HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Everybody's talking at me; I don't hear a word they're saying (CBA/Lockout XXIX)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 01:59 PM
  #351
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
They should be limited to be tied to revenues so that the owners are able to run their teams well.
I agree, they'll get to 50% imo.

Why go after contracts length so aggressively? 5 years from unlimited is a huge concession, why does the NHL need that on top of cost certainty?

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:00 PM
  #352
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
So instead of making those owners run their teams well to make money the answer is to limit the earning potential of the players that impact the game the most? A 5 year contract limit and limits on upfront money are directly aimed at limiting the contracts of the biggest stars, the money makers, the guys responsible for the growth we've seen. Those aren't the players being overpaid, yet they're the ones the NHL is looking to limit.
Actually, it appears that the NHL is trying to limit the younger players, not the older, or biggest stars necessarily.

These limitations will not affect the amount of dollars that the Crosby's, OV's, Malkins are going to get. They are still eligible towards 20% of the cap. They will just get a consistent salary rather than a fluctuating one. The term limit of 5 will just stop them from getting lifetime contracts.

IMO, if a guy like crosby goes healthy his entire career, he will end up making more money on 5 year deals then on lifetime contracts.

On the other hand, these limitations allow teams to keep their rfas for longer periods of time, under favorable salaries. Whats the point of this? Well, its quite simple. Its to allow the weaker financial teams to keep their superstars for longer, to create even more parity in the league.

One thing most people dont want to realize is that the weakest teams, financially speaking, offer the greatest potential of growth for the league and its players. And if the owners implement rules to give those weaker teams a boost, you in turn hope for more gate revenue, which makes everyone happy.

At some point, the Habs, rangers, and Leafs will plateau in terms of growth. The Columbus', Isles' and Panthers are the types of teams the league and players need to grow for the benefit of everyone involved.

Also, with limited term contracts, you have more players becoming free agents every year, which means, more player movement among the UFAs, a very exciting point for fans. All fans love getting new players. It creates buzz and gets more butts in the seats when theres something new.

Make no mistake about it. It is better for fans' entertainment if the league gets its way than the PA getting its way.

At the end of the day, even if the owners get absolutely everything they want, the players will still be the highest paid and best treated hockey players in the world. To what degree they are the highest paid and best treated, is only what the owners are willing to offer, and what the PA is willing to accept.


Last edited by EdAVSfan: 11-16-2012 at 02:10 PM.
EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:04 PM
  #353
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I agree, they'll get to 50% imo.

Why go after contracts length so aggressively? 5 years from unlimited is a huge concession, why does the NHL need that on top of cost certainty?
I agree they dont, but I also think that's not their target number. I think they wanted the pa to respond with 8-10 year limits and they'd accept. The key there anyway is the variance.

Anyway, can we get a mediator in here? Tired of the stonewalling from the PA. Maybe the mediator will pressure them to give in on some issues and/or pressure both sides to end this soon.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:05 PM
  #354
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I agree, they'll get to 50% imo.

Why go after contracts length so aggressively? 5 years from unlimited is a huge concession, why does the NHL need that on top of cost certainty?
Well I'm sure if the PA countered, they'd listen, but the PA doesn't want to counter.

tbcwpg is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:06 PM
  #355
Phelan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Christmas Island
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
No, what I was saying was that the NHL should examine its 30 franchises EXCEPT for the Penguins. Seriously, what kind of a question is that?

Yes, the NHL should examine all of its 30 franchises and attempt to fix the problem franchises with long-term solutions rather than showing up with a gun to a knife fight every time a CBA with the players expire. Look, there are a handful of teams that wouldn't be profitable if the players share of HRR was 40%. When is the NHL going to address its problem franchises rather than just putting a squeeze on the players every so often and ignoring the elephant in the room?
They've already started with the move to Winnipeg and with all the new areanas going up in Canada, they might continue to address this problem.

Phelan is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:08 PM
  #356
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbcwpg View Post
Well I'm sure if the PA countered, they'd listen, but the PA doesn't want to counter.
I agree. It depends what they counter with.

you counter with linkage and IMO the momentum from that would end this thing.


but does the PA have a plan to ever go back to linkage?

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:08 PM
  #357
Hullois
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
Jeff Domet ‏@hnicradio
Donald Fehr @nhlpa Exec Director to join @gordstellick & @hockeynight host Ron MacLean @hnicradio 4:20pm ET @SiriusXMNHL Sirius 207 XM92

Hullois is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #358
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,918
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
No, what I was saying was that the NHL should examine its 30 franchises EXCEPT for the Penguins. Seriously, what kind of a question is that?

