HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Thank God It's Over (The Official Offseason Talk Thread) III

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2012, 06:14 PM
  #351
Haite
x
 
Haite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,863
vCash: 2465
I kind of wonder how plain wheat colored pads would look like.

Haite is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 06:17 PM
  #352
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,360
vCash: 500
Harding had gold pads once...not quite wheat though.

Dee Oh Cee is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 06:29 PM
  #353
Vashanesh
My best outfit
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Oh Cee View Post
Harding had gold pads once...not quite wheat though.
Personally, I thought those were ugly as sin.

Vashanesh is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 10:30 PM
  #354
Victorious Secret
Dr. Chuck Evil
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 10,756
vCash: 16145
They were disgusting. I liked his old style pads. Those were neat.

Victorious Secret is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 11:05 PM
  #355
Billy Mays Here
Optimistic Pessimist
 
Billy Mays Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 13,234
vCash: 50
I used the associations pads up until pee wees I think. The first set of pads I owned were 29 inch Vaughn Velocities.



Only wore them for about a year though before I grew out of them and had to move up to a set of 32 inch CCM Blockades.



A couple years of those then I finally used some Itech pads similar to these the last couple years I played except mine were white and grey, not white and blue/black. Can't remember if they were 34 or 36 inches though. I've got em' stored in my dad's garage.


Billy Mays Here is offline  
Old
08-13-2012, 11:43 PM
  #356
SauceHockey
Retired
 
SauceHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: p
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 4,002
vCash: 500
What are the new warrior sticks called anyways?

SauceHockey is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 01:50 AM
  #357
Sportsfan1
Registered User
 
Sportsfan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: State of Hockey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,897
vCash: 500
Frankly I don't know what to think about a possible lockout this year. Last time around I was all with the owners because I wanted that Salary cap and am thrilled to have it, but this time both sides are asking too much. I"m just going to let this play out and pray we get a season on time, that's all you can do.

Sportsfan1 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 10:57 AM
  #358
TZM
Par too easy
 
TZM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kerava
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Somehow I have a good feeling about the lockout. The players are presenting their proposition now.

Quote:
Over 200+ players have reviewed the @NHLPA alternate proposal in the last 48 hours. 23 players are now presenting it to the @NHL.
https://twitter.com/NHLPA/status/235396414023274496

TZM is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:56 PM
  #359
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
http://tvasports.ca/video/1785231748001

PMB back on the ice for the first time this summer.

He's their new chairman after all.


Last edited by Fel 96: 08-14-2012 at 03:02 PM.
Fel 96 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:02 PM
  #360
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
The NHLPA's proposal is being kept quiet, but it's apparently an "interesting" hybrid rate type proposal that includes an out-clause after only 3 years. They want to force their brand of revenue sharing upon the league and want the CBA to be short term to "test" it.

No removal of salary cap. No extreme positions. Outside analysis seems to indicate that it's around a 52.5/47.5 split in the players' favor.

squidz* is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:03 PM
  #361
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fel 96 View Post
http://tvasports.ca/video/1785231748001

PMB back on the ice for the first time this summer.

He's their new chairman after all.
As someone who doesn't speak French, what is PMB saying?

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:26 PM
  #362
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Nothing interesting I guess.

Fel 96 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:45 PM
  #363
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Quote:
@kassassination kass less tweeting, i need to know what gear you want this year#doyoushootright?lol
http://twitter.com/styleswild/status/235476690388795392

Fel 96 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 07:11 PM
  #364
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,874
vCash: 2037
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Union makes counterproposal one month before potential NHL lockout

Fel 96 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 07:34 PM
  #365
Victorious Secret
Dr. Chuck Evil
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 10,756
vCash: 16145
Timing was key for them. Stupid tactics.

Victorious Secret is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 08:20 PM
  #366
SwimToTheMoon
Wild fan in WPG
 
SwimToTheMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
From what I've read and heard, the PA's proposal is decent. They didn't get into a pissing match with the NHL and demand the salary cap be abolished. They actually thought this proposal through, and then thought it through again.

I see this as being a VERY good sign that we may indeed avoid a possible lockout..... am I just being a glass-full type guy or do I have reason to be optimistic?

SwimToTheMoon is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:04 AM
  #367
Northland Wild Man
Finnesotans?
 
