HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So who is bummed about the lockout?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2012, 08:26 PM
  #101
Joe Cool
Registered User
 
Joe Cool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDhockeyfan View Post
A full season at least. I Bettman and Fehr will never come to an agreement.
I Bett man a new CBA gets done by the WC. Beyond this time is Fehr mongering

Joe Cool is offline  
Old
08-29-2012, 09:51 PM
  #102
geowild
Mostly Harmless
 
geowild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northwest 'burbs
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
I refuse to get bummed until Sep 16th.

geowild is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 01:48 AM
  #103
Billy Mays Here
Optimistic Pessimist
 
Billy Mays Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 14,580
vCash: 827
The hell if I want them to come to an agreement on the most recent proposal anyways. Lowering the cap all the way to $58 million for this season? Really? We'd have to move so many players just to get under the damn cap.

Billy Mays Here is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 10:40 AM
  #104
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
The kids freaking out about the $58m number are the ones who don't have much experience in negotiations in a business setting...

The Wild will likely have some slight maneuvering to do, but it's not like they're doomed or will need to make drastic moves.
Or buying a car... Or buying furniture... Or negotiating, period...

The numbers being thrown out are bunk. They don't mean anything and it is slightly disappointing to see the Dregers/Wards of the world reporting on these numbers.

The primary issue right now is;
How do we calculate Hockey Related Revenue?

The PA has their opinion, the owners have their opinion. They are not at all close in their definitions.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 11:03 AM
  #105
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,032
vCash: 500
Let's say they drop escrow from 15% to 5% and roll back salaries say 15%. Then our cap hit is $57.4m. We're still under the cap. No big deal.

Worst case scenario, you trade Bouchard and/or Cullen.

Jarick is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 11:47 AM
  #106
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
I'd guess that part of the solution would be to allow the re-structuring of contracts or limited, one time buyout, get it off the cap entirely moves.

I figure Bouchard would be the first out the door in that case, but we'd still need to move another contract, and I doubt it would be Cullen.

If buyout, off cap entirely happens; Bouchard.
If re-structuring also allowed: Backstrom.

I dunno, though... I forget where I heard it that re-structuring could be allowed. Maybe on NHL Home Ice? The basic premise was this;
If you have a contract on the books for a 6 million cap hit for 1 season left, GMs could re-structure that contract to be a 3 million cap hit per for 2 seasons.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 12:11 PM
  #107
Nsjohnson
Registered User
 
Nsjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
I'd guess that part of the solution would be to allow the re-structuring of contracts or limited, one time buyout, get it off the cap entirely moves.

I figure Bouchard would be the first out the door in that case, but we'd still need to move another contract, and I doubt it would be Cullen.

If buyout, off cap entirely happens; Bouchard.
If re-structuring also allowed: Backstrom.

I dunno, though... I forget where I heard it that re-structuring could be allowed. Maybe on NHL Home Ice? The basic premise was this;
If you have a contract on the books for a 6 million cap hit for 1 season left, GMs could re-structure that contract to be a 3 million cap hit per for 2 seasons.
They are talking about the contracts being escrowed, which effectively eliminates teams from having to get rid of players.

Nsjohnson is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 12:21 PM
  #108
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,032
vCash: 500
I thought it would be interesting if they implemented a deal similar to the NFL where you could restructure contracts, especially in the last year (or two) of a deal. Would be very interesting. But might not work out as well since you can't cut players in the NHL.

Jarick is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 12:59 PM
  #109
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: In a tree stand.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,249
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDhockeyfan View Post
The hell if I want them to come to an agreement on the most recent proposal anyways. Lowering the cap all the way to $58 million for this season? Really? We'd have to move so many players just to get under the damn cap.
I don't think so....I heard Russo on the radio saying that the escrow money the players have to set aside would probably be used to get teams under the cap.

MuckOG is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 04:05 PM
  #110
Billy Mays Here
Optimistic Pessimist
 
Billy Mays Here's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 14,580
vCash: 827
Let's just say we do have to move a player or two to get under the cap, I wonder who it would be? Probably Cullen or Bouchard, then maybe Heatley, possibly Backstrom depending on how far over the cap we'd be. Wouldn't mind seeing one of em' moved if it meant bringing back a top 4 d-man.

Billy Mays Here is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 04:13 PM
  #111
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: In a tree stand.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,249
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDhockeyfan View Post
Let's just say we do have to move a player or two to get under the cap, I wonder who it would be? Probably Cullen or Bouchard, then maybe Heatley, possibly Backstrom depending on how far over the cap we'd be. Wouldn't mind seeing one of em' moved if it meant bringing back a top 4 d-man.
Cullen has a NTC, so it would be tough to trade him.....Bouchard hasn't proven himself healthy, so it would be tough to trade him....Heatley has a $7.5 million cap hit, so it would be tough to trade him, as well.

And NO ONE would give up a Top 4 defenseman for any of those players.

No sense in getting worked up over the cap, as it's doubtful that any players will need to be moved to get under.

MuckOG is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 04:35 PM
  #112
MNWILDFAN001
Registered User
 
MNWILDFAN001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 730
vCash: 500
@NYP_Brooksie

Quote:
In other words, NHL teams this summer have been signing players to contracts the league has no intention of paying in full.
Could they make the Wild renegotiate new contracts with Parise and Suter?

MNWILDFAN001 is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 04:39 PM
  #113
Vashanesh
Nope.
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNWILDFAN001 View Post
@NYP_Brooksie


Could they make the Wild renegotiate new contracts with Parise and Suter?
Could? Sure. Will it happen? Not in a million years.

The league would completely destroy itself if they started invalidating contracts.

Vashanesh is online now  
Old
08-31-2012, 05:45 PM
  #114
NHL1674
Whatever...
 
