HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2012, 05:48 AM
  #751
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post

And what would the advantage be to Fehr actually obstructing information from getting to the players? Last I checked, he works FOR them, not against them.
Delay. The longer this drags on -- as a lockout, remember, not a strike -- the more leverage Fehr seems to feel the union has. There's a reason it's the owners making the offers and the union only pretending to. Anything that furthers that delay may further further the ends of the union.

I'm just saying, you asked what the advantage was, and that seems to be a big one.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 06:58 AM
  #752
cat400
Registered User
 
cat400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,502
vCash: 500
Expansion in 1972 combined with the birth of the WHA delivered a big blow to what was a very promising Bruins' team of the '70's; now it looks like Betteman and company are hell-bent on doing it in the new CBA.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN

* It is no surprise at all, but Jeremy Jacobs, the militant Boston owner who acts as chairman of the Board of Governors, is in full support of a plan that would benefit his pockets at the expense of his team.

This, after all, is the individual whose miserly ways finally drove Raymond Bourque out of Boston in search of a Stanley Cup.

The league’s latest proposal not only calls for an immediate dive to a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue, but allows for only one season of transition — this one.

This means that the cap for 2013-14 would be set at approximately $59.4 million, thus leaving numerous clubs with essentially no space to sign (or re-sign) the approximately 250 players whose contracts are due to expire following this season.

Under this scenario, the Bruins — who do not have an NHL goaltender under contract for next season — would have approximately $6 million available to fill eight roster spots after placing Marc Savard on long-term injury list.

cat400 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:19 AM
  #753
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Exactly, that's why boxing is the most efficient and least exploitive professional sport out there- no unions and plenty of different organizations to choose between.



- see, that's sarcasm.
doesnt boxing pay its 'gate draws' more obscene amounts of money then any other sport? ultimately in the world of entertainment... gate draws should get paid whatever they are worth. in music, the rolling stones will make more money doing a concert then the local bar band will... because they draw a gate. both bands technically put on a show and play music, but one of them draws a gate and thus makes obscene amounts of money.

in a movie... the headliner might get 20 million dollar or more for being the gate draw... while the extra that is in the background scene for a min or two might get paid less then the caterer for the day will. both actors have a part in making the movie, but the gate draw gets the big paycheck.

that's the main problem with unions in the 'team sports' because they have skewed the compensation levels that the 'non-gate' draws are being paid. We all know owners have no issues with handing out mega cheques to the attractive free agent superstars in the league or the young homegrown talents either. If a player can be marketed to the fans, then the owners 'get it' and will go into bidding wars to have the player on their own team. This will happen whether there is a union or a cba or whatever. Its been like 50 years since the days of ted lindsey and the old exploition system of the 6 team league.

The world has grown up since then.

The reality is these days... if there was any real profit to be made running a pro hockey league, then someone would try to do it. The WHA was an attempt in the 1970's and it went bankrupt quickly ruining the fortunes of many of the millionares that took part in it. The IHL tried to get started on a slightly smaller scale and went out of business almost as quickly.

We will have to see how long the KHL can last...

In Football the most successful sport, both the USFL and the XFL tried to launch in recent times to cash in on the cow there... both went out of business quickly losing gobs of money for the owners that took the risk.

The reality is... there just isnt much money around for people that want to be owners of sports teams. The players arent going to pitch in and help some competition league get started. They are all fighting to maximize every penny they can INDIVIDUALLY make. I mean in a very real sense, when an NHL player is negotiating his contract, he is negotiating it AGAINST other NHL players. The CBA guarantees the players as a COLLECTIVE a certain % of HRR. This means that if the owners havent handed out enough INDIVIDUAL contracts that escrow will compensate the WHOLE of the union at the end of the season with the UNPAID money.

when an INDIVIDUAL player leverages an extra million dollars from an 'owner' this money is coming out of the % of HRR that otherwise would have been paid to the union as a whole.

