HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout discussion thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-04-2012, 11:20 PM
  #226
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
we need a short season so bad.
I need a season so bad. Fell asleep through that bull dog game - sorry , that ahl crap doesn't do it for me.

I'm a traditional habs fan - i'm not going to pretend to be someone I'm not. I don't care enough about some average hab hopeful to kill an evening watching minor league hockey played in front of 2000 people.

I'll watch the world juniors but I rather watch NFL or NBA before any AHL or junior hockey league.

I want a season damn it!!!

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 12:01 AM
  #227
le_sean
Registered User
 
le_sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I've always wondered if the 2005 lockout contributed to the success of the 2003 draft.
It definitely did. I look at Eric Staal as the perfect example. Skinny kid, not ready for the NHL, but still thrown to the wolves as a youngster. Pretty rough rookie season, then the lockout happens. He beefs up, gains major confidence, and has a monster season, leading Carolina to the Stanley Cup.

Off the top of my head, guys like Vanek, Parise, Richards and Carter all benefited from playing in the AHL during the lockout. Who knows if they would have made the jump straight to the NHL if there was a season though.

le_sean is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 08:47 AM
  #228
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If the players had walked out from the playoffs there could have been significant legal penalties. All the NHL had to do was to reach a walkout-prevention agreement before starting the season -- they didn't try.

The players had a chance to negotiate before the season. They decided to play hardball and get pissy by being "insulted" by the same offer the owners were living with. As such, why would the owners give up the leverage of withholdiing player salaries to allow the players to do what they want? It doesn't make sense. The owners tried to negotiate before the season was lost. The owners even made an offer after the season was postponed to get a full season. The players refused, again. So, yes, they "tried".

At some point you will have to start following the news.

At some point you will have to turn the other half of your brain on and stop drinking and watching TV while posting online. I have been following. When I posted what you replied to, the owners had just made an attempt to sweeten their offer to the players and the players had not offered anything substantial in return (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408711 I actually posted my reply the afternoon that the article this links to was posted). I am up to date, but I also have a job that requires my full, non-alcohol addled attention to do, so sometimes I might not be as up-to-date as I would like. This was not one of those times, though... (Do you really like this snarky back and forth crap?!?!)

Both the players and the owners have made offers, and the players have offered a long-term 13% cut in salaries versus trend as a concession. It is up to the owners to make concessions now. The players are not asking for much: they want their contracts honoured.
Yes, both have made offers. The owners have done far more moving from their original position than the players. now, that is probably because the owners initial "offer" was designed to spark discussion, not be truly successful. However, at least an offer was made. The players have been the ones who have not been putting offers on the table that would have a remote chance of success. Fehr is trying to win a pissing match, not truly negotiate. After what was reported about the players 3 counter offers being a simple basic outline on a single piece of paper, it seems like the players are the ones not trying hard enough.

By the way, the players are just as guilty as the owners of signing those pre-CBA expiration contracts. They were as aware as the owners that any salary stipulated in those contracts could get rolled back in CBA negotiations. If they didn't get anything in the contract to prevent such a thing from happening, tough luck.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 09:06 AM
  #229
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
I need a season so bad. Fell asleep through that bull dog game - sorry , that ahl crap doesn't do it for me.

I'm a traditional habs fan - i'm not going to pretend to be someone I'm not. I don't care enough about some average hab hopeful to kill an evening watching minor league hockey played in front of 2000 people.

I'll watch the world juniors but I rather watch NFL or NBA before any AHL or junior hockey league.

I want a season damn it!!!
Damn, you sound so much like every GTA "hockey fan."

Tim Wallach is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 10:30 AM
  #230
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
Damn, you sound so much like every GTA "hockey fan."
or, you mean, I"m like 98% of the canadian population

sorry, saturday night AHL bull dog game played in a dark empty arena with only a few exciting players ..... I have better things to do or watch.

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 10:48 AM
  #231
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Future is Now
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,126
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
or, you mean, I"m like 98% of the canadian population

sorry, saturday night AHL bull dog game played in a dark empty arena with only a few exciting players ..... I have better things to do or watch.
Indeed, the same people who profess to be "diehard hockey fans" and instantly switch to football as soon as Hockey Night in Canada isn't on.

hototogisu is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 10:52 AM
  #232
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Indeed, the same people who profess to be "diehard hockey fans" and instantly switch to football as soon as Hockey Night in Canada isn't on.
I don't miss a saturday night game and I'll watch 50% of the time the double header. I rarely miss a regular season game.

To me that's die hard enough.

coolasprICE is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 11:31 AM
  #233
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
Any gains made by one player in free agency equal losses by the rest. The pot is only so big (the agreed upon % of revenue).

