HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 09:47 AM
  #101
1865
Registered User
 
1865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester, UK
Country: England
Posts: 9,187
vCash: 50
Oh **** off then Fehr.

1865 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:51 AM
  #102
RussianRocket10
Registered User
 
RussianRocket10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: Brazil
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 500
Aww man. I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.

RussianRocket10 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:57 AM
  #103
OriginJM
watch out im smart
 
OriginJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Couturier View Post


noooooo

OriginJM is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:59 AM
  #104
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
This was never going to be THE deal. Of course there are things the players don't love about it, because they don't gain anything in exchange for giving up 7% of the pie. Hopefully this leads to some serious bargaining over the next week or so.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:01 AM
  #105
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,969
vCash: 500
I didn't expect them to accept it or love it but the last quote in my quote speaks volumes. Does it mean that they're not even going to counter any time soon?

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Hollywood Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:07 AM
  #106
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 13,880
vCash: 500
I have hope. This offer can start the serious negotiations. Maybe we were all a little to foolish to think that this offer would immediately end the lockout, but it gives the sides a starting point on negotiations. I would be troubled if the sides do not try to negotiate this every day from Thursday until October 25th. Also worth noting is that the NHL said it will not just cancel the season, but will shorten it if negotiations go beyond October 25th.

I do not like the contract rule either. I don't think it really is fair to punish teams for something they did while it was deemed legal in the last CBA. Clarification needs to be made on whether the Flyers would pay for the likes of Richards or Carter also if they decide to retire. Now if they change that to the team that currently employs the player then I like the rule. You made the trade for the player, you pay for him.

Fehr also mentioned the players will be paying the players for their lose in immediate money from the cut down of 57% to 50%. The owners will have to make those payment if they want to get a deal done. Reducing their salaries in later years to make up for the absolute money they lose in the first two years won't cut it I feel.

At least they have a building block now, let's see where this takes them. The NHL offer wasn't the greatest, but it gives us hope they are willing to negotiate a fair deal for both sides.

Prongo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:25 AM
  #107
MillerTime2181
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
I have hope. This offer can start the serious negotiations. Maybe we were all a little to foolish to think that this offer would immediately end the lockout, but it gives the sides a starting point on negotiations. I would be troubled if the sides do not try to negotiate this every day from Thursday until October 25th. Also worth noting is that the NHL said it will not just cancel the season, but will shorten it if negotiations go beyond October 25th.

I do not like the contract rule either. I don't think it really is fair to punish teams for something they did while it was deemed legal in the last CBA. Clarification needs to be made on whether the Flyers would pay for the likes of Richards or Carter also if they decide to retire. Now if they change that to the team that currently employs the player then I like the rule. You made the trade for the player, you pay for him.

Has there been any clarification to that as to whether it pertains to players that have already been traded? Or is it players with long-term contracts that would be traded from here on out which would actually make sense? For instance the Flyers shouldn't be on the hook if for some reason Carter retires early (esp. since two different teams have owned that contract now) and the trade was made before the new CBA is to be in place. However, I can understand the owners wanting this going forward once the new CBA is in place. For example, if next year Chicago trades Hossa who then retires three years later, I can understand Chicago having to be on the hook for the remaining years. Be in the spirit/fairness of the OLD CBA that BOTH parties agreed to how can it possibly be legal to retroactively punish teams who were legally working under the conditions of said CBA? Hopefully it would only be going forward (guess we're stuck with Bryz) and hopefully we can get clarification on that. I can't see Snider knowing he'd have to possibly pay Carter's salary a decade from now and being okay with it.

MillerTime2181 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:29 AM
  #108
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 13,880
vCash: 500
Someone just retweeted Timmy P. and said we would be on the hook for Carter no matter what. If that is the case the rule is horrible. I agree with you about punishing teams for what was once legal. I don't understand how Snider and other large market teams could agree to these terms? Like people are saying, maybe they are not a powerful as we all once thought?

Prongo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:32 AM
  #109
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Couturier View Post
It's disappointing, but in a sense, he's quite correct. The players are still losing a chunk of money without getting anything in return. It seems to me that the owners would need to move to liberalize some contract provisions, rather than impose pretty significant restrictions, in order to get the players to bite. The new revenue sharing comes completely out of the players old share--with room to spare.

At minimum, they'd had to drop all these new demands re: longer RFA periods--and at least impose a more reasonably contract limit.

I just don't see the carrot for the players here, other than the obvious ability to get the season going.

