HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2012, 12:42 AM
  #726
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,408
vCash: 500
my dream? NHLPA decertifies, NHL brings in the scabs, players crack and sign a deal crappier than the last one the NHL game them. i would LOVE to see that

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:55 AM
  #727
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
my dream? NHLPA decertifies, NHL brings in the scabs, players crack and sign a deal crappier than the last one the NHL game them. i would LOVE to see that
Just curious...why are you so anti player? Also, are you actually pro Bettman or just anti player?

Nash is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:05 AM
  #728
Illmatic Stoic
Registered User
 
Illmatic Stoic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,930
vCash: 500
Can someone give a quick update as to where we are now? Are there any good articles that explain the current situation well?

Illmatic Stoic is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:11 AM
  #729
VeteranNetPresence
Disco Super Fly.
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
Just curious...why are you so anti player? Also, are you actually pro Bettman or just anti player?
didn't like how they kicked out kelly to hire dbag fehr. they made out like bandits after the last CBA, and they still talk about fighting this go around because they have some irrational/bizarre victim complex going on. i'm glad the canucks aren't making complete ***** of themselves like some of these players through social media because it would be hard to cheer for them after this circus. and for the record i'm pretty much neutral to bettman, he's made some mistakes along the way but overall he's done a pretty good job

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:01 AM
  #730
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
my dream? NHLPA decertifies, NHL brings in the scabs, players crack and sign a deal crappier than the last one the NHL game them. i would LOVE to see that
If the NHLPA is successful in decertification and ending the lockout from anti-trust litigation, teams certainly won't be bringing in scabs since they'll be paying all their players already. The players won't need to agree to any CBA because it'll be open season.

opendoor is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:20 AM
  #731
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
my dream? NHLPA decertifies, NHL brings in the scabs, players crack and sign a deal crappier than the last one the NHL game them. i would LOVE to see that
Keep dreaming.

Read this: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l..._gary_bettman/

Quote:
The purpose of decertifying would be to eliminate Bettman's negotiating partner. Without a functioning PA, it’s the players’ hope that an owners’ lockout would be deemed illegal and instantly lifted. Dissolving the unions also dissolves the salary cap, linkage, escrow, salary arbitration, rookie cap, you name it. The owners could argue decertifying jeopardizes existing contracts. But some owners, such as the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Mario Lemieux or Los Angeles Kings’ Philip Anschutz, might not like the idea of losing Sidney Crosby to the Rangers or Jonathan Quick to the Leafs when hockey finally returns, and the players would obviously argue they have valid contracts that should be honoured.

You can forget the NHL draft as well. Projected top picks Nathan McKinnon and Seth Jones would simply go to the highest bidder. With the exception of unrestricted free agency, everything else would be deemed illegal in the eyes of the courts. When sports deals are negotiated in good faith, it’s called a CBA. When they aren't, it’s called price fixing. Price fixing leads to accusations of antitrust, and antitrust is a word that doesn't make any billionaire sports-club owner feel warm and fuzzy.

The mere threat of accusing baseball owners of anticompetitive behaviour or unfair business practice paved the way for Fehr's legendary reputation in baseball, and is the sole reason why baseball remains without a salary cap today. Fehr would look for the courts to expedite the process, and in the blink of the eye we could be looking at a level of animosity we've never seen before. The 2004-05 labour fight we watched will pale in comparison to the Armageddon we'll see if this is the path Fehr chooses next.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:54 AM
  #732
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
These players who decide to play in the NHL know they are signing on to be in a union and occasionally there will be labour strife, if they don't want to deal with it, go play somewhere else.
That's unrealistic. Someone with the talent and work ethic to play hockey at the world's highest level should deny himself his dream merely because he's not particularly interested in being in a union?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
But if you do sign on with a union you accept the fact you could strike, you could get locked out and you could lose wages. If there were no union they wouldn't likely be making the wage they make as it is.
...
Might one in a union be able to distinguish between participating in a labour disruption for a just cause and an unjust one? Or perhaps support union actions that one feels are in the best interests of its membership and speak out against those that aren't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Negotiating tactics that result in lost games (and therefore wages) are NOT a precondition to better wages in the long haul.

Like other NHLPA members Hamrlik and Neuvirth can and should voice their opinion if they believe the union's negotiating tactics are leading them to the wrong direction. "Union solidarity" is a load of **** if everyone is losing because of it and no one is trying to steer the boat to better waters because of some sort of self-righteous sentiment.
...
That seems to be what Hamrlik meant when he says that players should have learned from 2004: that they scuttled a season unnecessarily and didn't benefit from having done so. I'm sure that in his mind he's not out to hurt his fellow union members, but rather to help them not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
This is a very short sighted viewpoint. Union solidarity has gotten them to where they are today. They may lose money in the short term, but the less they go backwards now the more they will gain in the end. EVERYONE is taking a hit right now,
I understand your viewpoint. There are a couple of points in here that I would like to explore and one related one that you have touched on in previous posts.

