HFBoards

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

The Lockout Thread: Good Things Come To Those Who Wait

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2012, 11:21 PM
  #201
Sasha Cares
28 mph!!!!!!!
 
Sasha Cares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Island of Misfit Toy
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi Trollinen View Post
Gritty veteran A. Ward is planning a comeback.
Stupid HFB filters screwing up image tagz

Sasha Cares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 10:59 AM
  #202
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange

Bettman -- we're far apart on player contract issues. Union wants more flexibility we want something close to what we envisioned 8 yrs ago

Bettman -- at this point difficult to move along until we deal with fundamental economic issues #NHL #NHLPA
And judging off that TV negotiation article earlier in the topic, I'd put money that Bettman's going to get that vision of 8 years ago.

Unfortunately, I see the players caving in again, but not until we lose a month or two of the season.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 11:22 AM
  #203
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
And judging off that TV negotiation article earlier in the topic, I'd put money that Bettman's going to get that vision of 8 years ago.

Unfortunately, I see the players caving in again, but not until we lose a month or two of the season.
Why is it "unfortunate" if the players cave?

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 12:04 PM
  #204
Anton Dubinchuk
Danny Markov
 
Anton Dubinchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,675
vCash: 3205
I don't follow this guy, but he got some pretty impressive retweets so it makes me think it's legit:

Quote:
Szymon Szemberg ‏@Sz1909_Szemberg
Swedish league decided today it will not accept any short-term contracts of locked-out NHLers. Players can only sign for minumum 1 season.
Takes away some leverage from the players, you've gotta think. They basically can't sign with the SEL now, they'd be banking on it being a full-season lockout, which won't happen.

Anton Dubinchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 12:06 PM
  #205
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
Why is it "unfortunate" if the players cave?
Because I'm on the players side in this whole deal.

Quote:
Mark Masters ‏@markhmasters

Bettman on damage lockout could do: 'We recovered last time bc we have the world's greatest fans'
Quote:
THE STATS GUY ‏@TH2NSTATSGUY

Bettman:"we believe we're paying the players more that we should be.
That last quote is infuriating. Do they not see the hypocrisy of signing players to 100 million dollar contracts, then claiming that the players are paid too much?

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 12:45 PM
  #206
Old Uncle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Bettman (or the league's attitude is:
"You players should be so happy to be playing in the NHL, you should work for whatever we decide to magnanimously give you"
As it is, with the draft and it's aftermath of indentured servitude (albeit well paid for some), the players are already at the whim of the owners, managers and coaches. Their only recourse is to dig in their heels when the CBA is up for renewal.
Consider the chaos if the draft was declared illegal and the market decided everything.
No cap, no revenue sharing, major markets with teams. The rest would fold or limp along with dwindling fan bases. It's a Catch 22 for both sides.

Old Uncle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 12:45 PM
  #207
What the Faulk
The Real Swede Shady
 
What the Faulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 25,962
vCash: 500
Let's just use replacement players. What's Shane Falco doing these days? He's use to wearing red and has heart. He'd fit right in.

What the Faulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:07 PM
  #208
Sens1Canes2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
Old Uncle, what would happen if there were no owners?

Sens1Canes2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:29 PM
  #209
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Because I'm on the players side in this whole deal.
I personally find it hard to side with guys who make millions and in many cases don't even perform close to the level of their contract and still get paid and are currently taking in 57%(?) of the league revenue. If the players on the ice don't perform, the owner in many cases loses money yet the player still get's his salary though. Think about how much money Karmanos lost because the players couldn't come up big the last game of the season in 2 of the last 5 years. I'm not siding with either side on this, just think it's a bit much painting the players as some sort of victim in all this.

Quote:
That last quote is infuriating. Do they not see the hypocrisy of signing players to 100 million dollar contracts, then claiming that the players are paid too much?
While true, I'll play a little devil's advocate here. I think it's a bit naive to think that the players and their agents don't have an equal part in this. Players and agents are as much to blame on these 100m dollar contracts as the owners themselves. Look at Evander Kane for instance. Look at guys like Kovulchuk when he pretty much forced Atlanta to trade him. Shea Weber telling Nashville to trade him or they'll lose him then going out and negotiating an offersheet, etc... etc... Players also want it both ways. They want the "market" to dictate what they should be paid, but then want the protection of a labor union (which is the opposite of market economics).

