HFBoards

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

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 08:20 PM
  #101
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,821
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Yeah, but there's always been the option to get rid of Ballard if they really needed his space. If the Canucks managed to successfully get Weber I'm sure Ballard would've been on the first plane out of Vancouver. If Luongo retires at age 37-38 then the Canucks will be looking at 4-5 years of dead cap space with no chance of relief.

$5.3 million certainly isn't pocket change; it's probably the sum total of the Sedins, Kesler, Bieksa, and Burrows' home town discounts. I know I'll be choked if the Canucks lose the equivalent of that just because Bettman and a few owners don't like long term deals.
I don't think it is that big an issue.

1). Luongo won't retire until the $6.7m years are up (6 years 2017-18), and probably the $3.8m year (7 years, 2018-19). So it's closers to 7 years of play and 3 years of retirement. We have to survive 3 years at $5m below cap.

2) We have 7 years to plan for it. Losing $5m in cap now would be a killer, in the 8th year with a bunch of planning it won't be that bad.

3) Look at our team: H Sedin, D Sedins Burrows, Kesler (injury wear down), Hamhuis, Bieksa etc are all going to be burnt out or close to it by 7 years. We are going to suck outside of goal unless we find a whole bunch of talent from someone because there is no where near enough on the farm. Win while we can.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:33 PM
  #102
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,821
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Exactly. Bettman is pissed and he's gonna try and get back at the teams that made him look bad.
I don't have a problem with it. If the player got the money the team should get the cap hit. The only change I would make, one I've been proposing for a while, is that the cap hit in the retired years be equal to contract cap hit - cash forfieted by retiring.

eg Luongo last 3 years he is paid $1.6m $1m $1m in cash so his cap hit would be 5.3m - $1.6m = $3.7m. 5.3m - $1m = $4.3m.

$3.7m, $4.3m, $4.3m seems fair considering he's been paid that amount already. He's had it earning interest for 10 years even.

The system also works for guys on flat contacts (ie $6m $6m $6m etc), if they retire their avg $6m - $6m cash forfieted = $0 adj cap hit.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:45 PM
  #103
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I don't have a problem with it. If the player got the money the team should get the cap hit. The only change I would make, one I've been proposing for a while, is that the cap hit in the retired years be equal to contract cap hit - cash forfieted by retiring.

eg Luongo last 3 years he is paid $1.6m $1m $1m in cash so his cap hit would be 5.3m - $1.6m = $3.7m. 5.3m - $1m = $4.3m.

$3.7m, $4.3m, $4.3m seems fair considering he's been paid that amount already. He's had it earning interest for 10 years even.

The system also works for guys on flat contacts (ie $6m $6m $6m etc), if they retire their avg $6m - $6m cash forfieted = $0 adj cap hit.
You're rewarding teams for front loading those contracts. That's the opposite of what the NHL wants to happen. The point of the clause is to penalize teams later that are benefitting from cap savings now.

Edit - I reread this and understand it better now. While you're not rewarding those teams, I think the NHL wants to make sure those teams pay a steep penalty for cap circumvention, which is what those deals really are.


Last edited by Scurr: 10-23-2012 at 08:50 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:45 PM
  #104
PG Canuck
Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
PA wants to meet with the NHL tomorrow. Baby steps.

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:46 PM
  #105
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,987
vCash: 500
TEAM1040:
Quote:
According to reports, the NHLPA has asked for a meeting tomorrow. No time has been set as of yet. #NHL #Lockout
Could the players be caving in?

Taelin is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:49 PM
  #106
PG Canuck
Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
TEAM1040:

Could the players be caving in?
Bob McKenzie believes the deadline of Nov. 2nd set by the NHL isn't hard and they could very well have another week after the NHL's supposed deadline since they can reduce the ASG break which is around 5 days. Don't think they're caving yet, but both sides seem willing to talk, so someone has to say lets meet.

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 08:52 PM
  #107
PG Canuck
Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
Just told from a high up NHL source that no CBA meetings are scheduled, and the source doubts any will take place this week. #ruhroh

PR stunt by PA it seems. Screw you PA.

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:18 PM
  #108
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,039
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Not looking good. Oh well. Hopefully we can have hockey back by October 2013.

Anyways, what's the difference between the union and the PA? They keep getting used and it confuses me.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:23 PM
  #109
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,987
vCash: 500
tpanotchCSN:
Quote:
Bill Daly says given NHLPA position on league's last proposal and "unwillingness" to offer a new one, he's unsure why 2 sides would meet.
DarrenDreger:
Quote:
The union has offered to meet, but, unless PA is willing to work off NHL's offer, Daly says there's no reason to meet.

Taelin is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:39 PM
  #110
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
I'm still baffled by the NHL's position on contract length, age of free agency, arbitration rights, extending the entry level period a year etc. Usually when you lose money you're able to gain some ground with employee rights. I hope people fully appreciate how much the NHL is asking the PA to give up.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:50 PM
  #111
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,821
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm still baffled by the NHL's position on contract length, age of free agency, arbitration rights, extending the entry level period a year etc. Usually when you lose money you're able to gain some ground with employee rights. I hope people fully appreciate how much the NHL is asking the PA to give up.
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.

Besides which, apart from contract lenth (say 5 mean, 7 years anyone), I think the rest is stuff the NHL will yield on once the NHLPA bends on the $, they just aren't going to bend until then.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:54 PM
  #112
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.

Besides which, apart from contract lenth (say 5 mean, 7 years anyone), I think the rest is stuff the NHL will yield on once the NHLPA bends on the $, they just aren't going to bend until then.
It's their final, best offer and there is no point meeting unless the PA only wants to talk about "making the players whole", didn't you hear?