I mean... that is how it is working in reality. So I dont really get how all these fans here are waving their union colors as a reason to support the union's position here. Ultimately at the end of the day... these players are not being hard done by with the amounts of money they are being paid. NON-GATE attraction players are getting a million dollars and more per year to be in a business that gives them like 4 months off each year. I dont think any of us are saying lower the minimum salary for any NHL player... and probably most of us would support AHL and ECHL players getting paid more. Even us supporters of the owners position do all believe that the players deserve a good level of compensation for entertaining us...

but how much is enough? The players are freaking out now and willing to lose a season because they are worried about what... a 10% possible loss in a year's worth of their salary... or something like that? This 'make whole' thing is about whether or not a small percentage of the money they were 'expecting' will get paid out or not. The actual amount of money any 1 player stands to lose is around a million dollars... and that is only if that player is making in excess of 10 million dollars.

the players themselves continue to use projections that the league is going to grow at huge % levels each year. they use this as the emotional fixation point about how much money they are 'losing' in the new cba... but then when they are asked to trust their own projections and trust that there will be money enough to pay the 'make whole' program in the future... the union says they cant.

the union needs a guarantee that the money is going to get paid... but there is no guarantee for the owners. the owners actually lose tons of money all the time and are just asking now to lose a bit less. They will still lose money... but thats the nature of pro sports. The owners are always willing to lose some money. They will always hand out the big contracts to try to get the best players for their team.

If a player actually 'deserves' to be paid 5-10-even 20 million dollars a year... some owner will pay it. Michael Jordon got paid. Alex Rodriguez gets paid. Wayne Gretzky got paid. Peyton Manning gets paid.

Owners dont mind paying guys that will fill their arenas and generate tv audiences. There was a time that unions were very necessary. Even into the 1970's the unions were doing a good job helping the players get free agency rights and getting the draft to be fair to young men. It is very very very difficult to find any good that any union has done in the past 30 years though. Pro sports have been suffering lockout/strikes again and again and again the past 30 years even though the players have seen the amount of their compensation increase 1000% and more during this time.

The world is starved for entertainment. If these yahoos dont kill their golden goose, there is plenty of money to go around. Boxers are getting their share too even without a union. Golfers and Tennis pros are getting more money then they ever imagined 30 years ago and doing it without a union. All you need to do to make alot of money in one of these popular sports is be the person that draws the crowd.

Like when you write a book... if your book sells you get paid. When you sing a song... if its popular you get paid. It is easy how it works unless a union gets involved and then all of a sudden you see some 3rd line guy who managed a career year get to arbitration and say he scored as many goals this year as the superstar did in an off season... so pay up

It is the third line guys making 2-3-4 mill a year that is currently the problem {and also how the taxpayers are being hijacked to fund the revenue streams that allow for this broken economic model to continue to limp along too}

there is no one screaming that crosby or stamkos or toews or the sedin twins or anyone of this ilk is getting paid too much. And we arent freaked out that guys like thornton and campbell and paille get enough to live like royalty either. The big problem with the union is how it has put a system into place where it becomes necessary to pay peverly and kelly and boychuck 3+ mill a year because that is what is now 'fair market value'

teams need guys like this to win... but guys like this dont need 3+ mill a year to still be getting paid 'more then they are worth.'

And that ultimately... is where the union is screwing up and destroying the economic of the game and creating this mess where the owners of the small teams just cant continue to be 'forced' into losing more money then they otherwise would agree to lose while creating all these very high paid jobs for the union members.

sports leagues do go out of business all the time if the economics dont make sense. teams fold and contract all the time if the economics dont work. the owners might be billionares but they will only lose the money they are prepared to lose before they reach their breaking point and say no more. Obviously that breaking point is close in the NHL cause they have supported two lockouts in the past 7 years. Lost one season and are prepared to lose this one too.

People can be in denial all they want... and say the owners are making gobs of money... but owner that make gobs of money dont lose 2 seasons in a 10 year period and risk pissing off all their fans in the process. The players sure as hell arent asking to lose the season. They say again and again and again they are willing to play under the old system. Why not? They were making crap loads of money under the old system. Of course they are willing to keep playing under it.