Northland Wild Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 7,447
vCash: 500
It's going to be interesting to see what gets negotiated into place. I'm more optimistic now than I was before I saw the PA's proposal. That being said I still could see a short lockout. I am more than happy to see there is no mention of a luxury tax anywhere in the proposal. That is a sport killer, and would more than likely drive away the fans.

Northland Wild Man is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:17 AM
  #368
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
While the PA's reaction was more reasonable than most people expected (probably because most people somehow thought the original league proposal was outlandish, even though it wasn't), there are still some major issues with the proposal vis a vis what the league demands:

Length - The league is pretty steadfast that it wants a minimum of 6 years on the next CBA. This isn't likely to be negotiable, except in extreme cases.

Salary Linkage - The big change for the players is that it more or less eliminates the salary linkage for a couple years (with an option of returning to it in the fourth). That's what's so different about the proposal, and it's also why the owners are unlikely to accept it. Eliminating the salary linkage might be palatable if revenues continue to rise, but if they fall or remain stagnant, that's a huge problem for the owners.


Basically, the good news out of this is that 1) the players are willing to negotiate and 2) Fehr is not trying to remove the salary cap. What this really means is that a deal is possible, not imminent, but certainly plausible within the next 31 days.

squidz* is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:22 PM
  #369
DANOZ28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
well, the nhl revenue is 3.3 billion, most goes to the top 10 teams & the bottom ten teams are losing money. doesnt the nhl aka bettman need to change the business model before demanding the players take a reduction in salary that will TRY (key word) and fix the problem? i think one team should be moved & 2 contracted then ask the players to chip in & do their part. just my 1 cent!

DANOZ28 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:35 PM
  #370
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANOZ28 View Post
well, the nhl revenue is 3.3 billion, most goes to the top 10 teams & the bottom ten teams are losing money. doesnt the nhl aka bettman need to change the business model before demanding the players take a reduction in salary that will TRY (key word) and fix the problem? i think one team should be moved & 2 contracted then ask the players to chip in & do their part. just my 1 cent!
The biggest problem the relocation advocates can't seem to acknowledge is that relocation makes the issue worse, not better. Say we have 8 teams struggling, 10 teams sitting at a small profit, 10 teams making a good profit, and 2 teams failing. If you relocate those two failing teams, they'll do better. If they do better, they'll garner higher revenue. If they garner higher revenue (see Thrashers-Jets) the league's overall revenue increases. Since player salaries are linked at the absurdly high rate of 57% HRR, this increase in league revenue (remember, every other team except the relocated ones are making the exact same amount of money) forces every team to spend more money on player salaries. So now all those struggling teams? A couple of them are failing because of those relocations. Those small profit teams? They're struggling now because of their increased salary expense. Those good profit teams? Most of them are still fine, but now a couple of them slipped down into the small profit range.

So, by "fixing" the two failing teams, now you have 4 failing teams, 10 struggling teams, 8 small profit teams, and 8 large profit teams. In other words, almost everyone is worse off because of that change. The issue has nothing to do with "bad markets" or "failing teams." The issue is that players are making an unreasonably high proportion of HRR, and the league does not have adequate revenue sharing in place to aid teams at the lower end of the spectrum. The obvious solution then is to reduce the player's share of HRR and direct that money into revenue sharing. However, the players don't want to give up that money, and the owners don't want to pay into revenue sharing.

squidz* is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:07 PM
  #371
DANOZ28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
man thats confusing, your saying move a non profitable team (like dallas, phx or florida) to to a good market is bad??? is this clear to anybody else?

DANOZ28 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:21 PM
  #372
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The biggest problem the relocation advocates can't seem to acknowledge is that relocation makes the issue worse, not better. Say we have 8 teams struggling, 10 teams sitting at a small profit, 10 teams making a good profit, and 2 teams failing. If you relocate those two failing teams, they'll do better. If they do better, they'll garner higher revenue. If they garner higher revenue (see Thrashers-Jets) the league's overall revenue increases. Since player salaries are linked at the absurdly high rate of 57% HRR, this increase in league revenue (remember, every other team except the relocated ones are making the exact same amount of money) forces every team to spend more money on player salaries. So now all those struggling teams? A couple of them are failing because of those relocations. Those small profit teams? They're struggling now because of their increased salary expense. Those good profit teams? Most of them are still fine, but now a couple of them slipped down into the small profit range.

