HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Notices

The Lockout (is over!!!!!)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-17-2012, 03:40 PM
  #51
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,155
vCash: 500
@CaliCapsFan

The teams exploiting the cap loopholes aren't the ones clamoring for a new CBA because they're losing money (aside of possibly NJ). The rift between the "haves" and the "have nots" is what's causing the new for a restructured CBA, as the "haves" revenue is increasing at a rate where the "have nots" can no longer afford to spend the salary floor each season.

That leaves four basic solutions:
Lower the players' cut of revenue (NHLPA doesn't like that one)
Lower the cap floor (NHLPA won't like that one)
Increase revenue sharing (Rich owners don't like that one)
Contraction (Neither party wants that one)

Mystlyfe is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 04:51 PM
  #52
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
Cap circumvention issues and such are minor points, though. The reason the owners want player costs to come down further is because the cap floor is too high for the stragglers. There's nothing any owner could do about that under the old CBA.

...

And, as I said before, it's hard to condemn anyone for giving out crazy contracts when there's really no other way to do it, at this point. That's the double-edged side of a capped environment. If you're not spending to the cap, you're not trying to compete barring unusual luck with ELC timing or coaching etc.

...

Also, wrt to the "commitments already made" part of it for the "no rollbacks" PA talking point, I have trouble drawing a hard line there when the proposal is to increase escrow withholding to get around it. It's a rollback, but escrow is already there so it's not like a player is ever guaranteed his full contract. I have no problem with it if it means the cap ceiling and floor are just effectively moved further apart. The players would still have a chance to get their full values if growth were good (and if the stragglers weren't forced to spend as much as they currently are). But then I've long thought that the floor and ceiling were too close together so I'm probably just predisposed to liking that solution.
I don't disagree with any of this EXCEPT the notion that the solution should be the responsibility of the players. Yes they should care, but they are not the cause of problem, nor should resolving it fall mainly on their shoulders. If the old CBA didn't anticipate that the very strategy owners claimed to need for success would in fact lead to success, that seems shortsighted.

And I don't know that I blame them for giving out crazy contracts... what I blame them for is now complaining that players need to help them undo what they've done. Going forward, I have no issue with changing the terms so they are forced to control themselves/are better able to be competitive.

I also agree with further separating the cap floor and ceiling and with reshuffling revenue sharing. Seems entirely reasonable to me. I think 50-50 makes a lot of sense. But the proposal to drop players' shares by 15 percent or whatever it was is just downright BS.

But the escrow argument, to me, feels like a red herring. When negotiating their contracts, players take that into account. It's quite another thing to ask players to give back salary, whether to escrow or just to owners. Now admittedly, I don't fully understand the NHL's escrow system, so I will reserve further comment on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
@CaliCapsFan

The teams exploiting the cap loopholes aren't the ones clamoring for a new CBA because they're losing money (aside of possibly NJ). The rift between the "haves" and the "have nots" is what's causing the new for a restructured CBA, as the "haves" revenue is increasing at a rate where the "have nots" can no longer afford to spend the salary floor each season.

That leaves four basic solutions:
Lower the players' cut of revenue (NHLPA doesn't like that one)
Lower the cap floor (NHLPA won't like that one)
Increase revenue sharing (Rich owners don't like that one)
Contraction (Neither party wants that one)
That's true. But the problem for ownership is that they all agreed to the now-expired CBA and they are negotiating as a single block against the players, rather than as factions amongst themselves. They built a system that they couldn't all play in equally. so the problem is among the owners. It's not the players' job to fix it. Ownership should not be able to have it both ways. Since the players can go play elsewhere, forcing the owners hands is the only way they have power.