If (to keep the math simple), revenues equal $100 and the split is 50/50, but teams go on an offseason spending spree and the players end up with $53, they give that extra $3 back in escrow payments.

Getzlaf and Perry might get a big payday. It means they individually will be rich, and whichever team signs them might be paying more than other teams, but the owners as a whole will not be "giving money back in salary." The prospect of a free agent frenzy shouldn't impact negotiations at all.
Keep in mind, though, that as long as the overall revenue grows, nothing is given back by the players. That is why their salaires have increased by 63.5% over the length of the last CBA. I have to admit, I was joining (HRR and salaries) two concepts, but ultimately, the point is that owners will spend to win, and as long as the NHL keeps growing, the players will benefit because the owners will never be able to get together and agree to not compete against each other in regards to paying for player services.

Another thing to consider in your above example is that the average salary also grew every season throughout the last CBA. None of the players lost any money because Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Parise, etc...were given 100 million dollar contracts. Overall, the players all saw increased salaries during the last CBA, no players were financially penalized because large contracts were given to certain players, that is why we saw the minimum salary increase as well as the average salaries, and the top salaries. Everyone made money, on the players' side.

Now, you are correct when you say their percent stayed the same (57), but the overall pie got bigger and that led to their money growing. So we both seem to be slightly right and wrong in what we arguing. I was simply trying to point out that the players salaries increased by 63.5% during the course of the last CBA even though they lost 24% off the top at the start of the last CBA. As such, it seems quite likely that any rollback that might occur this time will be accompanied by another upswing throughout the length of the CBA. Of course, that would have been more likely to happen without a work stoppage. With the work stoppage, it will take a bit longer, potentially, for the overall HRR to increase to a point where the Cap rises and players regain any rollback they may incur in any new CBA agreement.

In other words, the players trying to be greedy/foolish/right, whatever, will end up costing them far more money than had they accepted a 50/50 split and continued to be good partners in growing the game. This work stoppage will cost them far more than they will gain, in the short and long term.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 12:21 PM
  #234
Tim Wallach
Registered User
 
Tim Wallach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
or, you mean, I"m like 98% of the canadian population

sorry, saturday night AHL bull dog game played in a dark empty arena with only a few exciting players ..... I have better things to do or watch.
Fair enough. And to each their own. It was more a crack/joke about "Leaf Nation." As someone who lives in the geographic epicentre of Leaf territory, it's infinitely frustrating hearing them comment on who is or is not good when they don't ever watch a single hockey game aside from their damn Leafs.

The best part is that I'll go to a junior game and converse with any one of the thousands of regulars there and they can speak intelligently about a variety of teams' prospects. But not in Leaf world. But I digress. I'm getting off topic.

Enough lock-out already. Let's get this rolling. By the time the actual season starts (I'm guessing Dec. 1st) Bourque should be healthy and even Leblanc will be close.

Tim Wallach is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 04:17 PM
  #235
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
I was just watching Off the Record, and I guess they've been simming a season on NHL 13. Landsberg showed the updated standings today, and Montreal was in first. Pretty funny, although Price is a beast in that game, so no surprise really.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 04:39 PM
  #236
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Indeed, the same people who profess to be "diehard hockey fans" and instantly switch to football as soon as Hockey Night in Canada isn't on.
I love hockey, the number of posts on this board is sufficient enough to know how much I love it. I don't think you need to follow the AHL or juniors to prove to be a die hard fan.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-05-2012, 04:47 PM
  #237
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Yes, both have made offers. The owners have done far more moving from their original position than the players.
Wow, I really hope you don't teach math. You're incredibly weak with numbers.

Here are some numbers, the players original position is 57%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

The owners original position is 43%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

Most importantly, it's a concession from the players either way.

I have not been drunk in years, but even if I were, I wouldn't make that mistake.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-05-2012 at 04:55 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-05-2012, 05:03 PM
  #238
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Wow, I really hope you don't teach math. You're incredibly weak with numbers.

Here are some numbers, the players original position is 57%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

The owners original position is 43%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

Most importantly, it's a concession from the players either way.

I have not been drunk in years, but even if I were, I wouldn't make that mistake.
But don't the players want to keep their current contracts? Which ends up not being a 50-50 split?

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-05-2012, 05:11 PM
  #239
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But don't the players want to keep their current contracts? Which ends up not being a 50-50 split?
The CBA would have to converge to a 50/50 split due to the fact the owners signed those contracts. A switch to 50/50 overnight is equivalent to the owners reneging on signed contracts, which is unacceptable.