The owners though... arent willing to keep going as is.

think about it.

or, just blindly support unions right or wrong...

its not very difficult to see the truth here if people are wanting to see it. I hear people keep saying they 'dont understand the owners postion' and 'how can a league make 3.3 billion dollars and still shut down?' or 'not make a profit?'

the answers are soooooooooooooooo simple. 3.3 bill revenue IS NOT 3.3 bill profit. In fact if you have 3.3 bill revenue and 3 bill in expenses then your profit is around 300 million. This might sound like a lot but if one team is making 150 mill of it then the other 29 teams are splitting an average of 5 mill each.

a 5 mill return on a 200-300 million dollar investment is not a healthy return in todays economic enviroment. then 12 or so teams have ZERO chance of making any profit at all unless they are going 3-4 rounds deep into the playoffs.

there just arent alot of billionare owners around willing to do busines when they have ZERO chance of getting any return on a 200-300 million dollar investment. If there were... then rival leagues would start up. Bottom 10 markets wouldnt be constantly up for sale.

theres always 1 or 2 suckers out there that want to experience the glamour of ownign a sports team. So they will buy the tampa franchice or the islander franchise or whatever and run it for 5-6 years until they run out of money. It will be a shakey ownership the entire time with the owners constantly going to the local goverment begging for handouts. We see this in Atlanta and Phoenix... in St Louis and Nashville.... In Dallas and Florida and Columbus and somewhat even in the small canadien markets too over the past decade.

Again, even the most hardened of owner supporters is NEVER going to say that Toronto or Montreal or New York or Philadelphia or Boston cant make money. They do... but making money isnt a sin in this world. Apple computers and Walmart make money. It is okay to make money.

What most of us 'pro owners' are worried about is when fans in Atlanta and Phoenix hand over millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to their franchise to try to have hockey in their market... and then see the teams fail and move anyhow cause the business model simply doesnt work for markets like this. Did the players offer to give anything back to the taxpayers? The owners in these markets lost their shirts but the players made just as much money playing here as they do in Toronto and New York.

That is where the 'anti union' people here wonder just what the hell is going on... and how is the union actually making this process better?

But all in all... in the non union sports like boxing and golf and tennis etc etc... the top performers are getting paid even more money then the top guys are in hockey or any other unionized sport. And that is how it should be... that the top performers get paid the most. Like in movies or singing or tv or books or painting or any other entertainment source that the public wants

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:22 AM
  #754
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,206
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat400 View Post
Expansion in 1972 combined with the birth of the WHA delivered a big blow to what was a very promising Bruins' team of the '70's; now it looks like Betteman and company are hell-bent on doing it in the new CBA.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN

* It is no surprise at all, but Jeremy Jacobs, the militant Boston owner who acts as chairman of the Board of Governors, is in full support of a plan that would benefit his pockets at the expense of his team.

This, after all, is the individual whose miserly ways finally drove Raymond Bourque out of Boston in search of a Stanley Cup.

The league’s latest proposal not only calls for an immediate dive to a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue, but allows for only one season of transition — this one.

This means that the cap for 2013-14 would be set at approximately $59.4 million, thus leaving numerous clubs with essentially no space to sign (or re-sign) the approximately 250 players whose contracts are due to expire following this season.

Under this scenario, the Bruins — who do not have an NHL goaltender under contract for next season — would have approximately $6 million available to fill eight roster spots after placing Marc Savard on long-term injury list.
if that is true- pathetic- although the Bruins are in better shape than most. Atleast the Bruins have money to spend, the Canadiens are done, and the Canucks have $4 M to pay 10 players. I kid of course....if Fehr ever agreed to this he should be fired on the spot. Sounds like they are giving this guy ZERO wiggle room. Sounds, again sounds like the owners want this mess to be cleaned up the players. It SOUNDS like if they don't get what they want they are taking their puck and going home.

If no deal is done by next weekend I'm basically shutting the emotions of hockey down. My deadline is November 15th and then I am moving on from reading, posting, or caring one bit about the 2012-13 season. My kids season starts, Providence offers good value, and there is BC and BU games to go to to get my hockey.

this is what happens when greed meets short sightedness meets stubborness. Its a recipe that would make a fly pass.

yeeesh- what a clusterpuck.

