I'm definitely with you guys on the apathy. I felt strongly last May hence my decision to become a new season ticket holder, but right now I care about this much:
-
I'd be sad to see the Coyotes move though, that's what I really care about at the moment. To hell with the lockout, that's just coming across as an irrelevant sideshow to me at the moment.
I don't like losing this season because it means we'll lose Sullivan before we ever really had him, and Shane Doan will burn what should'he been his most effective of his new deal. Also, we burn a season of OEL's ELC and we miss out on one of Vermette's signed seasons that we essentially traded Kyle Turris for. Not to mention Boyd Gordon becomes UFA.
Also, how would it work for Maloney and Tippett? Do each lose a year, or is it players only? Don and Tippett are both in the last year of their contracts, too, IIRC.
Oh ****. I totally forgot. How terrifying is the prospect of having to hand Mike Smith a four year, eighteen million dollar contract based on his first and only great season in the NHL?
Oh ****. I totally forgot. How terrifying is the prospect of having to hand Mike Smith a four year, eighteen million dollar contract based on his first and only great season in the NHL?
Not that terrifying. Don Maloney will find some dumpster dive that comes in and is a Vezina finalist.
Bill Daly and Steve Fehr met amicably and had what both agree were effective discussions from late afternoon into the early morning. Despite having talked until one in the morning they are still hoping to meet again early this week. Sounds like some serious momentum, to me.
Given the owners offer to "cover" (Dreger's word) the "make whole" provision in year one, I'm not surprised. How many players in the union have contracts beyond 2013? And with the NHLPA's growth rate projections, it seems pretty darn fair to do something that starts near 57% in year one, and comes down to 50% by year three and going through year six or seven.
So, they don't lose their entire salary this season, nor do they have to take a 12% hair cut to start. Most will have brand new contracts by 2014, anyhow.
NEW YORK -- For the first time since talks resumed earlier this week, the NHL and NHL Players' Association broke their silence Thursday. And although neither side offered much insight into the state of negotiations, it appears progress has been made.
A source confirmed to ESPNNewYork.com that the union offered two proposals Wednesday, one on revenue sharing and another on the "make-whole" concept to honor existing player contracts. Additionally, a source told ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun the union's "make-whole" proposal includes a phase-in element that would see the players' share drop to 50-50 of revenue by Year 3 based on "regular" growth.
Quote:
"I'm not going to characterize it except to say as I have before that it's always better when you're meeting than when you're not," Fehr said of the talks.
Commissioner Gary Bettman was similarly tight-lipped. When asked about progress, he said it was "tough to handicap."
"I don't know what Don said, but the fact is, we have a lot of work to do and we're working hard," Bettman said.
Are you serious? I hope these accusations are not true that is sad!
Who knows?? I'm being very careful with what I am finding since both twitter and the BOH board are ****ing bonkers right now with other posters claming certain journalists made a comment on twitter but doesn't cite the actual twitter account to back it up.
Two sides have completely diff interpretations. Wow RT @michaelgrange: Players seeking $1.883B plus 1.75% compounded over life of deal. #nhl
Now I'm really really confused as there is alot of good **** being smoked around. 1st it seems that a deal would come around the 50/50 and now these numbers are being thrown around.
To review: Steve Fehr climbed on top the conference table, pulled down his pants, and defecated onto a clean white plate, maintaining eye contact with Gary Bettman throughout. Don Fehr then tucked a white napkin scented with lilac into Bettman's collar and grunted, "Eat up, sweet cheeks."
NEW YORK -- Well, I guess it was too much to ask them to continue to act like adults for the entire week.
Nope, the old show returned Friday, NHL labor talks off the rails after a week full of promise and for the first time, real meaningful negotiation.
As I wrote Thursday night, they hadn’t delivered a whole lot of progress in the first three days of meetings this week, but at least they were seemingly willing to turn the other cheek and persevere through it, logging in the longest and most frank bargaining hours of this entire lockout.
Then Friday came, and you knew it wasn’t going to be pretty because sources on both ends of the aisle were privately predicting "negative vibes" before the big group even got together.
A source on each side told ESPN.com that it got more than a little unfriendly by the end of Friday’s session.
Oye.
Quote:
As predicted in this space since last week, Make Whole was going to make or break this negotiation and finding common ground on it is the only way to salvage a deal.
