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, 05:28 PM
  #151
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I don't agree with the punitive measures against teams who "circumvented" the cap. Considering all the teams who handed out long term deals to players over the past 7 years, it amazes me that something like this would even be approved by the owners. I'm speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bettman & co. threw this in out of spite without asking ALL the owners (certain ones in particular).
I don't understand this proposal at all. It's like the owners are trying to punish themselves!

MsWoof is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:13 PM
  #152
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,400
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
I don't understand this proposal at all. It's like the owners are trying to punish themselves!
It's just leveling the playing field for small market teams. How else are the Coyotes supposed to sign free agents?

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:18 PM
  #153
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
It's just leveling the playing field for small market teams. How else are the Coyotes supposed to sign free agents?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:44 PM
  #154
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
I don't understand this proposal at all. It's like the owners are trying to punish themselves!
Precisely what I don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
It's just leveling the playing field for small market teams. How else are the Coyotes supposed to sign free agents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Here's my rub with it:

These contracts were signed and approved by the NHL years ago. If the NHL had a problem with them, they should have put their foot down back then. While they eventually did on the Kovalchuk deal. Carter, Richards, Pronger... All of these deals were done before then.

I would argue that this is a bit like double jeopardy.

or (for you Boardwalk Empire fans) would be like punishing someone for selling alcohol 10 years before Congress passed Prohibition.

We're punishing teams for "breaking the law" before it was a law.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:49 PM
  #155
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,789
vCash: 500
I strongly dislike that as well. I don't see the point in punishing teams for doing what they were allowed to do. It seems to me like it would be good enough to grandfather the old contracts in and apply the rules to all new contracts. The NHL has to approve all contracts, and they certainly didn't have an issue with them at the time.

I get what they're trying to do, but I don't quite get why teams should be punished for obeying the old CBA. They can accomplish their goal without doing that.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:51 PM
  #156
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I strongly dislike that as well. I don't see the point in punishing teams for doing what they were allowed to do. It seems to me like it would be good enough to grandfather the old contracts in and apply the rules to all new contracts. The NHL has to approve all contracts, and they certainly didn't have an issue with them at the time.
Even if they did have an issue they failed to do anything until after Kovalchuk.

I might be willing to accept these provisions, if they amended it to be all contracts after the Kovalchuk saga. Otherwise, it just seems ridiculously unfair.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:53 PM
  #157
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 41,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Even if they did have an issue they failed to do anything until after Kovalchuk.

I might be willing to accept these provisions, if they amended it to be all contracts after the Kovalchuk saga. Otherwise, it just seems ridiculously unfair.
I like how they nixed the first Kovy contract, said the second one was perfectly fine, and now they're setting up to grind NJ for it again.

The only way I can see this working fairly is if teams can buy cap space with actual money to cancel those penalties. The haves can carry on as usual and the have-nots get a little boost. If the CBA doesn't allow that, then it's needlessly punitive, bordering on spiteful.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:56 PM
  #158
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I like how they nixed the first Kovy contract, said the second one was perfectly fine, and now they're setting up to grind NJ for it again.


Agreed!

I will say the comedic value of this can only be fully appreciated by Atlantic Division fans (excluding Jersey).

Take notes kiddies, this is proper trolling.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:12 PM
  #159
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
We're punishing teams for "breaking the law" before it was a law.
It's an actual thing called ex post facto laws. It's when a law is created and you try to get people who have "broken" the law prior to it being created (as well as other applications). In a sense making it "legal" to "punish" teams to be on the hook for entering into contracts greater than 5 years ("breaking" the 5 year limit) if the player retires regardless of the team they play for at the time of retirement would be a violation of rights/an ex post facto law since at the time there was no such rule in the CBA regardless of approval of the contracts.

turkinaa is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:31 PM
  #160
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I'm not sure the NHLPA opposes players being buried. They still get paid. The individual player might hate it, but, as a whole, it means that someone else is getting that money.
Maybe, but if you are a player you don't to be riding the bus in the AHL if a team regrets a contract they gave you. They also don't want to run the risk of a team acquiring them as a salary dump only to get shuffled to the AHL like Matt Walker.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:45 PM
  #161
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Maybe, but if you are a player you don't to be riding the bus in the AHL if a team regrets a contract they gave you. They also don't want to run the risk of a team acquiring them as a salary dump only to get shuffled to the AHL like Matt Walker.
That's the NHL though, right? I don't doubt that the NHL hates it, and I don't doubt that the individual player hates it. I'm just not sure the NHLPA cares that much about the issue--after all, Redden's loss is someone else on the Rangers gain, so collectively, the players are better off.