DKH is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:25 AM
  #755
Ludwig Fell Down
Registered User
 
Ludwig Fell Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South Shore, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
if that is true- pathetic- although the Bruins are in better shape than most. Atleast the Bruins have money to spend, the Canadiens are done, and the Canucks have $4 M to pay 10 players. I kid of course....if Fehr ever agreed to this he should be fired on the spot. Sounds like they are giving this guy ZERO wiggle room. Sounds, again sounds like the owners want this mess to be cleaned up the players. It SOUNDS like if they don't get what they want they are taking their puck and going home.

If no deal is done by next weekend I'm basically shutting the emotions of hockey down. My deadline is November 15th and then I am moving on from reading, posting, or caring one bit about the 2012-13 season. My kids season starts, Providence offers good value, and there is BC and BU games to go to to get my hockey.

this is what happens when greed meets short sightedness meets stubborness. Its a recipe that would make a fly pass.

yeeesh- what a clusterpuck.
Don't forget about the Huskies Dan. For my money, Matthews is still the best rink for watching a game.

Ludwig Fell Down is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:27 AM
  #756
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,206
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludwig Fell Down View Post
Don't forget about the Huskies Dan. For my money, Matthews is still the best rink for watching a game.
yes and my buddies kid plays for them so that is a bonus- yes, probably going to check the schedule and see BC or BU in the next week and hopefully against NU. They are in a way the team I root for- almost went there back in the day.

DKH is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:34 AM
  #757
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat400 View Post
Expansion in 1972 combined with the birth of the WHA delivered a big blow to what was a very promising Bruins' team of the '70's; now it looks like Betteman and company are hell-bent on doing it in the new CBA.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...fgPLGAnT5fPrJN

* It is no surprise at all, but Jeremy Jacobs, the militant Boston owner who acts as chairman of the Board of Governors, is in full support of a plan that would benefit his pockets at the expense of his team.

This, after all, is the individual whose miserly ways finally drove Raymond Bourque out of Boston in search of a Stanley Cup.

The league’s latest proposal not only calls for an immediate dive to a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue, but allows for only one season of transition — this one.

This means that the cap for 2013-14 would be set at approximately $59.4 million, thus leaving numerous clubs with essentially no space to sign (or re-sign) the approximately 250 players whose contracts are due to expire following this season.

Under this scenario, the Bruins — who do not have an NHL goaltender under contract for next season — would have approximately $6 million available to fill eight roster spots after placing Marc Savard on long-term injury list.
i think it crap how the bourque thing gets blamed on the 'misery' ways of the b's.

jacobs didnt try to buy a winner... we all know that. But he was always a top 10 payroll. He was even a top 5 payroll at times. In an era where New York and Philly and Toronto and Los Angles at times were trying to buy championships and had 1 cup between them in the Bourque era... it wasnt any sure fire path to success just to be one of the top 5 biggest spending teams anyhow.

Other then Detroit there was no team that had much success spending money in the Bourque era. The teams that won cups... were usually teams that SUCKED for extended periods of time like Pittsburgh and Detroit and Colorado/Quebec and New Jersey. If you look at the late 1970's and early 1980s these teams all STUNK for periods of time that were 5-7-9 years long. Then they got a core of players together through the draft and managed to win some cups in the Bourque era.

We all like to blame our own lack of success on Jacobs being too cheap but we still went to the finals in late 1980s and early 1990s with Bourque here. We werent too cheap to have a cup finalist team. We didnt win.. but only 1 team wins. Did we not win because we sucked... or were we beaten by a team that had put together an amazing nucelus of players by luck/chance? How often does a team get a Gretzky/Messier at the same time? That Oiler team that beat us is one of the 4 best teams of all time.

When Bourque reached the end... we were also at an end. We were obviously going into rebuild mold. We had already started it dealing off Oates... watching Neely retire... it happens. Sometimes pro teams get to the point they have to rebuild. We let everyone get old together trying to win a cup in the mid 1990s and then we had to rebuild.

You cant make magic happen in a league that has a draft. The Rangers and Philly were throwing every cent they had to buy a winner and they werent winning any more often then we were. Thowing money at UFA wasnt going to be a surefire path to winning a cup here with Bourque either.