FWIW, tho, NHLPA is willing to discuss lowering their share of revenue. Just not 10+ percent. The revenue sharing should absolutely increase, precisely because the problem is inequity among the franchises and the rich owners should bear more of the burden for supporting the struggling franchises than should players, IMHO. Personally, contraction or at least relocation of the likes of Phoenix and Florida also makes a ton of sense.

californiacapsfan is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 05:11 PM
  #53
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
It's the players responsibility to fix the problem because they have less leverage and are going to lose the fight. There is no right or wrong, just the reality of who has more control. I'd also argue that the onus is more on them because they've been getting more than 50%, but honestly that's arbitrary to begin with and depends on how you define HRR in the first place so is probably meaningless.

It's true that players will probably take escrow into account when signing their deals (well, the smart ones will) but they probably should also have taken the chance of some form of rollback into account even if they planned to fight against it... just to be pragmatic. Neither here nor there though, wouldn't justify it either way. The nature of escrow means they really have no idea exactly how much they'll bring in in a year; increasing the escrow % wouldn't change too much (and if it was a small enough increase they realistically wouldn't lose any more than they originally planned for, since IINM they never end up losing it all).

I just think the players are (at least appearing to be) needlessly hardheaded about the "no rollback" issue when it's presented as a form of escrow. Now it may be that the form laid out to this point is really unfavorable, but drawing a solid line in the sand comes across as silly to me given that they've never had guarantees before now. You don't sign for $X, you sign for $X+-Y% Changing that Y shouldn't be an outrage as long as its part of a reasonable bigger picture. Heck, if they do it right they might be able to milk some decent concessions in other areas out of the owners for agreeing to it (which is partly what I think they are doing, or at least what Fehr is doing).

As for owners-vs.-players rather than owners-vs.-owners, that's just how it goes. You could say the same thing with players-vs.-owners rather than players-vs.-players. The guys who don't make much or have short careers are getting royally screwed by any real lockout, and are gaining almost nothing from any hard-line wins by the PA. But that's the nature of these kinds of negotiations.

brs03 is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 05:44 PM
  #54
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
It's the players responsibility to fix the problem because they have less leverage and are going to lose the fight. There is no right or wrong, just the reality of who has more control. I'd also argue that the onus is more on them because they've been getting more than 50%, but honestly that's arbitrary to begin with and depends on how you define HRR in the first place so is probably meaningless.

It's true that players will probably take escrow into account when signing their deals (well, the smart ones will) but they probably should also have taken the chance of some form of rollback into account even if they planned to fight against it... just to be pragmatic. Neither here nor there though, wouldn't justify it either way. The nature of escrow means they really have no idea exactly how much they'll bring in in a year; increasing the escrow % wouldn't change too much (and if it was a small enough increase they realistically wouldn't lose any more than they originally planned for, since IINM they never end up losing it all).

I just think the players are (at least appearing to be) needlessly hardheaded about the "no rollback" issue when it's presented as a form of escrow. Now it may be that the form laid out to this point is really unfavorable, but drawing a solid line in the sand comes across as silly to me given that they've never had guarantees before now. You don't sign for $X, you sign for $X+-Y% Changing that Y shouldn't be an outrage as long as its part of a reasonable bigger picture. Heck, if they do it right they might be able to milk some decent concessions in other areas out of the owners for agreeing to it (which is partly what I think they are doing, or at least what Fehr is doing).

As for owners-vs.-players rather than owners-vs.-owners, that's just how it goes. You could say the same thing with players-vs.-owners rather than players-vs.-players. The guys who don't make much or have short careers are getting royally screwed by any real lockout, and are gaining almost nothing from any hard-line wins by the PA. But that's the nature of these kinds of negotiations.
Good points. I would only question the bolded portion. It strikes me that it's a bit like a flat tax. If I'm a league minimum player and I lose an extra 10 percent to escrow or revenue or whatever. In real-life terms that hurts a lot more than Ovie losing 10 percent, even though the dollars are bigger for him. The hard line against "rollbacks" however you may define them seems to protect those lower salary players the most. Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding this, which is surely possible.