Still, disappointing. I'd hoped the NHLPA would keep its critique in-house and simply make a counter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
This was never going to be THE deal. Of course there are things the players don't love about it, because they don't gain anything in exchange for giving up 7% of the pie. Hopefully this leads to some serious bargaining over the next week or so.
Yeah, basically this.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:41 AM
  #110
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,969
vCash: 500
The BDC change is coming directly from Bettman. I am not saying that to bash him either.
http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/1...y-bettman.html
Quote:
I mean, when he was at the NBA, he made his bones managing the salary cap. And he knows that there are always going to be loopholes, and soon as you close them, someone will find a new loophole to exploit. And it’s never going to be airtight. But his job is to try and make the system as tight as possible. And, you know, I think if you ask Bettman what he would really like to see out of these negotiations, it would be a limit on the longer-term contracts, right? What they call the back-diving stuff, where guys like Kovalchuk or even Brad Richards have deals that start way up high and then dive at the back-end to almost nothing. And I know that, you know, that is a huge concern for Bettman because he feels like that is directly undercutting the cap and also, you know, messing with the competitive balance, but I’m not so sure that the owners share that concern. You know, the owners like having — I think especially the powerful owners and the rich owners — like having a way to try and manipulate the system. So it’ll be interesting to see what happens: Whether in the end, you know, he’s got enough influence to get some sort of five-year limit or six-year limit on contracts.
Now obviously that isn't stone-cold fact and I have no idea who this author is but it makes sense. Bettman has been infuriated by these long term cap circumvention deals. This is a way to fix that problem. I don't see how they can legally retroactively punish teams for signing players in a perfectly legal manner. If this was something that the players proposed (no idea why they would, just saying) it would make a little more sense (which is basically none) then seeing the Owners propose it. What owner wants to pay one of their players who could retire and still be on the hook? Although obviously the owner's can't say anything about it because the players are supposed to be playing all of their years. How can you punish a team for signing a perfectly legal contract at the time?

It is going to effect the original team who offered the contract regardless. This plan is aimed to punish the teams who were circumventing the cap and taking advantage of a loophole. With that said, the Richards and Carter deals weren't really circumventing the cap in ways that other deals have (ie. Kovalchuk, Richards, and Luongo). I'm interested to see if the Flyers would be on the hook for Weber too, although I doubt that they would be. They did however offer the original contract so it's a small chance.

Hollywood Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:46 AM
  #111
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Couturier View Post
I didn't expect them to accept it or love it but the last quote in my quote speaks volumes. Does it mean that they're not even going to counter any time soon?
I'm reading that as if the NHL is willing to play ball and negotiate using this deal as a starting point the players can make it work. If the NHL is going to be standoffish and not willing to give the players some concessions then this deal won't work for the players.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:47 AM
  #112
MillerTime2181
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prongo View Post
Someone just retweeted Timmy P. and said we would be on the hook for Carter no matter what. If that is the case the rule is horrible. I agree with you about punishing teams for what was once legal. I don't understand how Snider and other large market teams could agree to these terms? Like people are saying, maybe they are not a powerful as we all once thought?
Not to mention the smaller (relatively) market clubs like Minnesota (Suter,Parise), New Jersey (Kovalchuck)and one would have to think Nashville (Weber...depending on who you ask) who just screwed themselves with those contracts then. Why would those owners agree to this as well essentially negating their ONLY out of these contracts if they go south? Just shocked at the absolute stupidity of these guys. While trying to
"help" themselves they shoot themselves in the foot. Just really not smart for people who are supposed to be "genius" businessmen/lawyers, ect.

MillerTime2181 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:48 AM
  #113
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
I'm reading that as if the NHL is willing to play ball and negotiate using this deal as a starting point the players can make it work. If the NHL is going to be standoffish and not willing to give the players some concessions then this deal won't work for the players.
That probably makes more sense, now that I reread it.

Hollywood Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:50 AM
  #114
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,045
vCash: 500
I dont really see why they would be so fixated on punishing the team offering the contract. No one held a gun to the head of the team taking the contract in trade. And in many cases, the team accepting the contract is getting just as much benefit if not more from the terms of the deal than the team that signed it.

BringBackStevens is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:51 AM
  #115
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC.

Wouldn't this mean we're safe on Carter, since he was traded while still under the terms of his old contract. He was shipped at the draft and his new deal didn't go into effect until July 1st.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:52 AM
  #116
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
I dont really see why they would be so fixated on punishing the team offering the contract. No one held a gun to the head of the team taking the contract in trade. And in many cases, the team accepting the contract is getting just as much benefit if not more from the terms of the deal than the team that signed it.
They're the ones that "circumvented" the cap and used a loophole. While i'm not saying that it's right, that is their reasoning. The logic is completely flawed.

