registered User
 
Uwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
as frustrating... infuriating, as it would be to lose part or a full season...

imagine if the season gets shelved, and we end up in another draft lottery situation, where quite likely we'd end up in the lower-tier(assuming they used a similar formula to last time), thus getting a strong shot at a top-5 pick...

- end up with a top forward prospect like Mackinnon, Monahan, Barkov
- lose a year of Gomez/Kaberle/Bourque
- be in a much more favorable situation to move any of the above since they'd have 1(gomez/kaberle) or 2 (bourque) years left on their deals
- 1 extra year of development for our borderline NHL prospects (Leblanc/Geoffrion/Palushaj/Weber) and for our top young guys they'd surely find spots world-wide where they'd be in starring roles (Maxpac/subban/desharnais/eller) assuming they weren't ripping it up in the AHL.

from an organization pov, losing a year of NHL play might actually be a FF to having a legit contender since it would remove any pressure on the management team to make any "win now" moves, it would give us a great shot at another lottery pick (without having to suffer through a lottery-pick season), it would give our talented young assets an extra year to develop away from the intense pressure/scrutiny of Montreal, and it would bring the talented prospects we already have 1 year closer to being NHL assets (Gally, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi et.)


more I think about it, more it might actually turn into a "silver lining" for us... once you get away from the hole "year without NHL hockey" suckiness.

Just to let you in on the formula they used last time, it was called random drawing of team names, which means the Habs could just as easily get a pick between 26-30, rather than 1-5.


Be careful what you wish for!!!!

Uwey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 07:09 AM
  #312
Corncob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I didn't know that. If so, it would be prudent to allow Weber to depart and accept the compensatory draft choices, as was the case with Phil Kessel. The Preds will have to rebuild over a number of years because they'll also be missing Suter, Radulov, and AKost. All were key players.
Kessel wasn't offer sheeted and four late first rounders are nowhere near the value of Weber.

Also not sure how Kostitsyn and Radulov were 'key players' for Nashville when both of them only played for Nashville for a couple of months which were the least convincing couple of months of their season.

Corncob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:04 PM
  #313
habfaninvictoria
Registered User
 
habfaninvictoria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 1,729
vCash: 500
I do think there will be a work stoppage. I don't blame players for wanting to get a bigger share of the pie. I don't blame owners for saying no. Lets not forget that in all of this it is the owners who shoulder the largest risk.

Players expect big raises when they have a couple good years. When they don't perform up to the contract they don't give the money back. These contracts handcuff teams for years.

Teams spend millions of dollars developing talent only to have them run when they are UFA if their team doesn't pony up the money they believe they are worth... never mind the fact that the team is largely responsible for the development of their talent. This money is not recouped and they get no compensation for the player. Add to this the KHL factor and I'd wanna lock up shop too.

Teams spend millions of dollars branding their franchises and players want 50% of this pie. They pay nothing for the production or advertising though. I don't buy a habs sweater because of the name on the back.

Players rights need to be protected for sure, years ago the owners tread all over them. But I'm not going to feel sorry for the players on this today. Salaries are higher and more stupid than ever. If you and I feel angry about the Gomez contract imagine how Geoff Molson feel.... he's the one signing the cheque.

Player agents are the real blame. I don't know what their percentage is, but I'm sure it's ridiculous. They have no real scruples as far as I can tell. They have no disclosure rules to keep them honest. They can lie all they want... and do. Do you really think Parise is worth that contract.... maybe... and thats a big maybe for the next couple years... but for the better part of it it won't be. Best year ever to be a mediocre UFA... his agent played Minny to the hilt and thats where Parise wanted to go anyway.....

I haven't watched a baseball game since 1994. Greedy ********. If this goes the same way I'll find another way to spend my entertainment dollar.

habfaninvictoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:11 PM
  #314
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfaninvictoria View Post
I don't blame players for wanting to get a bigger share of the pie. I don't blame owners for saying no.
We'll see what the counter proposal is, but I'd be very surprised if the NHLPA proposed an increase in revenue share from the last CBA. I haven't read/heard anything about players "wanting to get a bigger share."