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:49 PM
  #162
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkinaa View Post
It's an actual thing called ex post facto laws. It's when a law is created and you try to get people who have "broken" the law prior to it being created (as well as other applications). In a sense making it "legal" to "punish" teams to be on the hook for entering into contracts greater than 5 years ("breaking" the 5 year limit) if the player retires regardless of the team they play for at the time of retirement would be a violation of rights/an ex post facto law since at the time there was no such rule in the CBA regardless of approval of the contracts.
Thank you for clarification! I'm not savvy in all the terminology. I just know a raw deal when I see it.

Found this little tidbit on Wikipedia:

Quote:
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution.
made me feel better.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:00 PM
  #163
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
That's the NHL though, right? I don't doubt that the NHL hates it, and I don't doubt that the individual player hates it. I'm just not sure the NHLPA cares that much about the issue--after all, Redden's loss is someone else on the Rangers gain, so collectively, the players are better off.
The NHL (mostly the big market teams) gains from this more than anything. The Rangers effectively gain $6M in cap space to improve their product. Meanwhile someone in the PA loses their NHL job. I don't see how the players are collectively better off with that rule. If the Rangers didn't have that $6M to sign someone like Gaborik he would have just went elsewhere. Meanwhile someone perfectly capable of playing in the NHL is stuck in the minors because the Rangers regretted a deal they gave him. If you are a player why would you be happy with the possibility of being jettisoned to the minors because a team decides you make too much money?

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:15 PM
  #164
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
The NHL (mostly the big market teams) gains from this more than anything. The Rangers effectively gain $6M in cap space to improve their product. Meanwhile someone in the PA loses their NHL job. I don't see how the players are collectively better off with that rule. If the Rangers didn't have that $6M to sign someone like Gaborik he would have just went elsewhere. Meanwhile someone perfectly capable of playing in the NHL is stuck in the minors because the Rangers regretted a deal they gave him. If you are a player why would you be happy with the possibility of being jettisoned to the minors because a team decides you make too much money?
They don't really lose their job. They still get paid.

Perhaps someone else would have paid Gaborik the money (actually, they obviously would have), but there still would have been $6 or so total less being spent somewhere, by someone, on players' salaries.

I'm not questioning whether it sucks for Redden--and I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that this is a small market team concern. I've just yet to see evidence that the NHLPA 1) has a significant problem with it, and 2) is making any sort of issue out of it in the negotiations.

Do you see what I'm saying? I feel like that didn't come out clearly.

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:35 PM
  #165
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
They don't really lose their job. They still get paid.

Perhaps someone else would have paid Gaborik the money (actually, they obviously would have), but there still would have been $6 or so total less being spent somewhere, by someone, on players' salaries.

I'm not questioning whether it sucks for Redden--and I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that this is a small market team concern. I've just yet to see evidence that the NHLPA 1) has a significant problem with it, and 2) is making any sort of issue out of it in the negotiations.

Do you see what I'm saying? I feel like that didn't come out clearly.
That's why I pointed out they lose their NHL job. They are getting paid, but obviously they'd prefer life in the NHL.

By allowing the Rangers to bury Redden they are spending $6M more than they should be spending. With teams like the Rangers and Flyers spending over the cap in salaries it would mean there is more money going into escrow.

I agree there is no evidence the NHLPA is making an issue of it, but I certainly don't believe they will be against this particular proposal either. I fully expect it to be a part of the new CBA.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:37 PM
  #166
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkinaa View Post
It's an actual thing called ex post facto laws. It's when a law is created and you try to get people who have "broken" the law prior to it being created (as well as other applications). In a sense making it "legal" to "punish" teams to be on the hook for entering into contracts greater than 5 years ("breaking" the 5 year limit) if the player retires regardless of the team they play for at the time of retirement would be a violation of rights/an ex post facto law since at the time there was no such rule in the CBA regardless of approval of the contracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Thank you for clarification! I'm not savvy in all the terminology. I just know a raw deal when I see it.

Found this little tidbit on Wikipedia:



made me feel better.
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:00 PM
  #167
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.
Yeah... I was going to post that, but I figured that that was pretty well known.

Similarly, the CBA could rollback existing, valid, signed contracts by 20 percent without the individual players approval.

Jack de la Hoya is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:58 PM
  #168
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.
I understand he legality of it now. My position on it remains the same. Pre-Kovalchuk = grandfathered. Post-Kovalchuk = debatable.

Post-Kovie we would be on the hook for Bryzgalov and Hartnell for sure. There is a thread on the main board that insists we would be on the hook for Weber also.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:28 PM
  #169
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.
That's the point, it wasn't a comment on the CBA being a law it was about making something illegal that wasn't at the time of the now-law being broken as real-world legal clarification and a hypothetical application to how what they are doing is similar to ex post facto laws - and technically ex post facto laws are always deemed to be violations and thus never really standing laws or more importantly cannot be laws so even the term ex post facto laws is a misnomer. We all know common sense and real world legality has no impact or bearing on the CBA.

