I'd be furious as a UFA-to-be. That's why I think that issue will be compromised somehow.
Some players originally signed those deals for the specific reason of hitting UFA ASAP. If I was the NHLPA, I'd ask for a grandfather clause for players already on UFA contracts.
I find a strange conincidence that just after the NHL hired a PR firm, all this seemingly too-good-to-be-true news breaks out.
I'm not sold. Even if the news is true, which it could be, the players are thinking "we got them caving in" and they are trying to get more and more out of them. Also, the owners win big-time now. Players get absolutely nothing, nothing out of this deal. No incentive for them to do it.
They can't lie about what they offered. They can hide a poison pill in the CBA I suppose that the players won't accept and they won't take out but either way this does help the owners PR-wise. Because it's an actual attempt at working out a deal instead of just trying to bully one.
I don't believe this is how it works. If Redden refuses to report, he gets suspended by the Rangers and they don't have to pay him anything/he comes off the cap. The contract isn't voided though.
What person in their right mind would simply walk away from 6 million dollars a year playing against mediocre players?
How is it fair? Well you legally signed him to a contract that he apparently wasn't worth. Who's fault is that? The Hawks and the Hawks only.
Why on Earth should a team be allowed to escape a bad contract? If you don't want to have a bad contract, well, don't hand one out.
And you're exactly right. The big markets are the only ones making these Huet/Redden mistakes. Start spending your money wisely instead of treating salary like a freeroll and you won't get stuck with the problem, plain and simple.
In fact, get all 30 teams spending money wisely and we might even have avoided this mess.
They can't lie about what they offered. They can hide a poison pill in the CBA I suppose that the players won't accept and they won't take out but either way this does help the owners PR-wise. Because it's an actual attempt at working out a deal instead of just trying to bully one.
What it is is a way for the owners to force the hand of the PA by saying "if you turn this offer down, you're turning down a season." Hardly a surprise a move like this comes after Luntz and focus groups. The PA can't turn down this offer without looking like the villains. The big PR move is the 50-50 split, and the players get bent over backwards in little ways elsewhere.
What it is is a way for the owners to force the hand of the PA by saying "if you turn this offer down, you're turning down a season." Hardly a surprise a move like this comes after Luntz and focus groups. The PA can't turn down this offer without looking like the villains. The big PR move is the 50-50 split, and the players get bent over backwards in little ways elsewhere.
Well they'd be turning down a full season - and likely the best offer they're ever getting - not the entire season. Early November is just the drop dead date for 82 games, which honestly I'm surprised was still on the table (I hope they at least somewhat compensate by ending the season a week or two later). Realistically once the plug gets pulled on the Winter Classic that's it imo, even if that's not the official drop dead date.
Big difference between lowering and raising UFA age, though.
I wonder just how many players this would affect this offseason. If it's like fifty or less I don't think they'll care enough to want to grandfather it in. Especially with all the 6-14 year contracts that were being signed before the lockout anyway
Big difference between lowering and raising UFA age, though.
Right and I would say that the last time was a result of the league giving something back to the union. This time it's an opportunity to save money on UFA contracts. Either it gets raised or just stays. I don't think they'll monkey around too much with it.
Next week is going to be big. So we can cram in 82 games and watch the rookie cards pile in for all the injured players.
They can't lie about what they offered. They can hide a poison pill in the CBA I suppose that the players won't accept and they won't take out but either way this does help the owners PR-wise. Because it's an actual attempt at working out a deal instead of just trying to bully one.
They can also release only at they want to releas, this isnt going to be the final deal, the PA has stayed strong willed for this long, they aren't just caving in. They may not get a higher HRR but the the restrictions on contracts and such wont be the way they are. There's no reason for the PA to agree to this deal, because they gr nothing out of it, they lose ground they had from the prior CBA, while gaining practically nothing for doing so.
They can also release only at they want to releas, this isnt going to be the final deal, the PA has stayed strong willed for this long, they aren't just caving in. They may not get a higher HRR but the the restrictions on contracts and such wont be the way they are. There's no reason for the PA to agree to this deal, because they gr nothing out of it, they lose ground they had from the prior CBA, while gaining practically nothing for doing so.
Obviously they're not going to accept the deal 'as is' but the main sticking points for the players in public were HRR and the fact the owners wanted a cutback in salaries. The owners met the players halfway (literally) on HRR and salary rollbacks don't seem to be an issue with this proposal.
We'll find out how truthful Steve Fehr was being when he said the other issues could be resolved in six hours if they come to an agreement on HRR. Or whether the Fehrs' ego gets the better of them and they decide to destroy the NHL because they're not getting 53% of HRR instead of 50.
NHL changing their proposal this much shows a willingness to do it again, I'm sure the PA sees this.
The players also should remember '94 and how the offer 'did' get worse over time. Once the owners start losing games (and particularly the Winter Classic), off the cliff the sport goes.
It's usually a mutual agreement between both the player and the team to move on. In terms of the procedure, the team assigns the player to the minors, the player refuses to report, and then the team has the option to terminate the deal.
Easier for Shanahan and LeClair to give up (relatively cheap) one year deals than it was for Redden to give up 23 million over his final four years. Sheldon Souray was in a similar boat.
Todd Cordell @ToddCordell
Pierre LeBrun just said that there is still a lot of work to be done but he doesn't see a scenario where a new CBA isn't reached by Oct 25th
Todd Cordell @ToddCordell
Darren Dreger just said on TSN that there's talk about being able to trade cap space in a new CBA. #NHL
Depends, if the small market teams trade away cap space like it's worth nothing, then it's a problem. If the cap space is actually valuable, then it isn't.
That could either go terribly wrong or it can be pretty good. Likely, it's going to be the former because poorer teams are going to try to get whatever they can for the cap they won't use.
Todd Cordell @ToddCordell
Darren Dreger just said on TSN that there's talk about being able to trade cap space in a new CBA. #NHL
I hate hate hate this idea.
Especially for the Yotes and Isles.
They're the furthest off the cap floor and typically hover around there. It'll be a race to see who can bend them over first.
In one of the earlier NHLPA proposals, they suggested being able to trade cap space (allowing teams to go something like $2mil above or below the floor) as a commodity.
So if the Rangers need that extra 2 million in space - they can not only dump a player for cap space on another team's roster, but they can receive an extra $2mil in return for the cap dump.