Hollywood Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:53 AM
  #117
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillerTime2181 View Post
Has there been any clarification to that as to whether it pertains to players that have already been traded? Or is it players with long-term contracts that would be traded from here on out which would actually make sense? For instance the Flyers shouldn't be on the hook if for some reason Carter retires early (esp. since two different teams have owned that contract now) and the trade was made before the new CBA is to be in place. However, I can understand the owners wanting this going forward once the new CBA is in place. For example, if next year Chicago trades Hossa who then retires three years later, I can understand Chicago having to be on the hook for the remaining years. Be in the spirit/fairness of the OLD CBA that BOTH parties agreed to how can it possibly be legal to retroactively punish teams who were legally working under the conditions of said CBA? Hopefully it would only be going forward (guess we're stuck with Bryz) and hopefully we can get clarification on that. I can't see Snider knowing he'd have to possibly pay Carter's salary a decade from now and being okay with it.
While I agree in principle with your viewpoint - (how can teams be penalized for issuing contracts that contravene rules that didn't exist at the time they were issued?), under the current proposal, the players are expected to work for less money than their initial contract provided. It's a tradeoff.

And it's still early - lots could change between now and the final CBA provisions.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:56 AM
  #118
MillerTime2181
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Couturier View Post
They're the ones that "circumvented" the cap and used a loophole. While i'm not saying that it's right, that is their reasoning. The logic is completely flawed.
Exactly it's 100% flawed....now you're giving the team acquiring said player absolutely ZERO concern/responsibility. They get a player they want and if for whatever reason (be it injury/age/ect) the player has to retire it's of no great loss to them because someone else has all the responsiblilty of cap-hit/salary. Just absurd.

MillerTime2181 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:00 AM
  #119
MillerTime2181
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC.

Wouldn't this mean we're safe on Carter, since he was traded while still under the terms of his old contract. He was shipped at the draft and his new deal didn't go into effect until July 1st.
Hopefully you're right on that. He was traded before it went into affect. Essentially Colubus/L.A. took on the extension. Somehow I still think it'll affect the Flyers.

MillerTime2181 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:01 AM
  #120
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillerTime2181 View Post
Hopefully you're right on that. He was traded before it went into affect. Essentially Colubus/L.A. took on the extension. Somehow I still think it'll affect the Flyers.
I mean that's how I interpret "during it's term". Jeff Carter was not traded during the term of his contract.

Edit: reading it further it says this: the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

So I'm guessing we'd still be on the hook for Carter.


Last edited by McNasty: 10-17-2012 at 11:16 AM.
McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:17 AM
  #121
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillerTime2181 View Post
Exactly it's 100% flawed....now you're giving the team acquiring said player absolutely ZERO concern/responsibility. They get a player they want and if for whatever reason (be it injury/age/ect) the player has to retire it's of no great loss to them because someone else has all the responsiblilty of cap-hit/salary. Just absurd.
The players aren't going to want that because that dead cap space is going to be taking money out of their pocket. If the Flyers are on the hook for 11 million that isn't being paid to Carter and Richards that's 11 Million the players aren't making.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:18 AM
  #122
laundryman
Registered User
 
laundryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 973
vCash: 500
McKenzie said he expects the players to at least vote on a proposal next week. At least this is starting negotiations. Being on the hook for Carter's contract may suck, but at least we'll have hockey back hopefully. Maybe there will be an amnesty clause? We could get Bryz or Pronger's hit off the books.

laundryman is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:20 AM
  #123
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by laundryman View Post
McKenzie said he expects the players to at least vote on a proposal next week. At least this is starting negotiations. Being on the hook for Carter's contract may suck, but at least we'll have hockey back hopefully. Maybe there will be an amnesty clause? We could get Bryz or Pronger's hit off the books.
None currently included.

McNasty is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:29 AM
  #124
CharlieGirl
Get well soon Kimmo
 
CharlieGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kitchener, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by laundryman View Post
Maybe there will be an amnesty clause? We could get Bryz or Pronger's hit off the books.
And go with Leighton as the starter? That thought almost makes the lockout a positive thing.

CharlieGirl is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:34 AM
  #125
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
I mean that's how I interpret "during it's term". Jeff Carter was not traded during the term of his contract.

Edit: reading it further it says this: the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

So I'm guessing we'd still be on the hook for Carter.
That's how I read it as well.

It's a really, really odd idea. Hard to figure out who would be pushing the issue.

Jack de la Hoya 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 11:30 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.