1) Unionism got the players where they are today so they should support the union unconditionally.

- I think many unions follow a pattern where labour originally organizes because a company takes unfair advantage of its workers. Time passes and the union selfishly uses its negotiation strength with no regard to the harm it inflicts on the business. The NHLPA fits this model. Guys like Conn Smythe had no qualms about unscrupulously screwing the players out of every penny possible. By the time the Goodenow days had arrived, though, the players were the party in the wrong. They took and took and took until the league was dying. Isn't it possible for one to decide on a case by case basis whether one's union is justified in its actions?

2) Negotiations between the PA and league are a repeated game. Fight this time and the other side will think twice about playing hardball next time.

- Maybe this is so, but I've thought about it quite a bit and I'm not 100% convinced. The PA put up a hell of fight last time and it hasn't really deterred the league from indulging in tough bargaining this time around.

It also cuts both ways: the league can also justify putting the screws to the players as hard as they can this time around to discourage the PA from going after the league the next time around. If both sides take that tact, we're left with nothing but bloody-mindedness and a cancelled season every time a CBA expires. These negotiations seem to be the classic prisoner's dilemma situation. Both sides need to learn to trust each other, look at the economics, and arrive at solutions that benefit both sides.

3) In the context of this negotiation, Hamrlik's comments hurts the negotiation position of his own side.

- As an outside observer, I agree. I think that the two sides are so close to a deal at this time that there is no way that the season gets cancelled and his comments might cost the players a few dollars. His timing is the problem: saying what he said may have made sense a month ago when Fehr could have had an 82 game season and a soft landing but instead chose to present ideas he came up with minutes before walking into the meeting.

However, Hamrlik is privy to information that we are not. He was likely part of the conference call where a player was shamed for asking a question and the more recent one where decertification was discussed. Maybe he has a better handle on internal PA matters than we do. There's talk out there that Fehr is acting on his own motives rather than in the best interests of the players. Perhaps the PA will actually be led off the cliff if guys like Hamrlik don't speak out. Who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
the last thing the union needs is greedy chicken****s whining because they've missed a few paychecks...go back and play in Europe and don't come back.
Bringing the guy's nationality into things is Don Cherryesque and uncalled for. Not only has Hamrlik been through 3 lockouts, he's also old enough to remember growing up in a country where speaking out against your leaders got people thrown in jail or worse.

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
In what way did Cole "bully" Hamrlik?
Cole could have taken the high road and agreed it may have been a mistranslation. Instead he decided to publicly insult Hamrlik. I didn't see any other players saying things like that to the press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Calling him selfish? Hamrlik admitted he was.
It was more nuanced than that. Hamrlik said that "maybe he was being selfish", implying that, yes, the salary he was losing was significant but that there was more to it than that. Hamrlik seems to think that Fehr is not competently leading the PA in this fight - and many outside observers have felt this way for a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I'd say what Hamrlik did was worse and then his catty little statement about his signing bonus and his agent shows the owners exactly what they want to see.

Hamrlik comes off like an idiot here, especially with his response today...the guy who has made $59m going around his brethren that fought for his ability to make that money (especially his contract he signed post 2004 lockout with MTL) shows his integrity.
Catty? An idiot? He stood by his opinions and did a pretty good job of explaining himself. Say what you want, but the guy has his convictions and was brave enough to be the first to stand up say what he believes in.

Guys like Ian White who spout off mindless insults are the only ones who have come off as 'idiots' in this whole thing.


Last edited by Chubros: 11-23-2012 at 03:03 AM.
Chubros is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 04:39 AM
  #733
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,748
vCash: 457
The scenario plays out like this.

The PA finally offers a legitimate linked deal and we see games starting January 1st.

The PA doesn't offer a legitimate linked deal by mid December and the whole season is canned.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:36 AM
  #734
Nash
Registered User
 
Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: North Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,941
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeteranNetPresence View Post
didn't like how they kicked out kelly to hire dbag fehr. they made out like bandits after the last CBA, and they still talk about fighting this go around because they have some irrational/bizarre victim complex going on. i'm glad the canucks aren't making complete ***** of themselves like some of these players through social media because it would be hard to cheer for them after this circus. and for the record i'm pretty much neutral to bettman, he's made some mistakes along the way but overall he's done a pretty good job
I wasn't a fan of how the parties involved in the resolution last CBA were villianized, including Linden. Hard liners like Chelios went off the deep end. History does show that even conceding 24% of their salaries and agreeing to a cap/floor structure, the union as a whole made out well after the last deal.