Also ex post facto laws can make legal punishment more severe than the were prior to the passing of the law, which would be far more what the league is doing - they are making the "punishment" of handing out 6+ year contracts when before there was no actual way to "punish" a team for giving out an incredibly long contract if they felt it was or wasn't circumvention, however, this also doesn't have any bearing on the CBA for the reasons said above (it just seems like these restrictions are very similar to ex post facto laws, not that they are).

Let's focus on the CBA proposal instead:

Would the 5 year limit, or really any limit on length, encourage players to jump overseas if they want something long-term with a good chunk of salary (either equal to or greater than what they would get in the NHL with more years) or would it not really hurt them in hopes they could get the same money over shorter time?


Last edited by turkinaa: 10-17-2012 at 11:55 PM.
turkinaa is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 12:09 AM
  #170
MillerTime2181
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
In addition, especially in regard to a player like Carter....how is it fair to punish the Flyers? Carter has been traded TWICE now. That means TWO teams entered into an agreement to trade for him AND his contract in good faith knowing full well the risks and details regarding length/cap hit/actual monetary figures and his age/injury history associated with the contract. How is that fair? How is that good business? The LA Kings (and potentially another team or two by the end of that contract) will have NO risk/worry acquiring him/trading him or worrying about his declining skill ect. because somehow these business "geniuses" and lawyers have decided that another team should have to foot the bill for it. Who knows how many of these contracts or trades would have actually happened if these penalties would have been in place to begin with. How, how HOW can the League now punish those teams after the fact?!? UNREAL!!

MillerTime2181 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 01:44 AM
  #171
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillerTime2181 View Post
In addition, especially in regard to a player like Carter....how is it fair to punish the Flyers? Carter has been traded TWICE now. That means TWO teams entered into an agreement to trade for him AND his contract in good faith knowing full well the risks and details regarding length/cap hit/actual monetary figures and his age/injury history associated with the contract. How is that fair? How is that good business? The LA Kings (and potentially another team or two by the end of that contract) will have NO risk/worry acquiring him/trading him or worrying about his declining skill ect. because somehow these business "geniuses" and lawyers have decided that another team should have to foot the bill for it. Who knows how many of these contracts or trades would have actually happened if these penalties would have been in place to begin with. How, how HOW can the League now punish those teams after the fact?!? UNREAL!!
It is also interesting to note that Carter was traded to CBJ on Jun 23, 8 days before his new contract officially kicked in.

I don't think that this clause will stand.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:07 AM
  #172
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkinaa View Post
That's the point, it wasn't a comment on the CBA being a law it was about making something illegal that wasn't at the time of the now-law being broken as real-world legal clarification and a hypothetical application to how what they are doing is similar to ex post facto laws - and technically ex post facto laws are always deemed to be violations and thus never really standing laws or more importantly cannot be laws so even the term ex post facto laws is a misnomer. We all know common sense and real world legality has no impact or bearing on the CBA.

Also ex post facto laws can make legal punishment more severe than the were prior to the passing of the law, which would be far more what the league is doing - they are making the "punishment" of handing out 6+ year contracts when before there was no actual way to "punish" a team for giving out an incredibly long contract if they felt it was or wasn't circumvention, however, this also doesn't have any bearing on the CBA for the reasons said above (it just seems like these restrictions are very similar to ex post facto laws, not that they are).
Your post seemed to insinuate that the CBA would be considered an ex post facto law and the subsequent post of another mentioned the constitutionality of ex post facto laws. I was simply clarifying that the CBA would not be violating the Ex Post Facto Clause because the CBA is not a law. Wanted to make sure everyone was up to date on their constitutional law. Haha.

Quote:
Let's focus on the CBA proposal instead:

Would the 5 year limit, or really any limit on length, encourage players to jump overseas if they want something long-term with a good chunk of salary (either equal to or greater than what they would get in the NHL with more years) or would it not really hurt them in hopes they could get the same money over shorter time?
I doubt it. Maybe some middle-of-the-road players and some scrubs, but I doubt Yakupov or any other young guys bail to Europe.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:34 AM
  #173
dingbathero
No Jam? How about PB
 
dingbathero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,905
vCash: 500
So in 6-7 years when a deal is reached we have another lock-out. Okay, I'll be ready for it, again.

dingbathero is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:40 AM
  #174
JohnnyOnTheSpot
I Believe in G-Sus
 
JohnnyOnTheSpot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
An ex post facto law is a law. This is a collective bargaining agreement. While it may not be smart or "fair" to punish the teams for contracts made before the rule change, it is not an "ex post facto law" and it is completely legal.
Beat me to the lawyering by 12 hours! I saw that pop up and said "I'm going to scroll down and see DFF replied."

JohnnyOnTheSpot is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 09:34 AM
  #175
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,462
vCash: 633
It really shows how dumb the owners and Buttman really are by continuously punishing themselves with every new CBA. The league is really a joke.

healthyscratch 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 10:23 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.