Yes, the NHL should examine all of its 30 franchises and attempt to fix the problem franchises with long-term solutions rather than showing up with a gun to a knife fight every time a CBA with the players expire. Look, there are a handful of teams that wouldn't be profitable if the players share of HRR was 40%. When is the NHL going to address its problem franchises rather than just putting a squeeze on the players every so often and ignoring the elephant in the room?
The point of the question is that your team (and my team for that matter) were at one time considered being in an unsustainable market. Very few teams are immune to being in trouble. If we just move or fold troubles teams, it wil be a never ending revolving-door problem.

Cawz is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #359
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 5,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Jeff Domet ‏@hnicradio
Donald Fehr @nhlpa Exec Director to join @gordstellick & @hockeynight host Ron MacLean @hnicradio 4:20pm ET @SiriusXMNHL Sirius 207 XM92
Does anybody really care to hear this gas bag talk about how he's not solving the problem anymore?

Bandit is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #360
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I agree, they'll get to 50% imo.

Why go after contracts length so aggressively? 5 years from unlimited is a huge concession, why does the NHL need that on top of cost certainty?
Depends on who you ask, going after contract issues so aggressively is in response to the PA still offering delinked proposals while others think that the contracting issues are the real issues for the owners. Only the owners really know for sure how their demands are prioritize. But it may take a while to find out if the PA doesn't bother to ask or try to trade some things from one topic in favour of keeping or gaining something in another area.

Neither side wants to show their cards and it's probably because neither side feels like the other will react reasonably to it and will continue to hold out. Often when there is a deal that could be had but you still sit in a stalemate, it's because neither side wants to be the one to make the first move for fear that it shows weakness and that it will prompt the other side to take advantage and ask for even more rather than settle things.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:14 PM
  #361
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Actually, it appears that the NHL is trying to limit the younger players, not the older, or biggest stars necessarily.
No, they're not. Only stars get 5+ year deals and front loaded deals (bad deals made by bad GM's aren't the norm). The NHL allows 20% of the cap to be paid for one player, but we all know you can't run a team in that way. Instead of stars making it difficult for their franchise to put a competitive team together, those players take long term security and some money up front. Those long term, back diving deals are a direct result of the system making it difficult to pay the top end guys, now the NHL wants to further limit teams ability to pay the money makers. Why? Why go after the most important, most impact-full employees to your business?

Do you guys really think this is good for your franchise? Do the Ducks want to have to pay Getzlaf 10m per? Cause that's the equivalent in a short term deal of the long term deals other stars have signed.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-16-2012 at 02:20 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:14 PM
  #362
Phelan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Christmas Island
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Does anybody really care to hear this gas bag talk about how he's not solving the problem anymore?
Hopefully Ron goes after him, like he does Bettman.

Phelan is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:14 PM
  #363
Kopistar
Registered User
 
Kopistar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Jeff Domet ‏@hnicradio
Donald Fehr @nhlpa Exec Director to join @gordstellick & @hockeynight host Ron MacLean @hnicradio 4:20pm ET @SiriusXMNHL Sirius 207 XM92
Awesome, I'm having a bland day and I'm in need of a few laughs

Kopistar is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:16 PM
  #364
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Jeff Domet ‏@hnicradio
Donald Fehr @nhlpa Exec Director to join @gordstellick & @hockeynight host Ron MacLean @hnicradio 4:20pm ET @SiriusXMNHL Sirius 207 XM92
Wonder if he'll give some new or good material for the NHL to respond to. I suspect that he'll probably say something along the lines of what his brother did yesterday. I thought more stuff would trickle out from both sides...it at least gives us something new to discuss.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:17 PM
  #365
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cawz View Post
The point of the question is that your team (and my team for that matter) were at one time considered being in an unsustainable market. Very few teams are immune to being in trouble.
That is true. There is an ebb and flow to the health of most of the league's franchises. Some franchises, however, are likely fundamentally unsustainable in their current markets. I don't think there's much of an argument that Glendale and Columbus belong on that list, it's likely that Sunrise and Nashville belong on that list, and it's arguable that Raleigh, Tampa, and Anaheim belong on that list. Hypothetically, if these 7 franchises folded, the NHL would be a very healthy league. In the more likely scenario that some of these franchises relocate, there could also be a reasonably healthy league. It just irks me that the NHL is more intent on selling us this BS that their player costs are too high rather than acknowledge the fact that many of the markets they've chosen are just plain ******.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:20 PM
  #366
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
No, they're not. Only stars get 5+ year deals and front loaded deals (bad deals made by bad GM's aren't the norm). The NHL allows 20% of the cap to be paid for one player, but we all know you can't run a team in that way. Instead of stars making it difficult for their franchise to put a competitive team together, those players take long term security and some money up front. Those long term, back diving deals are a direct result of the system making it difficult to pay the top end guys, now the NHL wants to further limit teams ability to pay the money makers. Why? Why go after the most important, most impact-full employees to your business?
Because there are only a handful of teams that can muster up these types of proposals which is against the NHL's idea of parity.