The last three offers from the players had the convergence in 1, 3, or 5 years. The NHL's official reason for not signing them is that those deals relied on optimistic revenue growth projections, of I think 5%/year but it might be another number. We'll see what the final deal looks like.

ETA: They could just agree to keep the cap flat until revenues grow sufficiently for payroll to be fixed at 50/50, without it being a fixed number of years.


Last edited by DAChampion: 11-05-2012 at 05:19 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
11-05-2012, 05:22 PM
  #240
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Wow, I really hope you don't teach math. You're incredibly weak with numbers.

Here are some numbers, the players original position is 57%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

The owners original position is 43%, and now they're saying 50%, so that's a 7% change.

Most importantly, it's a concession from the players either way.

I have not been drunk in years, but even if I were, I wouldn't make that mistake.Why not? You make PLENTY of others to be enjoyed ... Not to mention that most drunks don't even know they are drunk.
The owners have moved 7%, the players keep trying to move without actually getting down by that 7% unless there are certain conditions met over a certain amount of time, or only if 13% doesn't count, or whatever other way they can find to not actually get to that 50% in an honest and concise fashion. The players have not come back with an actual 50/50 proposal in any of their counters that is an actual 50/50 split. I now see why you are so on their side, you like intellectual dishonesty.

You know, we can try and be civil or continue with passive/aggressive snark, but shouldn't an Educated Academic be more willing to engage in honest, civil debate?

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-05-2012, 06:42 PM
  #241
Raider917
Registered User
 
Raider917's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
Damn, you sound so much like every GTA "hockey fan."
I agree. The AHL and CHL are only interesting to me because of the future Canadiens that are playing. The Canadiens are the only hockey team I like. Without them hockey is painful to watch to me. Partially because I find it is very boring compared to what it was 25 years ago but mostly because I don't like watching other teams succeed when Montreal isnt.

Raider917 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 08:59 AM
  #242
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Habs odds were around 10-12th the last time around and they drafted 5th.

It's a LOTTERY.

Habs odds would be around 15th this time around, doesn't mean that's the pick they'll get, they could still end-up with a top pick, or even the 20th.
If they play, they have a very decent chance of picking 1-3 overall. There is no comparison, and i don't know why you bother debating this.

bsl is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 10:49 AM
  #243
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The CBA would have to converge to a 50/50 split due to the fact the owners signed those contracts. A switch to 50/50 overnight is equivalent to the owners reneging on signed contracts, which is unacceptable.

The last three offers from the players had the convergence in 1, 3, or 5 years. The NHL's official reason for not signing them is that those deals relied on optimistic revenue growth projections, of I think 5%/year but it might be another number. We'll see what the final deal looks like.

ETA: They could just agree to keep the cap flat until revenues grow sufficiently for payroll to be fixed at 50/50, without it being a fixed number of years.
I'd say predictable over unacceptable. The players are complete morons for thinking they wouldn't have to deal with a salary rollback. I mean come on, everybody knew that was coming. Now they're saying it's unbelievable and unacceptable that the crazy deals they were signed to needs adjusting?
Really think Kovalchuk can't live with making 7M over 11? The reason why he doesn't want the rollback is because he's signed until 2025, which is completely ridiculous to begin with. 14 year contract that has him make as high as 11.8M and as low as 1M??
And those type of contracts aren't what the league was going for in the last CBA, the NHL didn't foresee them. They were made available by capologists and agents once they figured out a loophole as to how to make a high value market player part of a team for a small cap hit.
But everybody knew the league was going to address that issue.
It's as if I was able to screw the system over due to a loophole, and then got pissed off at the authority for trying to fix it.

As I said, at the end of the day, those players will still be millionaires living out their dreams. Doesn't mean they should abide to everything the owners/nhl say, but salary rollback was easily predictable, and having that hardheaded no answer is just not going to help anything.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-06-2012 at 02:10 PM.
Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-06-2012, 11:32 AM
  #244
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I'd say predictable over unacceptable. The players are complete morons for thinking they wouldn't have to deal with a salary rollback. I mean come on, everybody knew that was coming. Now they're saying it's unbelievable and unacceptable that the crazy deals they were signed to needs adjusting?
Really think Kovalchuk can't live with making 7M over 11? The reason why he doesn't want the rollback is because he's signed until 2025, which is completely ridiculous to begin with. 14 year contract that has him make as high as 11.8M and as low as 1M??
And those type of contracts aren't what the league was going for in the last CBA, the NHL didn't foresee them. They were made available by capologists and agents once they figured out a loophole as to how to make a high value market player part of a team for a small cap hit.
But everybody knew the league was going to address that issue.
It's as if I was able to screw the system over due to a loophole, and then got pissed off at the authority for trying to fix it.