Bourque was a great solider for us. He asked for a chance to go win a cup. We let him handpick where he wanted to go. We treated him with class on the way out. It was sad we didnt win while he was here... but he was part of that franchise that set a record for most consequetive playoff appearances...

we didnt exactly surround him with sucky crappy teams that were drafting top 10 year after year either. When St Louis couldnt afford to sign Oates... we did. When Neely was the best power forward in the game, we kept him here to play with Bourque. We grabbed Andy Moog to play net for us when Edmonton couldnt afford to keep him.

We did bring in/keep some very good players for that 20 year run to try to win with... it simply just didnt happen that we won the cup. We never spent the MOST money, but other then Detroit, no one else that spent the MOST money won either. Its really easy to be bitter about these things... but its way more complicated then some people are willing to accept. Jacobs is the same owner that just won a cup with us a couple years ago and has the biggest payroll in the NHL now.

doesnt he get a bit of credit for that?

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:41 AM
  #758
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
if that is true- pathetic- although the Bruins are in better shape than most. Atleast the Bruins have money to spend, the Canadiens are done, and the Canucks have $4 M to pay 10 players. I kid of course....if Fehr ever agreed to this he should be fired on the spot. Sounds like they are giving this guy ZERO wiggle room. Sounds, again sounds like the owners want this mess to be cleaned up the players. It SOUNDS like if they don't get what they want they are taking their puck and going home.

If no deal is done by next weekend I'm basically shutting the emotions of hockey down. My deadline is November 15th and then I am moving on from reading, posting, or caring one bit about the 2012-13 season. My kids season starts, Providence offers good value, and there is BC and BU games to go to to get my hockey.

this is what happens when greed meets short sightedness meets stubborness. Its a recipe that would make a fly pass.

yeeesh- what a clusterpuck.
on a personal note... when contracts were recently being handed out to guys like boychuck and peverly and kelly... some of us here were wondering just how the hell it was going to work for us going forward.

as someone that was wondering that myself, i hate being right on this issue.

when the dust settles... sadly, we will find teams willing to take lucic and seguin off our hands even at 6 mill per year. we are not going to find anyone willing to take boychuck or kelly or peverly off our hands though.

It probably is best for us if the season gets locked out... that the owners turn to hardball and insist on some buyouts and a rollback for next year. Coming back without buyouts/rollback is going to lead to our team being decimated and eventually having guys like kelly/peverly playing second line cause we wont be able to afford more then 2-3 guys like Bergeron/Lucic/Seguin/Krecji/Horton/Marchand still being around

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:03 AM
  #759
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Oh, for God's sake.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:12 AM
  #760
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
on a personal note... when contracts were recently being handed out to guys like boychuck and peverly and kelly... some of us here were wondering just how the hell it was going to work for us going forward.

as someone that was wondering that myself, i hate being right on this issue.

when the dust settles... sadly, we will find teams willing to take lucic and seguin off our hands even at 6 mill per year. we are not going to find anyone willing to take boychuck or kelly or peverly off our hands though.

It probably is best for us if the season gets locked out... that the owners turn to hardball and insist on some buyouts and a rollback for next year. Coming back without buyouts/rollback is going to lead to our team being decimated and eventually having guys like kelly/peverly playing second line cause we wont be able to afford more then 2-3 guys like Bergeron/Lucic/Seguin/Krecji/Horton/Marchand still being around
I`m not a huge JB fan but I doubt there aren`t more than a few teams that would make space for a Cup winning D-man who plays, most of the time, a very sound game defensively and Pevs? Contract a touch high, but a guy who`ll put in around 60pts and in a league where most teams have a huge dropoff from the 2nd to 3rd line, he`d be a huge depth addition as he was when Chia aquired him, neither, I would suspect, would be difficult for Chia to find suitors for IMO.

ODAAT is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:26 AM
  #761
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
on a personal note... when contracts were recently being handed out to guys like boychuck and peverly and kelly... some of us here were wondering just how the hell it was going to work for us going forward.

as someone that was wondering that myself, i hate being right on this issue.

when the dust settles... sadly, we will find teams willing to take lucic and seguin off our hands even at 6 mill per year. we are not going to find anyone willing to take boychuck or kelly or peverly off our hands though.