I don't see the PA playing victim here though. What is so wrong about wanting to retain the rights you have fought for? You can't tear into them for wanting a slow transition to 50/50 when you praise the league while they came out of the gate with 43/57 in their own favor, with a new definition of HRR to boot. Both parties have come to the table with more demands than anyone on the other side would be willing to take. It would be nice if they both came with reasonable offers and we wouldn't need this garbage for months while they grandstand.

I'm far more on the players side as I genuinely don't trust the NHL accounting practices at all. Billionaires don't invest in losing causes. Money is being shuffled and losses are exaggerated. The league has grown revenues every year and the league as a whole makes money. Revenue sharing and getting rid of the cap floor are the biggest changes I think that need to be made.

I'm also taken aback by the perception that it is okay to offer these contracts one day and then demanding they be rolled back the next. If you can't afford them, why offer? If that's how business is done, why can't the players demand to dissolve their contracts and negotiate fresh under the new terms of a CBA. Both are ridiculous, but the owners expect this concession after the last lockout.

I also don't like the league pushing to punish teams that have front loaded contracts. I'm all for grandfathering it in, but those contracts again were signed in good faith. Changes the rules after the fact to punish teams that operated under the previous conditions is unfair.

Demanding both percentage limitation year to year and contract length limits is excessive. The year to year percentage is enough to counteract front loading. If a team and player want to sign a long term deal, I don't see why that should be discouraged. If we had a Crosby type player, wouldn't you want to lock him up as long as you could?

Most of the other negotiating rights the league is asking to change is stripping away what the players fought for in the last lockout.

Essentially, the league is looking to create a perfect CBA, where the owners cannot sabotage themselves. At what point will the blame for this be put where it belongs, which is the owners themselves?

Nash is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:25 AM
  #735
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,072
vCash: 500
I have to say that I think the NHL reps are being very disingenuous every time they speak. From the onset the NHL has not being bargaining in good faith, rather they have made offers that are meant to play well in the media but are completely unacceptable to the players. The NHL simply wants to play PR games while they out-wait the players.

Johnny LaRue is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:34 AM
  #736
Askel
Registered User
 
Askel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Malmö/Vancouver
Posts: 1,270
vCash: 500
50/50 is fine IMO. But the players are the only ones giving up stuff. Losing 7% of HRR plus rights (no longtermdeals, no Arbitration.) Bettman cant get everything he asks for, you can see why the players are pissed.

The thing is there are some franchises thats not doing well so lower the cap floor and get better revenuesharing, or move/fold teams if they are doing so bad.

Both sides are to blame for the ridicoulus postponing of real negotiation, NHLs first offer was horrifing, NHLPA not giving any offer until this week is just baffling.

FFS I just want some Hockey, get it done.

Askel is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:42 AM
  #737
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post

Catty? An idiot? He stood by his opinions and did a pretty good job of explaining himself. Say what you want, but the guy has his convictions and was brave enough to be the first to stand up say what he believes in.

Guys like Ian White who spout off mindless insults are the only ones who have come off as 'idiots' in this whole thing.
It was catty and I stand by that, anyone talking about another player's contract status, and him having a 'good agent' is catty. It's disrespect, it shows he's selfish, because he wouldn't have spoken up if he had a signing bonus.

Hamrlik is selfish and put himself before his union....im not a union guy when it comes to 'real' life, but the entire point of a union is to be unified and solid, so you don't continually get locked out and pushed around.

Ian White is and idiot, so is Kris Versteeg, but its quite clear Hamrlik is selfish and did his cohorts no good with his comment.


Teammate Troy Brouwer's feelings on his 'teammates' running their mouths: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410109

Quote:
"Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention," Brouwer told The Post. "People are going to have their own opinions but when you're fighting for something with 700 other guys, all you're doing is just making it harder to make a deal and making it harder to accomplish the things we're fighting for.

"For me, I think those guys selling us out, being selfish like that and making those comments..." Brouwer continued. "Me being on their team, how am I going to trust them as a teammate from now on? Because you know they're not going to support players in the big scheme of things when you go and you play on the team with them; it's going to be tough to want to back those guys from now on."