Sources on both sides confirmed to ESPN.com that the league’s Make Whole offer -- an attempt to honor players’ existing contracts -- amounts to $211 million of guaranteed money ($149 million in Year 1 and $62 million in Year 2, both deferred in payment by one year and payable with interest). The league’s belief is that by Year 3 of the deal, revenues will have likely grown enough that at 50 percent of HRR the players shouldn’t face much if any salary erosion in escrow. At which one NHLPA source countered, what if the revenues don’t grow that much? Then what? The union says in that case players aren’t made whole on their contracts.
Listen, the league’ $211-million Make Whole offer is not anything to sniff at, it’s a tangible move on the league’s part. But it’s still nowhere close to where the NHLPA would be willing to sign off on. Try about $600 million or so. That might do it.
At $211 million, the NHLPA doesn’t feel that comes close to making players "whole" on current contracts.
"It’s not make whole -- it’s make partial," said one player via text.
And here's another bit of sunshine for you: in the midst of the back-and-forth Friday emerged another new front in a battle in which both sides are bleeding, the only question being how badly.
The players have indicated that they expect to be paid their full share for the 2012-13 season, regardless of how many games are played. The owners, in other words, should pay every cent of the costs incurred by the lockout.
If you don't think things have gotten contentious yet, wait till they start trying to hash that one out.
Players are absolutely delusional. That is beyond insulting to ask for a full pay day when you keep pulling this crap. Fehr is going to lead them straight off a cliff.
I don't expect to see a season this year. I had hope after the first couple of days this week, but if the players are going to hold out for getting paid for the whole season when they haven't worked...it's not gonna happen.
ASU is doing quite well. I think I'll enjoy a few more of their games. Another trip to see the Sundogs would be nice. The Coyotes aren't going to be happening any time soon.
Okay, so we now know a large portion of the nuts and bolts of what is on the table from the NHL.
Let's look at these very large numbers on a bit of a smaller scale.
What happens to NHL player John Smith's contract? On July 2nd 2012 he signed a five year deal worth twenty five million bucks. It pays him five million in each of the five years. There is no bonus money involved. Straight salary.
What does his pay look like each year according to the NHL's projected numbers?
What does his pay look like each year according to the NHLPA projected numbers?
Close, but no. For a guy whose contract does not expire, he is GUARANTEED his money under make whole.
So this guy is under contract for 5 years. At 3% growth, the 50/50 cap split in Year 3 is $1.7B. Meanwhile, at this time only $900M of contracts are still committed, including this hypothetical player. He will get paid first, including deferments under Make Whole from the first two years. So his pay should go down in years 1 and 2 and then go up in years 3-5 when he gets his deferred payment.
It's all the other guys who are not under contract who will suffer - the money paid to this guy will be now unavailable to UFA's. Under 3% growth the player share doesn't get back to $1.8B until year 5 so it will be suffering for UFA's for a long time.
Again, here is Kopitar's situation with REAL numbers:
With those number we see there, this make the owners look more like they are being reasonable while the NHLPA is not. It guess it just comes down to how these numbers are seen by both sides. Not to mention, would the CBA be long enough to help cover the contracts of those like Zach Parise and company have?
With those number we see there, this make the owners look more like they are being reasonable while the NHLPA is not. It guess it just comes down to how these numbers are seen by both sides. Not to mention, would the CBA be long enough to help cover the contracts of those like Zach Parise and company have?
What percentage of the union has contracts in excess of six years? It has to be less than 2%, right? I suspect more than half have contracts less than three years. I'm thinking the majority of union members have either one or two years remaining on their contracts.
I didn't bother moving the deferred payments, for simplicity I included them in the years they would've been earned. Also, as I've understood it, the latest proposal would only guarantee the first two seasons of the contracts, using the 211M set aside for that purpose, to make the contracts 'whole'. Unlike the first 'Make Whole' proposal I was not of the impression that any additional money from the players (UFA pool) would be used to 'make whole' the contracts in the event of the 211M set aside would not cover the contracts fully. If you have any sources indicating otherwise, please share as I'd like to read it.
So with my understanding, the payments for the imaginary player would look like this when the deferred payments are moved to the correct years (and 2 % interest for one full year on the deferred salary included):
