Around the League 2012-12 I: Gary and Donald sitting in a tree
Neuwirth being super smooth with the media:
"It's true that until now, I have never been an official number one. But I have played just over a hundred games in NHL, that's nothing. I'm starting the season sure that I want to play forty/fifty games and I am really sure that I have the weakest competition (Braden Holtby) I've ever had. I will try to be number one goalie this season. Finally!"
Also
"I see the leaving of Semin as a huge minus for the team, but then again I think it may do some good. He didn’t have the best work ethic. Maybe now when Ovi will be without him, he will put more into hockey. Maybe that’s what the management was going for...
But I think it’s nothing that isn’t well known. If Semin wanted to, he could have been the best player in the world, but he doesn’t want to every day. And that’s wrong."
That's the fourth ex-team mate of Semin with these claims now.
I have a research paper due in a couple weeks that I decided to make based on the disclosure of information in the NHL, was curious if anyone might be willing to help out by posting/discussing how they feel about the way information is disclosed today.
Such as rules and regulations on tweeting, the lack of injury information being disclosed, trades before they are officially announced, etc.
I have a research paper due in a couple weeks that I decided to make based on the disclosure of information in the NHL, was curious if anyone might be willing to help out by posting/discussing how they feel about the way information is disclosed today.
Such as rules and regulations on tweeting, the lack of injury information being disclosed, trades before they are officially announced, etc.
I'd definitely bring up the example of the avs tweeting they signed carkner
I have a research paper due in a couple weeks that I decided to make based on the disclosure of information in the NHL, was curious if anyone might be willing to help out by posting/discussing how they feel about the way information is disclosed today.
Such as rules and regulations on tweeting, the lack of injury information being disclosed, trades before they are officially announced, etc.
When I hear research paper I instantly think of the pain of going through a hundreds of online peer-reviewed articles. Damn you sciences and being super anal about sources.
On a sidenote, if you want anything on the legal side about it, you could PM Wetcoaster. I believe he's a lawyer who's pretty knowledgeable.
Players proposal to give top pick based on financial distress
whoa! While i dont agree with the idea, at least its some talk about how the draft
might be done differently, IMO part of this is in response to how EDM is
running their house. Perhaps some other ideas on the draft come from this.
It's a valid thought. I don't think that the poorest team should get the 1st pick, but I do think a weighted system that takes into account a team's finances could be looked at.
And how would someone decide the level of financial distress of a certain team? This is a ridiculous idea by Fehr and its main goal is to create tension among the owners.
Players proposal to give top pick based on financial distress
whoa! While i dont agree with the idea, at least its some talk about how the draft
might be done differently, IMO part of this is in response to how EDM is
running their house. Perhaps some other ideas on the draft come from this.
I don't agree with this proposed method.
Maybe weigh it more in favor of those teams if they fall within a lottery picks based on their record from that season, but not solely because of their financial situation.
In the end it could stack a "financial distressed" team, who could end up moving markets if things don't pick up to a market that is financial sound.
Maybe weigh it more in favor of those teams if they fall within a lottery picks based on their record from that season, but not solely because of their financial situation.
In the end it could stack a "financial distressed" team, who could end up moving markets if things don't pick up to a market that is financial sound.
Whatever they do up doing with the draft i really hope they bar teams from
taking 1st OV in no more than 2 consecutive seasons. 2 years is just a bad bad
team(s) 3 or 4 years is deliberate.
While the National Hockey League and the NHL Players' Association work to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement before the September 15 deadline, details have emerged in regards to the league's most recent proposal that was tabled on Tuesday.
According to TSN Hockey Insider Darren Dreger, the basis of NHL's latest proposal is to reduce the league's financial demands - believed to be approximately $460 million in the league's first proposal - overall, including a $120 million reduction in its Year One demands.
The latest proposal is for a six-year term on the new CBA.
The first three years would come in at fixed, pre-negotiated players' share dollar thresholds: 11 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent less than the 2011-12 totals in the first three years respectively.
The players would also get a share in "upside hockey-related revenue growth" of over 10 per cent in each of the first three years.
For the final three years of the deal the league and players split revenues 50-50.
The players' share percentages under the league's new definition of hockey-related revenues would be gradually reduced over the course of the six-year deal.
The 2012-13 season would see the players receive a 51.6 per cent cut. In 2013-14 that total would drop to 50.5 per cent, before further dipping to 49.6 per cent in 2014-15.
For the following three seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18) the players would see an even 50 per cent.
The salary cap would see an immediate reduction followed by a gradual rise over the course of the deal.
The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.
That number would rise to a fixed $60 million in 2013-14 and then to a fixed $62 million the following year.
Projected cap numbers for the final three years of the deal include: $64.2 million in 2015-16, $67.6 million in 2016-17 and $71.1 million in 2017-18.
The league's proposal did not include an across-the-board reduction (or "rollback") to existing contract values. Necessary adjustments would be financed entirely from a combination of modified contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and from the players' Escrow contributions.
That would **** over so many teams if the cap went to 58 mil. I like it.
it wouldn't be great for us either...we're sitting at about 54 million according to capgeek, with O'Reilly still to sign, his contract would most likely put us right up against the cap
Yeh, would be nice for once to benefit from new cba. Last time we got ****ed probably the worst. Lost Foote and Forsberg.
But if the players accepted a Cap reduction to 58 million, I don't see how they'd benefit, as I stated earlier, they're already at 54 million with O'Reilly left to sign, signing him would put them right up against the cap.