It probably is best for us if the season gets locked out... that the owners turn to hardball and insist on some buyouts and a rollback for next year. Coming back without buyouts/rollback is going to lead to our team being decimated and eventually having guys like kelly/peverly playing second line cause we wont be able to afford more then 2-3 guys like Bergeron/Lucic/Seguin/Krecji/Horton/Marchand still being around
The league is littered with those sorts of contracts. And at the end of the day that is on the GM's and Owners.

Number8 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:36 AM
  #762
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
The league is littered with those sorts of contracts. And at the end of the day that is on the GM's and Owners.
it is definitely... under the old cba... but isnt that the entire point? the owners were willing to try out the old cba and it allowed these contracts to become norm.

isnt that what the owners are trying to change with the new cba?

i dont hear them saying crosby makes too much money... or paille and campbell make too much money.

its the guys on the second contracts and the guys that go to arbitration and get these 3-4 mill deals and the 20 something ufa that get these contracts that have busted the model.

if i was a third line player... id take the money too. But it is the SYSTEM that creates this problem. Then the owners/GMS must play along or the fans call them cheap and revolt.

remember this team didnt spend to the cap last year... and we spent the entire year *****ing and moaning that we were short a player all year long. The fans demand that their team spend to the cap max. They demand that we keep players like Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly cause if we dont... then we were too cheap and didnt care.

so blame it ONLY on the owners/gms if you want... but the players use arbitration/early free agency to leverage their bargaining position and then the FANS DEMANDS ultimately are the HAMMER that drives this home.

we see a post just above us here.. where Jacobs was blamed for not spending enough during the Bourque years to get us a cup then. It is ultimately the fans that demand that the owners pay to the max for these contracts so we just get what we deserve anyhow

the owners need limits in the CBA or else... this will keep happening

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:39 AM
  #763
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Oh, for God's sake.
im willing to let you argue any point against me if you want... if you think your side can hold up to an actual factual arguement? or else you can just ignore any arguement on facts and stick to emotions and rethoric and abstract theory and emotes. I guess that choice is yours to make.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:48 AM
  #764
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
I`m not a huge JB fan but I doubt there aren`t more than a few teams that would make space for a Cup winning D-man who plays, most of the time, a very sound game defensively and Pevs? Contract a touch high, but a guy who`ll put in around 60pts and in a league where most teams have a huge dropoff from the 2nd to 3rd line, he`d be a huge depth addition as he was when Chia aquired him, neither, I would suspect, would be difficult for Chia to find suitors for IMO.
the way i see things play out... if there is no buyout/rollback is that there will be 10-15 teams needing to shed at least 1 and maybe 2 contracts in some cases to get under the cap next year. The 10-15 teams willing {AND ABLE} to take on salary will cherry pick who they want to add.

its going to be a buyers market. We might be able to offload a Boychuck as you say... im certainly not saying he sucks... but even if its possible to deal him then we probably pay a steep price to do it. I definitely will say that I cant imagine any situation where we get value for him.

But... in my belief... we actually wont get anything at all for him because the teams that are grabbing a player or two, will simply have better options at their choice. The problem is that if they refuse to take Boychuck from us then we will have to offer up a Bergeron or a Chara eventually...at some point...

or a Lucic... a Krecji...

someone... so i just dont see anyone doing us any 'favors' and filling up their own cap space with boychuck or peverly or kelly.

i think when the dust settles we will still have peverly and kelly and boychuck making 9 mill between them and we wont have a krecji/horton here making 9 mill between them. I would rather have krecji/horton if it was my call.

and i fear we will lose more then just krecji/horton. I said it when these deals were being signed... and now its coming to pass

just pray im wrong. This is one time I dont want to be right

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:50 AM
  #765
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Here's what you said:



There's nothing in there about hockey players. You were obviously referring to unions in general. If you actually believe there is no need for unions in today's world, you're deluded. No sarcasm intended.
It's a thread in a hockey message board. A thread about a conflict between the players union and the owners of the league. The subject is the NHL labor conflict but it is not occurring in a vacuum. It's one of the many such conflicts. To better understand the NHL conflict, it is reasonable to analyze these conflicts in general. But I realize its foolish for me to push my perspective here. This type of argument falls into the political space and you aren't going to change another's mind, especially in a hockey message board. Just a waste of calories burned.