Last edited by arsmaster: 11-23-2012 at 09:56 AM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:51 AM
  #738
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Guys like Ian White who spout off mindless insults are the only ones who have come off as 'idiots' in this whole thing.
Probably a good reason why the muzzle has been put on the owners so guys like Leipold don't hurt their position. He's the dude he cried he's broke early this year before going on a spending spree:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl...2055--nhl.html

This is why the next CBA needs to avoid having "loopholes"....these guys clearly can't help themselves.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 10:30 AM
  #739
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I have to say that I think the NHL reps are being very disingenuous every time they speak. From the onset the NHL has not being bargaining in good faith, rather they have made offers that are meant to play well in the media but are completely unacceptable to the players. The NHL simply wants to play PR games while they out-wait the players.
That is true for both sides. They're more concerned about public perception than a deal. The latest is NHLPA movement to linked numbers, with the caveat that they can never make less than the previous year: not exactly shooting straight with the public. At the same time I'm not sure the players truly understand the nuances of what is being offered from them based on their comment. On the other hand, the owners know what is being driven at. Wilfull blindness v. Intent?

Either way ther are jackasses on both sides and it those i the middle o the road on each side drove the ship, it's likely a deal would be done by now.

west in the east is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 10:45 AM
  #740
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
(1)That's unrealistic. Someone with the talent and work ethic to play hockey at the world's highest level should deny himself his dream merely because he's not particularly interested in being in a union?



(2) Might one in a union be able to distinguish between participating in a labour disruption for a just cause and an unjust one? Or perhaps support union actions that one feels are in the best interests of its membership and speak out against those that aren't?


(3) Unionism got the players where they are today so they should support the union unconditionally.

- I think many unions follow a pattern where labour originally organizes because a company takes unfair advantage of its workers. Time passes and the union selfishly uses its negotiation strength with no regard to the harm it inflicts on the business. The NHLPA fits this model. Guys like Conn Smythe had no qualms about unscrupulously screwing the players out of every penny possible. By the time the Goodenow days had arrived, though, the players were the party in the wrong. They took and took and took until the league was dying. Isn't it possible for one to decide on a case by case basis whether one's union is justified in its actions?

(4) Negotiations between the PA and league are a repeated game. Fight this time and the other side will think twice about playing hardball next time.

- Maybe this is so, but I've thought about it quite a bit and I'm not 100% convinced. The PA put up a hell of fight last time and it hasn't really deterred the league from indulging in tough bargaining this time around.

It also cuts both ways: the league can also justify putting the screws to the players as hard as they can this time around to discourage the PA from going after the league the next time around. If both sides take that tact, we're left with nothing but bloody-mindedness and a cancelled season every time a CBA expires. These negotiations seem to be the classic prisoner's dilemma situation. Both sides need to learn to trust each other, look at the economics, and arrive at solutions that benefit both sides.

(5) In the context of this negotiation, Hamrlik's comments hurts the negotiation position of his own side.

- As an outside observer, I agree. I think that the two sides are so close to a deal at this time that there is no way that the season gets cancelled and his comments might cost the players a few dollars. His timing is the problem: saying what he said may have made sense a month ago when Fehr could have had an 82 game season and a soft landing but instead chose to present ideas he came up with minutes before walking into the meeting.

However, Hamrlik is privy to information that we are not. He was likely part of the conference call where a player was shamed for asking a question and the more recent one where decertification was discussed. Maybe he has a better handle on internal PA matters than we do. There's talk out there that Fehr is acting on his own motives rather than in the best interests of the players. Perhaps the PA will actually be led off the cliff if guys like Hamrlik don't speak out. Who knows?



(6) Bringing the guy's nationality into things is Don Cherryesque and uncalled for. Not only has Hamrlik been through 3 lockouts, he's also old enough to remember growing up in a country where speaking out against your leaders got people thrown in jail or worse.

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.
1) Yeah, if he doesnt want to be in a union there are other places to make millions of dollars playing hockey. If you want to play in the NHL you need to be a member of the PA and if you are a member of the PA you shouldn't sell your brothers out.

2) If the union was being "unjust" towards the majority of its members you would hear a lot more public derision. They have meetings and conference calls that all members are able to take part in, if they have concerns they can voice them and if they get enough players together who are dissatisfied with the direction they can bring it to Fehr and the negotiating committee.

3) You can look at it like "The players took and took and took until the league was dying" or you can look at it from the other side and say that owners/GM's behaved in a wreckless and irresponsible manner when it came to handing out contracts and it nearly killed the league. Why is it up to the player to refuse a stupid contract offered by a team?

4) As long as there are divisive figures in charge of running each side (Bettman, Jacobs, Fehr, etc) there will be a mistrust between parties that will make it harder to negotiate deals.