Also, on the owners vs. players issue, it seems to me that owners have a bigger stake in the fanbase and so should be more on the hook for league-wide fiscal health. That is, a player has what, 15 years average in the league? But an owner needs that fanbase longer term. So it seems unwise for rich teams to not help support poorer teams. Yeah, Rangers fans aren't going anywhere, but as Spector points out in that article I linked to earlier, it's the TV contract that matters. And that requires fans all over the place. That was the whole argument for southern expansion. The owners--even rich ones-- stand to gain a lot more from the financial security of all the teams than do the players. Yet another reason I think they should shoulder more of cost.

Bottom line for me, and maybe it's way oversimplified, is that we lost a whole year in '04-'05 so owners could get the structure they wanted--and they did. Now a mere 8 years later, they're all dissatisfied again and complaining about their costs again. I just think they had their chance to ***** and moan about player salaries and costs. If they blew it, that should be neither the players nor the fans problem. So I'm pissed.

I just hope they figure it the **** out and soon. (But I doubt they will.)

californiacapsfan is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 05:56 PM
  #55
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
It's true that 10% hurts more at the bottom, but a lockout hurts even worse I think so that's my reasoning. It wasn't fair to say that they gain nothing but it seems like salary inflation year-to-year does not occur as much for those types of players. They'll be protected in year 1 by the lack of a rollback, but they'll gain very little afterwards compared to the bigger names. And if it's true that any rollback protection is lost by a short lockout then they end up with nothing for their trouble.

As to the issues of it being good for rich teams to support poor ones, I think it is, but only to an extent. You're never going to feel great about subsidizing your competition, and that's certainly going to be a concern in places (Rangers vs. Isles/Devils just as an example). And as far as ownership is concerned, cutting costs accomplishes the same thing as subsidizing, with the added benefit of it helping all of the owners and not just the ones at the bottom. I think they'll have to settle for increased revenue sharing, and I think the league needs it, but there's no problem revenue sharing can solve that cutting the players' share can't, so it's easy to see which the owners are going to prefer as a group from the start.

As for having their chance to get it right last time, a couple things: I think the worst thing you can blame them for is underestimating growth, or underestimating how asymmetrical it would be. That's valid but not exactly damning, IMO. Of course that ignores the new ownership groups that never had a say last time around. And there's also the argument that maybe they wanted to go more extreme last time but didn't think they could get it done all at once, so they have to take it in steps. Get halfway there in one CBA (the cap system, the big first hurdle I guess) and finish it off (hopefully) this time.

Bottom line for me, I guess, is that I can't sympathize with the players when they're making more than 50%, unless the definition of HRR is unreasonably strict. The owners take the financial risk so I can't sit here and say the players are "entitled" to any specific amount, and hence can't feel any anger at the thought of things like rollbacks. Not that I have all that much sympathy for the owners, either, but I know they're going to win so I want them to just win quickly at this point.

EDIT: Of course the owners' risk mitigation through things like public funding is a whole different issue entirely, and maybe clouds things here but I don't know. And even then it's something where I can't really blame them for asking for anything they can, even if I think its dumb to give them as much as some places do.

brs03 is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 06:04 PM
  #56
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,764
vCash: 500
Fair enough. Surely plenty of frustration to go around. End of the day, it's the fans that get screwed no matter which side you support.

Go Caps.

californiacapsfan is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 06:06 PM
  #57
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Yep. End of the day it doesn't really matter which side you favor, as it's all just PR. Out of our hands, just make the best out of it (if it saves you money or saves you time or gives you the chance to find something new to follow etc.)

brs03 is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 06:38 PM
  #58
Devil Dancer
Registered User
 
Devil Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 11,814
vCash: 500
I'm kind of entertained by how personally some people take it. Especially on the main boards, the hyperbole in the fan reaction is out of control. Take a deep breath. It's only NHL hockey. It went away for a year before, and we all survived. Heck, some of the hardest-core fans could probably use some time off to pursue, or find, other interests.