Kalus is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:54 AM
  #766
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im willing to let you argue any point against me if you want... if you think your side can hold up to an actual factual arguement? or else you can just ignore any arguement on facts and stick to emotions and rethoric and abstract theory and emotes. I guess that choice is yours to make.
WHAT argument? WHAT point? I can't even begin to slog through your incomprehensible posts.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:02 AM
  #767
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
im willing to let you argue any point against me if you want... if you think your side can hold up to an actual factual arguement? or else you can just ignore any arguement on facts and stick to emotions and rethoric and abstract theory and emotes. I guess that choice is yours to make.
Theres just too much "stuff" in your posts- be easier to discuss in this format if yout kept posts to an idea or two.

As it is, I can't tell if you'd rather more limits on management or no limits on management by having no union (like boxing).

JMiller is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:02 AM
  #768
Kalus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quincy
Posts: 656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Exactly, that's why boxing is the most efficient and least exploitive professional sport out there- no unions and plenty of different organizations to choose between.



- see, that's sarcasm.
Didn't see this one. Not fair to you if I don't reply.

If the conditions for boxers are unbearable (your comment suggests you think they are being exploited), they would pursue earning a living doing something else. They obviously find the terms agreeable or they wouldn't be in the business. One might argue that the boxers aren't getting a 'fair share' or whatever, but I for one am not qualified to put a value on what that amount is.

Markets are mostly efficient. If the boxers aren't being paid well enough to compensate them for their effort and they can find more suitable terms in other employment, they will leave the boxer labor force. The boxing industry would then need to improve the terms to convince them back or fold up shop.

Kalus is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:07 AM
  #769
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalus View Post
Didn't see this one. Not fair to you if I don't reply.

If the conditions for boxers are unbearable (your comment suggests you think they are being exploited), they would pursue earning a living doing something else. They obviously find the terms agreeable or they wouldn't be in the business. One might argue that the boxers aren't getting a 'fair share' or whatever, but I for one am not qualified to put a value on what that amount is.

Markets are mostly efficient. If the boxers aren't being paid well enough to compensate them for their effort and they can find more suitable terms in other employment, they will leave the boxer labor force. The boxing industry would then need to improve the terms to convince them back or fold up shop.
I don't think you understand the places where most boxers come from- and I'd guess you have had some pretty good choices in life.

JMiller is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:14 AM
  #770
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Theres just too much "stuff" in your posts- be easier to discuss in this format if yout kept posts to an idea or two.

As it is, I can't tell if you'd rather more limits on management or no limits on management by having no union (like boxing).
guilty as charged... i have the damnest time not getting over passionate in my posts and sticking to conciese points.

im not against unions in general. i just dont think they've done alot in recent times in the world of sports to help out. I think that the non-unionized sports get paid just as much if not more. Maybe third liners are very protected by the unions but is that a good thing?

i dont see unions stepping up to stop the small market teams from folding/moving. The unions are too focused on the immediate short term payoff. I fear for the health of sports in general as we move into the next generation.

it seems things like the X games and what not is where the kids these days are spending their own enthusism. The team sports that you and i grew up with are being priced out of the market for the kids today to be able to enjoy. And i blame the third liners being overpaid as the main reason ticket prices cant be kept in line.

ultimately we will always afford to see a tom cruise movie even if he is being paid 20 million... we will always make sure we attend a bruce springsteen or a u2 concert even if they are getting their 20 mill a year too.

its the issue where we dont get bang for our buck that ultimately turns the fans off and is why some movies lose 100 million dollars and why 60-70% of all tv series get cancled early in the first season... and why only the smallest percentage of books become best sellers.

if mediocre entertainers are protected by a union... theres a problem that arises and we see it now in the NHL

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:24 AM
  #771
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
guilty as charged... i have the damnest time not getting over passionate in my posts and sticking to conciese points.

im not against unions in general. i just dont think they've done alot in recent times in the world of sports to help out. I think that the non-unionized sports get paid just as much if not more. Maybe third liners are very protected by the unions but is that a good thing?

i dont see unions stepping up to stop the small market teams from folding/moving. The unions are too focused on the immediate short term payoff. I fear for the health of sports in general as we move into the next generation.

