Yeah, but in the same vein as the Kovalchuk contract, these guys are making a HUGE chunk of their 14-year contracts in the first couple of years. The league really screwed up by allowing an acceptable framework. I just don't get why punishing the Devils was necessary after saying they would allow these contracts.
The problem here was that the NHL drew the line in the sand for everyone with the Kovalchuk penalty. Teams knew how far they could go without getting a penalty afterwards. Before hand, taems were just pushing the envelope further and further. The Devils and Kovy happen to be the ones with the speeding ticket.
Yeah, but in the same vein as the Kovalchuk contract, these guys are making a HUGE chunk of their 14-year contracts in the first couple of years. The league really screwed up by allowing an acceptable framework. I just don't get why punishing the Devils was necessary after saying they would allow these contracts.
This is what I'm talking about. Weren't those contracts front loaded like Kovalchuk's? Also where is the cutoff too on what's acceptable, and what's circumvention? I think the NHL just makes up the rules as they go.
If there is a full season lockout, Minnesota will pay 20 million to Parise and Suter for doing nothing.
If you really think of it, the numbers, and what people make in average for working a full year, that is just absolutely ridiculous.
Poor players.
That fact, and the concurrent fact Leipold's one of the hard-liners in negotiations make no sense. You would think he'd want a season to get some value for his $20 million and keep the momentum the Wild had from their offseason splurge.
Just realized, if the NHL cancels out the season and I get angry enough to never go to another game... the last one I saw was a Devils SCF win. Granted it wasn't winning the Cup, but still.
I actually think I might be okay with that.
I talked with a colleague tht was excited over the "progress" last month and got to say "i told you so."
The fans pay a disproportionate amount of league revenue compared to other sports and we get treated like total **** with lockouts and ever rising ticket prices.
They dont seem to care much about me so here I am caring...or not.
Seems to me like Fehr thinks can bully himself out of this. Thing is he can't. Bettman is way too tough.
And the owners have more "survivability" to last through an extended lockout. They aren't the ones losing the prime of their careers, and most of them will be fine financially too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaxjoDevil
If there is a full season lockout, Minnesota will pay 20 million to Parise and Suter for doing nothing.
If you really think of it, the numbers, and what people make in average for working a full year, that is just absolutely ridiculous.
Poor players.
That was something they negotiated in their contracts because they knew a long lockout was a possibility. I don't begrudge them for having the foresight to get lockout "insurance", I begrudge a broken CBA for allowing such travesties of contract structures to begin with.
This has got me more mad than ever thinking about this again, but who is the MORON(S) that decided September 15th was a good day for the CBA to expire? Who's responsible for this? A week before training camps start. That's just beautiful man beautiful.
It should have expired June 15th immediately following the conclusion of the SCF. Last person who tried to justify it expiring in mid September said it would be a mess with free agents not signed if it expired before free agency started.
I say to hell with the free agents, and let the deal get worked out first. It's like whoever proposed it to expire in mid September knew exactly what they were doing. Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea? That's when it expired the last two lockouts too.
This has got me more mad than ever thinking about this again, but who is the MORON(S) that decided September 15th was a good day for the CBA to expire? Who's responsible for this? A week before training camps start.
The NHLPA Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus
And the owners have more "survivability" to last through an extended lockout. They aren't the ones losing the prime of their careers, and most of them will be fine financially too.
Yet another reason why the Union is so stupid.
They thought they were all clever timing the lockout to occur riggggggggghhhhhtttttttt before the start of the season to maximize leverage.
Which makes perfect sense in a purely cutthroat fashion...........
except that it has one rather significant major flaw.
If the owners decide to call your bluff (which they did) not only do you now not have ANY leverage, but with each and every passing day you lose leverage. With every day, every week, every month cancelled, the owners have less and less incentive to have a season. In fact, I'd say mathematically we're getting close to the point where you might make the argument that the owners would probably be stupid to even bother with a 2012-2013 season.
What's that sound? Oh the sound of the NHLPA's union breaking. If only someone would just take a chisel to it and speed this thing up.
See, this is what I was saying a while back. If a majority vote could be forced on the PA over the last league proposal, the "yes" votes would win by a landslide. But until the more vocal players stop representing their own interests, it's never going to happen.
See, this is what I was saying a while back. If a majority vote could be forced on the PA over the last league proposal, the "yes" votes would win by a landslide. But until the more vocal players stop representing their own interests, it's never going to happen.
Fehr and Bettman both run dictatorships pretty much, Bettman can quash a deal with just eight of thirty votes iirc - and doesn't allow the owners to speak publicly during a lockout - while Fehr I don't believe 'ever' has to bring a deal to the players for ratification. What worries me about Fehr (among other things) is he probably got ironclad promises when the NHLPA begged him to take over that they wouldn't overthrow him and his brother the way they sacked any number of union heads in the past.
They thought they were all clever timing the lockout to occur riggggggggghhhhhtttttttt before the start of the season to maximize leverage.
I think it's just so their FA's can get contracts before the CBA expires under an old system. So now it causes a schism when the owners want to immediately slash HRR and the players have already been paid 57% of HRR under the old system.
Honestly I don't think it would make a hoot of a difference if the CBA expired on June 30, the two sides would basically ignore each other for three months (especially with the kings of obstructionism negotiating this deal) since neither side would have any incentive to negotiate.
See, this is what I was saying a while back. If a majority vote could be forced on the PA over the last league proposal, the "yes" votes would win by a landslide. But until the more vocal players stop representing their own interests, it's never going to happen.
Same thing with the owners. It's a small junta of owners that are forcing the lockout to continue. If you took a simple majority vote of them, it would end tomorrow.