I'll be sad to lose a year of Caps hockey, especially a year in which they should be pretty good, but I'll come back whenever the games start up again.

Devil Dancer is online now  
Old
09-17-2012, 07:25 PM
  #59
Ridley Simon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgh32 View Post
For every person who is saying that they'd stop following hockey if we lose the season, I'm calling BS. None of us are here at hfboards because we're casual fans. Our drug is hockey. Are you really telling me that you'd never watch a playoff game every again? ha!
Most are saying they wont spend a dime on the NHL, and I agree with that sentiment.

And I cant see how anyone is defending the owners. They continually set up a system that then fails. Blame the players, but thats stupid. NHL folds, the players will go play for money somewhere else. Its not that complicated.

If all 30 teams cant make money in the cities that they are in, then they either need to reduce teams, or find cities that will allow them to make money.

Or run their business better. Whatever, I dont care. The only real hostages here are the fans.

Ridley Simon is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 07:25 PM
  #60
foundhockey
Pollyanna Sunshine
 
foundhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Georgia, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
League isn't acting like they expect it to be a long lockout, though, not yet at least. Two sides *seem* closer than they were last time. Between that and the probably desire not to screw up 24/7 and the Winter Classic, I'm cautiously optimistic it only lasts a couple months.
I hope you're right!

foundhockey is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 07:39 PM
  #61
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: La Plata, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 21,540
vCash: 500
I actually have waned in fandom dramatically for the Caps. Just at a different place. I care, but this lockout could change that entirely. I will watch some, but the Caps won't be my basic life blood come hockey season.

I just find the whole lockout absurd. I get it in football with the money and no guaranteed contracts, but the NHL is not good enough of a product and brand to take this hit

Chimaera is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 09:32 PM
  #62
ForzaItalia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden Carlzner View Post
I wish I was a casual fan like those of you who can just get up and leave.
I've been a hardcore fan since 1982 but as of right now, I don't give a ****.

ForzaItalia is offline  
Old
09-17-2012, 09:34 PM
  #63
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,457
vCash: 888
Just quit. Stop telling us about how much you don't care. Just quit.

I'll be back to getting excited the first game back and trying to keep track of the core during the lockout and how they are doing.

Either way, a regular season game hasn't been canceled nor has a preseason game.

SimplySensational is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 05:23 AM
  #64
Francesa
(╯□)╯︵ ʞooqǝɔɐℲ
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 178,158
vCash: 500
Ovechkin said that the whole season could be locked out.

Francesa is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 10:57 AM
  #65
Devil Dancer
Registered User
 
Devil Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 11,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberation View Post
Either way, a regular season game hasn't been canceled nor has a preseason game.
Oh no, the first casualty!

Devil Dancer is online now  
Old
09-18-2012, 11:11 AM
  #66
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,946
vCash: 500
ive been projecting this for a while and so, i am mentally prepared for it. no hockey. fine. i will spend more time with my wife and my racing. i wont buy center ice from direct tv this year and that might be the one permanant change here.

i am sure my hockey interest will continue beyond any lockout, but now that all the playoff games are on nbc and affiliates i can live without some regular season games.

as for the team? if ovechkin rests and comes in healthy and strong, the team may be better for it. if he gets fat and lazy, they are doomed. it could either way.

we also know now a potential reason by kuznetsov decided to stay home. insiders very likely knew this was going down going back to his decision time.

txpd is online now  
Old
09-18-2012, 04:02 PM
  #67
Vladiator16
R.I.P - Loko.
 
Vladiator16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForzaItalia View Post
I've been a hardcore fan since 1982 but as of right now, I don't give a ****.
Same here, **** these pigheaded greedy ********. Granted, like majority of us i'll come back when hockey is back, to a certain degree, but now that i have time to think about it, i've vested too much time, money and emotions into something that doesn't "pay it" back... No more Center ice for me, no more spending crazy money on games and overnight trips to DC... Not saying i'm not gonna go to an occasional game, but nothing like i did before. Two lockouts in 8 years!? **** them, make money on somebody else.