Like I said before, take any long-term back-diving contract and that player can make just as much money, if not more. If HRR continues to rise, as any Pro-PA person suggests it should, then that player will get the opportunity for raises when every contract is up, without creating a problem financially for their team.

In fact, I think if the PA tried, theyd be smart enough to limit contracts on RFAs, but allow longer term contracts for UFAs, which i think is a simple compromise from both ends.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:23 PM
  #367
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
If the owners get what they want; the league has 30 healthy teams.

If the players get what they want; the league will have to move or fold some teams.
I don't mean this aggressively at all, but that's patently false. After all, wasn't the overwhelming consensus after the last lockout that the players got bent over? Well how come there are still so many unhealthy teams?

Look I understand why folks are pissed at the PA. I get it. But let's not pretend like these owners are particularly shrewd businessmen. I have little doubt that even if they get most of what they want this time around, they'll find a way to screw it up.

bp13 is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:23 PM
  #368
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,569
vCash: 500
So they refuse the break of negotiations but aren't negotiating. Cool.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:24 PM
  #369
KidRobot
Registered User
 
KidRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NEW JERSEY
Country: Poland
Posts: 3,084
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to KidRobot
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetangInTheSO View Post
That is true. There is an ebb and flow to the health of most of the league's franchises. Some franchises, however, are likely fundamentally unsustainable in their current markets. I don't think there's much of an argument that Glendale and Columbus belong on that list, it's likely that Sunrise and Nashville belong on that list, and it's arguable that Raleigh, Tampa, and Anaheim belong on that list.
The hell?

Where did you get these cities from? Nashville has been doing great, Columbus can absolutely sustain a team, if they had the slightest bit to cheer for. They barely have an AHL roster out there.

KidRobot is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:25 PM
  #370
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Because there are only a handful of teams that can muster up these types of proposals which is against the NHL's idea of parity.
Limiting the length of deals and front loading is going to make it harder for those teams to sign star players. Term and front loading offer flexibility.

Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf are worth 10m per x 5 years. Good luck Anaheim.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:27 PM
  #371
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
I don't mean this aggressively at all, but that's patently false. After all, wasn't the overwhelming consensus after the last lockout that the players got bent over? Well how come there are still so many unhealthy teams?

Look I understand why folks are pissed at the PA. I get it. But let's not pretend like these owners are particularly shrewd businessmen. I have little doubt that even if they get most of what they want this time around, they'll find a way to screw it up.
For being such savvy businessmen who earned a lot of money, these owners really aren't good with running pro sports franchises, are they? Maybe they should look at themselves and replacing their own management instead of trying to solve everything with trying to squeak it out of the players.

Or maybe, if they're losing so much money on these pro sports franchises, they should cut their losses, sell their teams, and venture into something more profitable?

PeterSidorkiewicz is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:28 PM
  #372
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Limiting the length of deals and front loading is going to make it harder for those teams to sign star players. Term and front loading offer flexibility.

Corey Perry and Ryan Getzlaf are worth 10m per x 5 years. Good luck Anaheim.
I dont even like the idea of 5 year limits, certain stars deserve 7-10 year contracts.

5 year contracts are suitable for 2nd line, 2nd pairing talent. Top talent needs long-term contracts(not 10+ years, but 8 years or so.)

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #373
LetangInTheSO
Registered User
 
LetangInTheSO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidRobot View Post
The hell?

Where did you get these cities from? Nashville has been doing great, Columbus can absolutely sustain a team, if they had the slightest bit to cheer for. They barely have an AHL roster out there.
Firstly, I listed 7 teams (and said that only 2 were "definite" while the rest were arguable) and you are taking issue with only 2.

Secondly, Nashville is likely losing ~$7M+/yr. with one of the most committed owners in hockey and the team has iced a competitive, entertaining product for almost 15 years. If that's not clear indication that hockey just isn't working in Tennessee, I don't know what is.

Finally, I agree with you that Columbus has been troubled first and foremost by piss-poor management. Regardless, it remains to be seen if it will ever be a decent market.

LetangInTheSO is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:30 PM
  #374
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz View Post
For being such savvy businessmen who earned a lot of money, these owners really aren't good with running pro sports franchises, are they? Maybe they should look at themselves and replacing their own management instead of trying to solve everything with trying to squeak it out of the players.

Or maybe, if they're losing so much money on these pro sports franchises, they should cut their losses, sell their teams, and venture into something more profitable?
Gary brings in absentee owners so that he can continue to run the league how he sees fit. They're great business men, they just don't pay much attention and buy whatever Gary is selling. Bettman won't let you get close enough to get a team if you don't play ball with him.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:33 PM
  #375
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Gary brings in absentee owners so that he can continue to run the league how he sees fit. They're great business men, they just don't pay much attention and buy whatever Gary is selling. Bettman won't let you get close enough to get a team if you don't play ball with him.
Not to be a jerk, but that line really doesn't seem like something great businessmen do.

PeterSidorkiewicz 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 08:24 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.