it seems things like the X games and what not is where the kids these days are spending their own enthusism. The team sports that you and i grew up with are being priced out of the market for the kids today to be able to enjoy. And i blame the third liners being overpaid as the main reason ticket prices cant be kept in line.

ultimately we will always afford to see a tom cruise movie even if he is being paid 20 million... we will always make sure we attend a bruce springsteen or a u2 concert even if they are getting their 20 mill a year too.

its the issue where we dont get bang for our buck that ultimately turns the fans off and is why some movies lose 100 million dollars and why 60-70% of all tv series get cancled early in the first season... and why only the smallest percentage of books become best sellers.

if mediocre entertainers are protected by a union... theres a problem that arises and we see it now in the NHL
See, IMO "third liners" need protection because they are absolutely as important as star players to the game- look at the bruins cup team. Stars don't sell tickets, winning sells tickets- and a strong third line is better than a big name. Id hate to see the nhl go the way of the nba (which is where bettman would love to see it). Besides the nhlpa represents all the players.

JMiller is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:47 AM
  #772
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
See, IMO "third liners" need protection because they are absolutely as important as star players to the game- look at the bruins cup team. Stars don't sell tickets, winning sells tickets- and a strong third line is better than a big name. Id hate to see the nhl go the way of the nba (which is where bettman would love to see it). Besides the nhlpa represents all the players.
they are important... we won with depth. id be a fool to argue that they arent important.

but my argument is that they are financially breaking the system. they are important but they DONT SELL TICKETS. You need a good group of support players to win a cup, but there isnt enough money to go around to pay these guys there average of 2.5 mill a season. And we pay ours alot more then 2.5 mill.

I dont ever want to be accused of saying Boychuck and Peverly and Kelly arent great third liners... I think they are. BUT what I am saying is that paying guys like this 3 mill a year is what is busting the system. I am saying the owners wouldnt give guys like this 3 mill unless the system was busted. The union probably knew that the superstars will get paid reguardless... and the lowest paid guys are protected by their minimum salary but wont ever get more... so its this middle class that was the group the union felt it had to protect.

I understand why it happened... I just say it shouldnt have happened... and it needs to get changed. Most the moves the owners are asking for are designed to stop this. Limits on second year deals... free agency changes... arbitration ellimination... these are all moves aimed against this group of players.

I think its reasonable

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 09:55 AM
  #773
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
See, IMO "third liners" need protection because they are absolutely as important as star players to the game- look at the bruins cup team. Stars don't sell tickets, winning sells tickets- and a strong third line is better than a big name. Id hate to see the nhl go the way of the nba (which is where bettman would love to see it). Besides the nhlpa represents all the players.
are you sure stars dont sell tickets? i think when crosby or ovechkin come to town the home team sells the most tickets. if carolina or anaheim or tampa just won the cup they dont tend to be huge draws. we are an ok draw cause we are an origional 6 team, but its usually the very best superstars that seem to be the very best draws as far as selling tickets... selling merchandise

in basketball the big tv numbers come when shaq matches up against kobe or jordon faces off against bird or johnson

in football we all jones over the battle of the marquee quarterbacks.

winning does also sell more tickets... more merchanidise thats true. but theres only 1 team that wins out of 30 each year. There could be 30 out of 30 teams that have a superstar if the superstar is properly marketed.

at the end of the day... pro sports leagues have decided over the years that superstars are the way to make money. movies decided the same thing. tv decided the same thing. books...

a big name that the public knows and wants to see will sell tickets more assuredly then an unknown project will even if that unknown project is a quality project

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-11-2012, 01:24 PM
  #774
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Delay. The longer this drags on -- as a lockout, remember, not a strike -- the more leverage Fehr seems to feel the union has. There's a reason it's the owners making the offers and the union only pretending to. Anything that furthers that delay may further further the ends of the union.

I'm just saying, you asked what the advantage was, and that seems to be a big one.
Needlessly dragging out the process while losing every single PA member big money - totally Fehr's goal!



I don't know where people come up with this ****.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 02:28 PM
  #775
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,218
vCash: 50
Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Given NHL's stance on contracting issues, Fehr said he doesn't currently "see a path to an agreement"

someone needs to "take care" of donald fehr

Shaun 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 12:25 PM.

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.