Anyhow, I really don't care who caves in this case and can see valid points from both sides (e.g...a more equitable split in revenue vs. owners dishing out these contracts). Hopefully a deal gets done, but if not, then so be it.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:37 PM
  #210
urn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 55
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
I personally find it hard to side with guys who make millions and in many cases don't even perform close to the level of their contract and still get paid and are currently taking in 57%(?) of the league revenue. If the players on the ice don't perform, the owner in many cases loses money yet the player still get's his salary though. Think about how much money Karmanos lost because the players couldn't come up big the last game of the season in 2 of the last 5 years. I'm not siding with either side on this, just think it's a bit much painting the players as some sort of victim in all this.
That's a good point, but just to play devil's advocate, is it really fair to expect players to "perform" in a zero-sum game? They work their butts off and play a very physically demanding and dangerous game against other professional hockey players working just as hard. They ought to get paid for that, regardless of the outcome, cause somebody's gotta lose. The owners know (or should know) the inherent risk in owning a professional sports franchise.

My heart is with the players, which might not be rational. Ultimately I'll be happy for hockey to happen again even if the players have to give up a lot, but I bet hockey would be more fun to watch if the players got their way.

urn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:38 PM
  #211
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
I side with the players because they were/are content to play with the current CBA. It's the owners that want the CBA to change to to better suit their needs, despite the current CBA being largely of their own creation. Therefore, any games lost to a lockout would be on the owners, not the players.

Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger

Lots of discussions taking place between PA and NHL, but, how much negotiating? Not much.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 01:46 PM
  #212
sheriff bart
Registered User
 
sheriff bart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rock Ridge
Country: United States
Posts: 290
vCash: 500
Freeze the cap at current numbers until it works out to a 50/50 split. No players lose their salary levels since it is frozen. Owners get what they want in the end. Make the floor a percentage of the cap and not an arbitrary number of dollars off the cap. Limit contracts to about 7 years and require the payout on years to be the same.

Enable any team to cut a player at season's end and only be on the hook for 50% of the remaining salary and have that not count against the cap. I would make it at the end of the season and before July 1 so the player would be available for all the free agent money.

sheriff bart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:24 PM
  #213
Anton Dubinchuk
Danny Markov
 
Anton Dubinchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,675
vCash: 3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheriff bart View Post
Freeze the cap at current numbers until it works out to a 50/50 split. No players lose their salary levels since it is frozen. Owners get what they want in the end. Make the floor a percentage of the cap and not an arbitrary number of dollars off the cap. Limit contracts to about 7 years and require the payout on years to be the same.

Enable any team to cut a player at season's end and only be on the hook for 50% of the remaining salary and have that not count against the cap. I would make it at the end of the season and before July 1 so the player would be available for all the free agent money.
I like you.

Anton Dubinchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:41 PM
  #214
Chicago Made Punk
You're Gonna Go Far
 
Chicago Made Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,233
vCash: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
I side with the players because they were/are content to play with the current CBA. It's the owners that want the CBA to change to to better suit their needs, despite the current CBA being largely of their own creation. Therefore, any games lost to a lockout would be on the owners, not the players.
No they aren't. They never were. It's two things.

1) A PR tactic.
2) It means they can go on strike at any time they want to since there's no CBA to stop them from doing so. Fehr did it in 94-95 with baseball.

Both sides are at fault here. Maybe if it didn't take the players an entire ****ing month to respond with an incomplete proposal, we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are now.

Chicago Made Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:54 PM
  #215
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shutdown Sutter View Post
No they aren't. They never were. It's two things.

1) A PR tactic.
2) It means they can go on strike at any time they want to since there's no CBA to stop them from doing so. Fehr did it in 94-95 with baseball.

Both sides are at fault here. Maybe if it didn't take the players an entire ****ing month to respond with an incomplete proposal, we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are now.
If they weren't happy with the current CBA, why offer the opportunity to return to the current CBA in their proposal?

The players came up with a complete proposal. They just didn't base their proposal off the proposal presented by the owners, which is where this schism has appeared. Both sides want their own proposal to be the starting point of negotiations, neither side seems particularly interested in compromising.

As far as the time table thing, both sides are a fault. They had 7 years to get it together. It's not like this displeasure at the current CBA sprung up in the last couple months.

Blueline Bomber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:57 PM
  #216
Chicago Made Punk
You're Gonna Go Far
 
Chicago Made Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,233
vCash: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
If they weren't happy with the current CBA, why offer the opportunity to return to the current CBA in their proposal?

The players came up with a complete proposal. They just didn't base their proposal off the proposal presented by the owners, which is where this schism has appeared. Both sides want their own proposal to be the starting point of negotiations, neither side seems particularly interested in compromising.

As far as the time table thing, both sides are a fault. They had 7 years to get it together. It's not like this displeasure at the current CBA sprung up in the last couple months.
If they offer to keep the CBA going and the owners accept, then the players can strike at any point in the season, and would instantly have all the leverage in the world.

Chicago Made Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 02:59 PM
  #217
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
If they weren't happy with the current CBA, why offer the opportunity to return to the current CBA in their proposal?
They (Fehr) most likely knew that the NHL would reject it.

Or because, if the NHL had accepted the "stopgap" CBA that Fehr proposed, then suddenly Fehr could declare a players strike right before the playoffs, and HE would have all the leverage in the world.