So, by "fixing" the two failing teams, now you have 4 failing teams, 10 struggling teams, 8 small profit teams, and 8 large profit teams. In other words, almost everyone is worse off because of that change. The issue has nothing to do with "bad markets" or "failing teams." The issue is that players are making an unreasonably high proportion of HRR, and the league does not have adequate revenue sharing in place to aid teams at the lower end of the spectrum. The obvious solution then is to reduce the player's share of HRR and direct that money into revenue sharing. However, the players don't want to give up that money, and the owners don't want to pay into revenue sharing.
You're right. Move Toronto, Montreal, and the Rangers to Omaha, Santa Fe, and Montgomery. The league will be much better off.

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:23 PM
  #373
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANOZ28 View Post
man thats confusing, your saying move a non profitable team (like dallas, phx or florida) to to a good market is bad??? is this clear to anybody else?
Yes, actually...

Trying to think of a better analogy... but squidz pretty much explained it as straightforward as I think is possible.

I've gone down the path of urban relocation driving down the property values in the suburbs, or suburb urbanization driving up the values in the urban areas making the property out of reach of "native" residents.

Needless to say, there isn't really an easier to understand analogy.

Basically...

Before the Thrashers moved, league revenue was $100. The owners were forced to pay $57 to the players and were able to keep $43 for themselves (not actually how it works, but meh...) Dallas breaks even at having to pay $57 to the players.

After the Thrashers became the Jets, league revenue jumps to $150. Now, the owners are supposed to pay $85 to the players and able to keep $65 for themselves (again, that doesn't count total expenses, but meh...)

Dallas is still only bringing in $57, but now the owner has to fund the extra $28 out of his $65 resulting in a net loss of revenue for the owner.

See? There is no more easy way to explain it.

Think of it from a commodity perspective... If you can only afford to spend $1 on laundry detergent, and then there is suddenly someone that is added to the mix that can (and will) afford to pay $1.50, the price goes up on the laundry detergent based on the market. Your income didn't go up and you still only have $1 to spend on laundry detergent, but it now costs $1.20... In the end, you start cutting back on the amount of laundry detergent you use. Your whites aren't as white, and your darks aren't as dark...

Bleh.

/facepalm

bozak911 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:26 PM
  #374
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
You're right. Move Toronto, Montreal, and the Rangers to Omaha, Santa Fe, and Montgomery. The league will be much better off.
I don't think that is what he is saying at all.

By relocating a failing franchise, the league is essentially shifting the bell curve up a notch, therefore, forcing struggling franchises into the failing category.

By adjusting how revenue sharing actually works, rather than just re-slicing the pie... the bell curve is flattened, rather than the peak being moved.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 02:27 PM
  #375
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,509
vCash: 500
There is a flaw in the system that it's a direct tie to hockey revenues. That needs to be loosened up or split.

Right now, if I'm correct, it's something like (simplifying obviously):
Salary = 0.57*Revenues

Where it chould be something closer to:
Salary = $500M + 0.40*Revenues

What that would do is make the salary cap fluctuate a lot less, one way or the other, and allow teams (both struggling and big market) to keep more profits. And if the attendance slips, they could (gasp) drop ticket prices a bit.

So if revenues are $3B, salaries are 0.57*$3,000M = $1,710M / 30 = $57M, the cap is $8M higher and the floor is $8M lower ($65M and $49M respectively). If you use my system, salaries = 0.4*$3,000M = $1,200M / 30 = $56.67M, no difference really.

But if revenues increase to $4B, under the current system the cap and floor would be $84M and $68M, which means the small teams would REALLY struggle to hit that floor without SERIOUS revenue sharing. Under my system, the cap and floor are $78M and $62M. Much more manageable.

If you really want to get groovy, you roll back the salaries some by eliminating the 15% escrow, and then you are lowering costs more.

Then you can also go another step and make the salary floor say $10M below the midpoint and the cap $5M above the midpoint, but then have a softer cap (with penalties) that float to $10M above but with a penalty that goes to the revenue sharing pool. Or make a franchise exception that can be used for one player only that allows that player's salary to not count towards the cap. Etc, etc.

There are a million ways to resolve it, and it really needs to happen for the health of the smaller teams. The last CBA was great for the health of the league as a whole and for the players, now the teams do need to get some back. Which is why the NHLPA proposal wasn't so nuclear. They realize they are going to have to give up ground.

Jarick 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 02:11 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.