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:08 PM
  #113
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I don't think it is that big an issue.

1). Luongo won't retire until the $6.7m years are up (6 years 2017-18), and probably the $3.8m year (7 years, 2018-19). So it's closers to 7 years of play and 3 years of retirement. We have to survive 3 years at $5m below cap.

2) We have 7 years to plan for it. Losing $5m in cap now would be a killer, in the 8th year with a bunch of planning it won't be that bad.

3) Look at our team: H Sedin, D Sedins Burrows, Kesler (injury wear down), Hamhuis, Bieksa etc are all going to be burnt out or close to it by 7 years. We are going to suck outside of goal unless we find a whole bunch of talent from someone because there is no where near enough on the farm. Win while we can.
Losing $5+ million in cap space is always a big deal and it completely undoes the work of getting players to sign cap friendly contracts.

Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:21 PM
  #114
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.
The speculation was that the shorter ELC, combined with the raising of the UFA age, was intended to shift the average player's "big" contract from the second one to the third. So not really a concession, more of a tactical shuffling of contract mechanics.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:21 PM
  #115
JanBulisPiggyBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 376
vCash: 500
What I don't get is that ****** rule is gonna punish the team, particularly the owners. The NHL side is the owners, Bettman is making these demands on the owners part. Why do the owners want to punish themselves



Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Losing $5+ million in cap space is always a big deal and it completely undoes the work of getting players to sign cap friendly contracts.

Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.

JanBulisPiggyBack is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:29 PM
  #116
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.
And it's baffling how Bettman and the owners' negotiating committee are getting away with screwing so many big-revenue teams this way. I can't believe that guys like Aquilini, Rocky Wirtz, Mike Ilitch, and James Dolan are happy to take one in the teeth so Jeremy Jacobs and the poor half of the league can squeeze a few million more a year out of the players.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:33 PM
  #117
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
Why do the owners want to punish themselves
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.

tantalum is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:37 PM
  #118
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.
How does that clause provide one iota of economic relief to teams?

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:47 PM
  #119
Vancouver_2010
Go Canucks & Oilers
 
Vancouver_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who doesn't want the season to start so soon? It is better to have our players rest more from their injury

Vancouver_2010 is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:07 PM
  #120
JanBulisPiggyBack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.
But wouldnt being stuck with a players contract after you have traded them and they then retire self inflicted punishment

Thats easily the worst stipulation in the new contract from the NHL that will directly affect the owner and not the player, there will be safe guards in the new length of contract so that these things don't happen unless for example we signed Doan to a 5 year contract and he retired 2 years in.

JanBulisPiggyBack is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:32 PM
  #121
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanBulisPiggyBack View Post
But wouldnt being stuck with a players contract after you have traded them and they then retire self inflicted punishment

Thats easily the worst stipulation in the new contract from the NHL that will directly affect the owner and not the player, there will be safe guards in the new length of contract so that these things don't happen unless for example we signed Doan to a 5 year contract and he retired 2 years in.
and then no one near the cap would ever sign doan. there is no way the "rich" teams will allow themselves to be punished on existing contracts. the battle is between the owners and the players right now ... even though I have said repeatedly there is a battle between the owners in the background ... the rich owners are not going to get screwed by betman ... he's the puppet answering to the rich few.

billvanseattle is online now  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:52 PM
  #122
PG Canuck
Moderator
 
PG Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,502
vCash: 1512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancouver_2010 View Post
Am I the only one who doesn't want the season to start so soon? It is better to have our players rest more from their injury
It's either start soon, or not start at all IMO. Now which one do you choose?

PG Canuck is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 12:17 AM
  #123
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Well, if the league is unwilling to meet it just burned any good will it gained from the last round

west in the east is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 12:42 AM
  #124
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by west in the east View Post
Well, if the league is unwilling to meet it just burned any good will it gained from the last round
The NHL is willing to meet, but like Daly was quoted, no point in doing so if the NHLPA is not bringing anything new to the table.

The NHLPA haven't made any concessions. Getting to 50/50 and reaching the status quo that every other league has met, should have been a given. Common sense. The NHLPA didn't even address anything in their new proposals, save for the bit where their players would get the biggest chunk of revenue from any major sporting league.

The NHL, after their offer last week, is winning the PR war and the players are fumbling this. NHL has no reason to meet with the NHLPA unless they are going to bend. Good on them.

Edonator is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 12:56 AM
  #125
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL is willing to meet, but like Daly was quoted, no point in doing so if the NHLPA is not bringing anything new to the table.

The NHLPA haven't made any concessions. Getting to 50/50 and reaching the status quo that every other league has met, should have been a given. Common sense. The NHLPA didn't even address anything in their new proposals, save for the bit where their players would get the biggest chunk of revenue from any major sporting league.

The NHL, after their offer last week, is winning the PR war and the players are fumbling this. NHL has no reason to meet with the NHLPA unless they are going to bend. Good on them.
Not meeting is not negotiating. If the NHL were to meet with the PA, make it look like they're trying to negotiate they'd be further ahead in the PR battle. Then they could leave the bargaining table and said they offer up negiating points (the make-whole provision being a rumoured one) and the PA isn't will to negotiate.

I do agree that Fehr has turned this into some martyr-like cause that seems to have turned into something more than money (or at least it appears that way). This is business and those stupid macho emotions should be checked at the door. Seems that Fehr has encouraged the opposite.

west in the east 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 11:48 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.