As I said, at the end of the day, those will still be millionaires living out their dreams. Doesn't mean they should abide to everything the owners/nhl say, but salary rollback was easily predictable, and having that hardheaded no answer is just not going to help anything.
100% agree. Excellent post.

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 11:40 AM
  #245
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
If they play, they have a very decent chance of picking 1-3 overall. There is no comparison, and i don't know why you bother debating this.
Wow, do we ever disagree on the Habs! We have a team that will make the playoffs if we play and can avoid injuries to multiple key personnel. A healthy Habs team, with the free agent additions we made, will compete and do well. Last year was an abberration, not the standard.

By the way, please correct me if I am wrong, but when they do this type of lottery thing, isn't there some clause that stipulates no team can rise or drop more than 5/8/10 (not sure which number) spots from the previous year's draft? If so, we end up with a range of 1st to 8th (assuming a 5 spot differential) or 1st to 13th (if it is a 10 spot range). In any case, I would rather we play the season (shortened as it will be), make the playoffs (we will) and then at least have a chance to win the Cup (call me a crazy dreamer)! GO HABS GO!!!!

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 11:43 AM
  #246
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
... but salary rollback was easily predictable, and having that hardheaded no answer is just not going to help anything.
Well, I think they should at least get to choose... but there could be some hard choices involved... yes, there can be no rollback, but.... if there is a lowered cap, something has to give... and that comes in the form of buyout provisions that can allow clubs to actually meet a lowered cap, and that means jobs lost by union members. So they should have to choose. If you don't want your salary shaved, are you willing to see a few players per team lose their jobs to protect your salary? It's a fair choice IMHO.

It's also fair for the players to insist on the drop to 50% being phased in over a period of years, which also will help owners budget themselves gradually down. Somewhere there ought to be compromises that can work. Ah well.

Blind Gardien is online now  
Old
11-06-2012, 02:15 PM
  #247
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Well, I think they should at least get to choose... but there could be some hard choices involved... yes, there can be no rollback, but.... if there is a lowered cap, something has to give... and that comes in the form of buyout provisions that can allow clubs to actually meet a lowered cap, and that means jobs lost by union members. So they should have to choose. If you don't want your salary shaved, are you willing to see a few players per team lose their jobs to protect your salary? It's a fair choice IMHO.

It's also fair for the players to insist on the drop to 50% being phased in over a period of years, which also will help owners budget themselves gradually down. Somewhere there ought to be compromises that can work. Ah well.
But if that's the case, it's the teams that get screwed as they'll be losing some players.
And tell the owner he needs to buyout around 20M+ in contracts...Not sure they'll be up for that.

Kriss E is online now  
Old
11-06-2012, 03:39 PM
  #248
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
Wow, do we ever disagree on the Habs! We have a team that will make the playoffs if we play and can avoid injuries to multiple key personnel. A healthy Habs team, with the free agent additions we made, will compete and do well. Last year was an abberration, not the standard.

By the way, please correct me if I am wrong, but when they do this type of lottery thing, isn't there some clause that stipulates no team can rise or drop more than 5/8/10 (not sure which number) spots from the previous year's draft? If so, we end up with a range of 1st to 8th (assuming a 5 spot differential) or 1st to 13th (if it is a 10 spot range). In any case, I would rather we play the season (shortened as it will be), make the playoffs (we will) and then at least have a chance to win the Cup (call me a crazy dreamer)! GO HABS GO!!!!
No, every team has a shot at number 1 overall. I want there to be a season because without one the Leafs have a very good shot at number 1. Imagine having to watch MacKinnon in a Leafs jersey..... Shudder.

Protest the Hero is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:13 PM
  #249
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
If they play, they have a very decent chance of picking 1-3 overall. There is no comparison, and i don't know why you bother debating this.
I don't see it. The team will be stronger and last year had a fluke element to it, teams with -14 are not usually 15th in the conference. heck Florida made the playoffs at -24. Columbus was last in the West at -60 and the Islanders 14th in the East at -52.

I don't think we are a lock to make the playoffs, but we have a better chance than Florida and Ottawa who both had fluke years the other way.

Monctonscout is online now  
Old
11-06-2012, 04:34 PM
  #250
TheGoalJudge
Registered User
 
TheGoalJudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,883
vCash: 500
We definitely need the season to be played. Management can sneak another tank year by the die hards who can't stand losing, we can assure we will draft top 10 and most importantly we will have an opportunity to shed some of these vets (Kaberle) for more draft picks and clear salary to sign UFAs.

We could be in such a sick position going into next year if we play a season and our management repeats their strong off-season showing.

TheGoalJudge 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 08:39 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.