NHL1674's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 13,819
vCash: 165
Bettman is a moron who has been in the seat during multiple lockouts. That said, he is nogotiating with another moron. Both guys in charge of each side is guilty. Just look at each of their track records.

I'd like to see BOTH guys raked over the coals...not just Bettman. Heck, didn't Russo say that this could be Fehr's 6th work stoppage of his career when in charge?


Last edited by NHL1674: 08-31-2012 at 05:51 PM.
NHL1674 is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 07:23 PM
  #115
Joe Cool
Registered User
 
Joe Cool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
Russo's rants article http://www.startribune.com/sports/wi.../57299562.html

Joe Cool is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 11:07 PM
  #116
Jarick
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,032
vCash: 500
The idea that owners could be negotiating extensions that they had no intention of paying gives me the shivers. You have to think Leipold would be public example #1 (not saying he did it, but that his comments and then signing the two UFA's would put the spotlight on him).

Jarick is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 09:22 AM
  #117
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
The idea that owners could be negotiating extensions that they had no intention of paying gives me the shivers. You have to think Leipold would be public example #1 (not saying he did it, but that his comments and then signing the two UFA's would put the spotlight on him).
Yea, its pretty clear that these contracts weren't negotiated in the best of faith this summer. (although Pairse, Suter, and Weber (?) received most of theirs in bonuses so it doesn't effect them as much for this season).

Players make waaaayyyy to much money but not giving them the amount that their contract deems them worth is completely unjust and unprofessional. They need to freeze the cap in place and dramatically increase revenue sharing for the first year of the new CBA

Make the linkage conditional. If the league continues to grow, the cap remains at a fixed number until the %HRR reaches 50%. If the league loses money then force the percentage the players receive down. (Say 57% to 54%, then down by 1% each year after until it reaches 50%).

Start out by dramatically increasing revenue sharing. Decrease it ever year by a small amount until revenue sharing reaches a level that the league/NHLPA feels is balanced.
I am not sure how revenue sharing works right now, but if salaries (owner biggest expense) is tied to the HRR then so should revenue sharing.

Casper is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 11:33 AM
  #118
a79krgm
Registered User
 
a79krgm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: White Bear Lake
Country: United States
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to a79krgm
It seems like the players think that they are THE PRODUCT and that they game of hockey cannot be sold without them. I'd like to know where do they get these silly ideas?


a79krgm is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 12:10 PM
  #119
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
I'm usually a big Russo fan, but that is by far the most ignorant and biased piece I've read from him. How anyone can say a single kind word about the union after their latest proposal is beyond words. If there ends up being any work stoppage, that's fully on the players.

As for the "owners giving out extensions they don't intend to pay," that's just silly talk. Maybe there's one or two teams out there that are slightly encouraged by the idea they might get a salary roll-back and have increased their offers that way, but so what? If there's a salary rollback, there's a salary rollback. It's blazingly ignorant for someone like Russo to be upset at that possibility. The players in question would have received less money under any other circumstance. Literally, Russo is crying because people he's completely baselessly accused and slandered may have offered more money to players than they could have ever earned under other circumstance because of confidence a roll-back would bring it back into normal range. Guess what? If they didn't get those contracts like that, they still would be rolled back and to a lesser dollar amount. It takes all of 3 seconds to actually think before blathering like that to realize how incredibly stupid that attack is.

squidz* is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 01:06 PM
  #120
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
A drop in cap without a salary rollback benefits nobody. None of the owners are going to vote to voluntarily put themselves in cap trouble, and there'd be less than no money left for any players who are looking for extensions. I think a rollback is most likely, but I could also see some system where current contracts are grandfathered in at a lower cap hit. For instance, let's say the cap went down to 85% of its current value. Backstrom has one year left on his contract, at $6m per. For the rest of the current contract (i.e., this year) he would be paid $6m but the cap hit would be 85% of that, or $5.1m. When he signs a new contract after that, the full value would count against the cap.

llamapalooza is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 02:15 PM
  #121
TZM
Par too easy
 
TZM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kerava
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,527
vCash: 500
I'm in confusion from what I've read. Does the possible lockout have an effect on draft picks?

TZM is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 04:29 PM
  #122
Avder
Global Moderator
Reliable NonSequitur
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Location: Location.
Country: United States
Posts: 36,810
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
A drop in cap without a salary rollback benefits nobody. None of the owners are going to vote to voluntarily put themselves in cap trouble, and there'd be less than no money left for any players who are looking for extensions. I think a rollback is most likely, but I could also see some system where current contracts are grandfathered in at a lower cap hit. For instance, let's say the cap went down to 85% of its current value. Backstrom has one year left on his contract, at $6m per. For the rest of the current contract (i.e., this year) he would be paid $6m but the cap hit would be 85% of that, or $5.1m. When he signs a new contract after that, the full value would count against the cap.
Thats basically how I would do it. Honor all current contracts at face value, but make them count as a percentage toward the cap, depending on the cap rollback they negotiate.

Avder is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 06:35 PM
  #123
Victorious Secret
Eyebrows Defcon 1
 
Victorious Secret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TZM View Post
I'm in confusion from what I've read. Does the possible lockout have an effect on draft picks?
They'll have a ball lottery like when Pitt 'won' Crosby.

Victorious Secret is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 09:42 PM
  #124
JamesRanger
Registered User
 
JamesRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Plymouth
Country: United States
Posts: 724
vCash: 500
The Wild would be in line for a good pick statistically. Would still be a huge setback for the NHL.

JamesRanger is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 10:42 PM
  #125
Jagged Ice
Registered User
 
Jagged Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Why is Bettman getting most of the blame? Is he really anything other than the messenger?

Jagged Ice 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 02:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.