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 03:32 PM
  #218
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by urn View Post
That's a good point, but just to play devil's advocate, is it really fair to expect players to "perform" in a zero-sum game? They work their butts off and play a very physically demanding and dangerous game against other professional hockey players working just as hard. They ought to get paid for that, regardless of the outcome, cause somebody's gotta lose. The owners know (or should know) the inherent risk in owning a professional sports franchise.
I never said it should be a zero sum game. My only point was that some are portraying the owners as just greedy and the players as victims in all this. They are currently getting significantly more than 50% of the revenue and are guaranteed the money even if they don't perform.

Even if you feel they work their butts off and should get paid for it, don't you think the revenue pie is tilted a little too much in the players favor right now?

Quote:
I bet hockey would be more fun to watch if the players got their way.
I disagree. If left to themselves, the players would want less time to be a UFA, no salary cap, and couldn't care less about revenue sharing. We'd go back to having the teams with the money being able to spend whatever they wanted on every star player. Baseball is a sport where the players pretty much got their way and it is no more fun to watch than it was before that. In fact, I'd argue it's worse.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 03:53 PM
  #219
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,611
vCash: 500
The owners are saying up front they want a new look to the cba. They are telling us to our faces what they want. Fehr is playing games and giving diversions, playing up any aspect he can to win support.

I don't even believe the owners "won" the last cba. Everyone knew a drastic change was needed and was gonna happen. The players held out as long as the could to make it as limited as possible. They left with ufa at a ridiculously earlier age, minimum pay of half a million a year, and was that when salary arbitration became what it is now? Because that's a hugely inflationary tool. They also got the offer sheet compensation dropped, as well as the no trade after an offer sheet is matched. Some of these play out more than others but they hardly left empty handed.

They gave into a cap system, which hasn't hurt them at all. It's been a boon to them from what it seems. Guys getting locked up early to huge deals out of fear of losing the player to an offer sheet, or cap concerns, or early ufa. Did Jordan staal, he of the forced trade situation and the 60 million extension lose something in the last lockout? Fear of the offer sheet just gave a two year player in skinner a ridiculous extension that the nhlpa is already making the most of.

I'm tired of the whole, "we gave them everything....and they want more!!" stance which to me is crap. Can we think of some players that actually got hurt by the cba last time?

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2012, 04:13 PM
  #220
Old Uncle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens1Canes2 View Post
Old Uncle, what would happen if there were no owners?
If the draft were eliminated, and the market ruled, there would be less teams and less owners and less players.
The owners know this, the players know this and the current arrangement is a compromise between the wants and needs of the owners and the wants and needs of the players.
In any contractual dispute there is (hopefully) an understanding that compromise is required. Both sides (again hopefully) realise that they both lose if compromise is not achieved. I believe that both sides have an understanding and bargaining requires pushing as hard as they can to get what they want. Is there deliberate misunderstanding, arrogance and warped perspective involved? More than likely. How much testosterone is involved is another question. But the owners don't have random drug testing. We can only watch and wait.
Am I in the players corner? Yes

Old Uncle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 08:31 AM
  #221
HankClerval
Fifth Line Center
 
HankClerval's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
I side with the players because they were/are content to play with the current CBA. It's the owners that want the CBA to change to to better suit their needs, despite the current CBA being largely of their own creation. Therefore, any games lost to a lockout would be on the owners, not the players.
This.

It's hilarious and completely predictable that, when any player anywhere holds out for more money, a certain segment of the fanbase gets on the ol' high horse. "YOU DIRTY ******* PLAYERS YOU SIGNED THE CONTRACT YOU HONOR THE CONTRACT WHARRGARBL!"

So allow me to climb up on the exact same high horse. "YOU DIRTY ******* OWNERS YOU SIGNED THE CONTRACT YOU HONOR THE CONTRACT WHARRGARBL!"

--hank


Last edited by HankClerval: 08-24-2012 at 08:40 AM.
HankClerval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 08:39 AM
  #222
HankClerval
Fifth Line Center
 
HankClerval's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Dubinchuk View Post
I like you.
And sorry about the "up yours"... sheriff.

--hank

HankClerval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:47 AM
  #223
sheriff bart
Registered User
 
sheriff bart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rock Ridge
Country: United States
Posts: 290
vCash: 500
We need to work up a "Number 6" on Bettman, Fehr, and the boys.

sheriff bart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:26 AM
  #224
Sens1Canes2
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,722
vCash: 500
@ Hank - I've never heard of an owner not honoring a contract. How many times have players held out?

Sens1Canes2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:56 AM
  #225
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheriff bart View Post
We need to work up a "Number 6" on Bettman, Fehr, and the boys.
Good thing there are no women in that group....

Joe McGrath 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 01:20 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.