Vladiator16 is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 05:58 PM
  #68
sycamore
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
Ovechkin said that the whole season could be locked out.
Puts us a year closer to the Kuz/Forsberg era!

Its possible that a long lockout helps the Caps out more than any other team.


Last edited by sycamore: 09-18-2012 at 06:06 PM.
sycamore is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 06:13 PM
  #69
Carlzner
Who's Zed?
 
Carlzner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 10,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sycamore View Post
Puts us a year closer to the Kuz/Forsberg era!

Its possible that a long lockout helps the Caps out more than any other team.
Yes, burning off another year of Ovechkin helps us.

Carlzner is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 06:53 PM
  #70
Atlas
Registered User
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 3,211
vCash: 500
The last CBA was absurd. The owners had the players down and out and they *still* blew it.

I'm not going to sacrifice my life solving their problems but, in essence, the CBA is way too complicated. Make it as simple as possible. Teams with poor management/attendance ought to be dissolved or moved. Young players have way too much leverage early. I would simplify free agency. No team would lose a player for nothing. There would always be significant compensation in the form of draft picks and cash.

Atlas is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 07:02 PM
  #71
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,311
vCash: 500
My prediction for the start date is just before Thanksgiving Nov. 22, 2012. My preference is that the offical October start times could be attained.

24/7 needs a bit of lead time for their show which culminates with the New Year's game. If the NHL does not provide the games for this they will get a reputation of being unreliable.

Lots of interesting stuff here.
http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/9/17/winn...ent-cba-part-3

"NHL teams have taken over $1 Billion in profit and NHL teams have also taken 600 million in losses." Both are true statements.

See the conclusions for what the writer thinks.

Both sides are not offering up anything satisfactory. Come on TL let's get this done.
Let's hope the owners will be the bigger person.

Dream Big is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 07:38 PM
  #72
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,457
vCash: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Big View Post
My prediction for the start date is just before Thanksgiving Nov. 22, 2012. My preference is that the offical October start times could be attained.

24/7 needs a bit of lead time for their show which culminates with the New Year's game. If the NHL does not provide the games for this they will get a reputation of being unreliable.

Lots of interesting stuff here.
http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/9/17/winn...ent-cba-part-3

"NHL teams have taken over $1 Billion in profit and NHL teams have also taken 600 million in losses." Both are true statements.

See the conclusions for what the writer thinks.

Both sides are not offering up anything satisfactory. Come on TL let's get this done.
Let's hope the owners will be the bigger person.
If the season starts and there is no deal, for every day of games, games will be canceled 45 days in advance, so its either start October 11th, or November 25th.

SimplySensational is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 07:39 PM
  #73
Semin
.
 
Semin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,898
vCash: 500
"I can share Alexander Ovechkin's words," says Ilya Kovalchuk. "If there will be a pay cut, we will seriously consider the option of moving permanently back to our homeland and play there.


got it from here
http://alexovetjkin.blogspot.ca/2012...said-that.html

Semin is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 07:47 PM
  #74
Carlzner
Who's Zed?
 
Carlzner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 10,544
vCash: 500
Well..

Carlzner is offline  
Old
09-18-2012, 07:59 PM
  #75
Langway
Moderator
Intangibles
 
Langway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semin View Post
"I can share Alexander Ovechkin's words," says Ilya Kovalchuk. "If there will be a pay cut, we will seriously consider the option of moving permanently back to our homeland and play there.

got it from here
http://alexovetjkin.blogspot.ca/2012...said-that.html
Except there's something called the IIHF which makes such a threat pretty much a non-starter. In any event the rollback fears are pretty unwarranted IMO. The players will eat it via escrow most likely. It's a rollback by another name but...still. Not uncharted territory, just more of it.

Langway 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 11:59 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.