Quote:
Originally Posted by habfaninvictoria View Post
Lets not forget that in all of this it is the owners who shoulder the largest risk.
I don't know of many owners who have had careers shortened/ended by injuries... yes, top pro athletes can make tons of money, but I'd say their chosen career has lots of risk. There is some financial risk for owners, but they all have other sources of wealth.

Roulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 12:55 PM
  #315
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
We'll see what the counter proposal is, but I'd be very surprised if the NHLPA proposed an increase in revenue share from the last CBA. I haven't read/heard anything about players "wanting to get a bigger share."



I don't know of many owners who have had careers shortened/ended by injuries... yes, top pro athletes can make tons of money, but I'd say their chosen career has lots of risk. There is some financial risk for owners, but they all have other sources of wealth.
This canard is being thrown around pretty widely, and while it may become true in the future, right now it's a flat-out falsehood. Here are some facts:

1. Prior to the last lockout, the players were happy with a pure free-market system insofar as having neither a minimum nor a maximum share of league revenues committed to player compensation. It was the owners who demanded a hard salary cap, and the players who eventually agreed to accept it. The salary cap was linked to league revenues, and the players took a 24% pay cut in the first year, basically allowing the owners to escape commitments already made in signed contracts.

2. As per the CBA that both parties agreed to, the player's share of revenues was 'scalable' and since league revenues exploded, their share of them grew from 54% to 57%.

3. As of right now, the owners have proposed taking a much, much larger share of league revenues. They have also proposed eliminating many of the player's individual rights to seek higher compensation via free agency, via arbitration, via non entry-level contracts, etc.

4. As of right now, the players have asked for no changes from the current CBA, which was previously agreed to by both sides.

If anyone can provide a link disproving any of these points, I'd love to see it.

To say the players have asked for "a bigger share" or "want more", as has been thrown out multiple times in this thread is simply not true. This is the single key reason that I find myself siding much more with the players at this moment in time than I have in the past. If and when they try to hold the season hostage to their demands for more money, I'll be furious with them, but as of this minute the owners, and only the owners, are taking that stand. The fact that they are proposing to help the poor clubs purely by taking money from the players, and have proposed zero dollars in increased revenue sharing among the clubs themselves, really drives home how blatantly they are seeking a cash grab. The rich clubs are offering nothing in return for increased profits, their stance is that only the players that must sacrifice to keep hockey in the sunbelt.

Both sides are greedy, that's no shock, but only side is holding the season hostage right now. There is no threat of a strike on the table, only of a lockout.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:08 PM
  #316
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,437
vCash: 500
Nashville better match, not one of those picks is going to be lower than 20.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:20 PM
  #317
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
Nashville better match, not one of those picks is going to be lower than 20.
Don't worry, they will match. It's a no brainer both hockey and financially wise. Weber is the face of the franchise and a Norris candidate ever year.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:24 PM
  #318
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Don't worry, they will match. It's a no brainer both hockey and financially wise. Weber is the face of the franchise and a Norris candidate ever year.
I think if it was a given they would have matched already.

DAChampion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:25 PM
  #319
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
I wish Nashville offer sheet Giroux next time he is RFA..

NewHabsEra* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:36 PM
  #320
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
This canard is being thrown around pretty widely, and while it may become true in the future, right now it's a flat-out falsehood. Here are some facts:

1. Prior to the last lockout, the players were happy with a pure free-market system insofar as having neither a minimum nor a maximum share of league revenues committed to player compensation. It was the owners who demanded a hard salary cap, and the players who eventually agreed to accept it. The salary cap was linked to league revenues, and the players took a 24% pay cut in the first year, basically allowing the owners to escape commitments already made in signed contracts.

2. As per the CBA that both parties agreed to, the player's share of revenues was 'scalable' and since league revenues exploded, their share of them grew from 54% to 57%.

3. As of right now, the owners have proposed taking a much, much larger share of league revenues. They have also proposed eliminating many of the player's individual rights to seek higher compensation via free agency, via arbitration, via non entry-level contracts, etc.

4. As of right now, the players have asked for no changes from the current CBA, which was previously agreed to by both sides.

If anyone can provide a link disproving any of these points, I'd love to see it.

To say the players have asked for "a bigger share" or "want more", as has been thrown out multiple times in this thread is simply not true. This is the single key reason that I find myself siding much more with the players at this moment in time than I have in the past. If and when they try to hold the season hostage to their demands for more money, I'll be furious with them, but as of this minute the owners, and only the owners, are taking that stand. The fact that they are proposing to help the poor clubs purely by taking money from the players, and have proposed zero dollars in increased revenue sharing among the clubs themselves, really drives home how blatantly they are seeking a cash grab. The rich clubs are offering nothing in return for increased profits, their stance is that only the players that must sacrifice to keep hockey in the sunbelt.

Both sides are greedy, that's no shock, but only side is holding the season hostage right now. There is no threat of a strike on the table, only of a lockout.
This should be stickied and mandatory reading for all weighing into the discussion. These are my thoughts exactly .

In everyday life we see many abuses which give us pro or anti management leanings accordingly but I've noticed the tendency over time for fans to side with management , now so much so as to do so blindly without full consideration of the issues.

You post is a good reminder of what there is to think about.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 01:55 PM
  #321
DekeLikeYouMeanIt
RIP
 
DekeLikeYouMeanIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
as frustrating... infuriating, as it would be to lose part or a full season...

imagine if the season gets shelved, and we end up in another draft lottery situation, where quite likely we'd end up in the lower-tier(assuming they used a similar formula to last time), thus getting a strong shot at a top-5 pick...

- end up with a top forward prospect like Mackinnon, Monahan, Barkov
- lose a year of Gomez/Kaberle/Bourque
- be in a much more favorable situation to move any of the above since they'd have 1(gomez/kaberle) or 2 (bourque) years left on their deals
- 1 extra year of development for our borderline NHL prospects (Leblanc/Geoffrion/Palushaj/Weber) and for our top young guys they'd surely find spots world-wide where they'd be in starring roles (Maxpac/subban/desharnais/eller) assuming they weren't ripping it up in the AHL.

from an organization pov, losing a year of NHL play might actually be a FF to having a legit contender since it would remove any pressure on the management team to make any "win now" moves, it would give us a great shot at another lottery pick (without having to suffer through a lottery-pick season), it would give our talented young assets an extra year to develop away from the intense pressure/scrutiny of Montreal, and it would bring the talented prospects we already have 1 year closer to being NHL assets (Gally, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi et.)


more I think about it, more it might actually turn into a "silver lining" for us... once you get away from the hole "year without NHL hockey" suckiness.
That's nice but on the other hand, Subban, Max and Price are now a year older. Another year removed from their window of opportunity.

DekeLikeYouMeanIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:16 PM
  #322
Tusk
Registered User
 
Tusk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uwey View Post
Just to let you in on the formula they used last time, it was called random drawing of team names, which means the Habs could just as easily get a pick between 26-30, rather than 1-5.


Be careful what you wish for!!!!
It was actually a weighted system based on the last 3 seasons of where the teams finished. Last season could definitely help the Habs have a better shot at a higher pick, but you're also correct in saying it could be 25-30, with slimmer chances of that happening too depending on your ranking.

Tusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2012, 02:44 PM
  #323
rafal majka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Don't know if anyone has posted this insightful article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4429817/

Quote:
Where the league is suffering and why we may have yet another lockout (the third under Bettman) is (a) the bottom 10 teams have revenues so low they can’t cover their expenses and (b) those at the top have little intention of helping them do so more than they already are.

It’s an owner versus owner problem more than it is an owner versus player one, with Thursday’s massive offer sheet (Weber) the perfect example of how a high spending team can go after one receiving revenue sharing and just hanging on.

rafal majka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2012, 08:42 AM
  #324
Prust Y U MAD Bruins*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
It's always like that in any negotiation between employee and employer. The employer always comes hard at the first round of negotiation.

nothing to be scared about.

Prust Y U MAD Bruins* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2012, 09:27 AM
  #325
habs_24x
Registered User
 
habs_24x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 500
If negociations are not completed by sept, both parties should renew the current CBA for 1 more year and continue to talk til theres a resolution. Closing down the NHL again would be a huge mistake given all the advancements they've made since the last lockout.

habs_24x 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 02:40 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.