5) Hamrlik's position and decision to speak publicly doesn't really affect the PA's position unless there is a large faction of players who feel the same way and moves them to come forward. As to Hamrlik being privy to more information, from what it sounds like from arsmasters post, even Hamrlik's teammate Brouwer has said he hasn't taken part in a conference call or meeting. He sounds like a selfish whiner who is feeling the bite of missing a few paychecks because he wasn't smarter with his money in the first place.

6) Hamrlik's (or Neuvirth's) nationality plays no part in my comment...nobody wants to have labour strife and miss out on games or paychecks, but when you are a part of a union and a CBA expires there is a possibility that it will happen. If you don't want to be a part of that, there are other places to play that pay very well and don't require you to be a member of a union (ie KHL, Switzerland, etc). This goes for anyone, whether they are from Canada, the U.S., Europe or Russia.

Canucker is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 11:24 AM
  #741
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash View Post
I also don't like the league pushing to punish teams that have front loaded contracts. I'm all for grandfathering it in, but those contracts again were signed in good faith. Changes the rules after the fact to punish teams that operated under the previous conditions is unfair.

Demanding both percentage limitation year to year and contract length limits is excessive. The year to year percentage is enough to counteract front loading. If a team and player want to sign a long term deal, I don't see why that should be discouraged. If we had a Crosby type player, wouldn't you want to lock him up as long as you could?

Most of the other negotiating rights the league is asking to change is stripping away what the players fought for in the last lockout.

Essentially, the league is looking to create a perfect CBA, where the owners cannot sabotage themselves. At what point will the blame for this be put where it belongs, which is the owners themselves?
On your points, I think it's more important for the NHL to ensure that 100% of the salary that a player is paid gets applied to the salary cap. I've said several times, that should Luongo opt to retire prior to the final 3 yrs of his deal ($3.6 million in total salary versus $16 million of total cap space over that time), it means that $12.4 million of salary that he was paid would never be applied against the salary cap. This big loophole needs to be closed.

That means either salary cap hit is no longer an average (harder for a team to manage) or they make the salary paid to the player over the term of his contract the same each year).

Personally, I rather not see 10 year contracts. To me, 5 years seems pretty long. NBA max length contract is now down to 6 years. So, I think the NHL could bend that to match the NBA.

As for your point about wanting to lock up your top end players, I would counter that arguement with the following: How many players over the past 7 years, top level elite players, have changed teams through free agency?

B. Richards, M. Gaborik, R. Suter, Z. Parise, J. Bo?

Signing a long term deal is still no guarantee that a player will remain with the club over the length of the deal either.

Don't see anything wrong with a player signing 4 contracts over their career, if they are lucky to play that long. Take the elite 18 year old. ELC for 3 years. 5 year deal next to age 26. 3rd contract to age 31. 4th contract to age 36. That's their entire prime years taken care of. Basically, these long term deals are combining the 3rd and 4th contracts together. Sid, Nash, E. Staal, J. Staal, etc. signed long terms deals when they hit UFA.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 11:59 AM
  #742
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
Damn...we'd be a powerhouse.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:13 PM
  #743
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
That seems to be what Hamrlik meant when he says that players should have learned from 2004: that they scuttled a season unnecessarily and didn't benefit from having done so. I'm sure that in his mind he's not out to hurt his fellow union members, but rather to help them not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Except that's demonstrably untrue. The NHL's offers in September and October of 2004 which Hamrlik is suggesting they should've taken would've had players taking about 15% less in revenue per year than they ended up getting. So they lost nothing in terms of money in the long run. And it's hard to argue that Hamrlik lost much personally. Would he have gotten a $5.5 million deal in 07-08 if the NHLPA accepted the NHL's offer of a $31-33 million cap? Doubtful.

Then you have the contract rights they gained. The NHL's final offer in Feb 2005 (i.e. their absolute best offer) included the following:

-No contracts longer than 3 years
-UFA age of 30 years old
-a drop dead date in early October for unsigned RFAs whereby if they didn't sign a contract that was offered to them they'd be ineligible to play the rest of the season.
-4 year ELCs with a hard cap at $1.1-1.6 million including all bonuses
-$300K minimum salary


I don't see a logical argument that they'd have been better off settling for what the NHL was offering either in terms of money or contract rights.

opendoor is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:30 PM
  #744
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Damn...we'd be a powerhouse.
Top revenue teams:
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_d5_
Toronto
NY Rangers
Montreal
Vancouver
Detroit
Boston
Chicago
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Calgary
LA

If this were to happen, a last resort for the PA of course, Luongo's trade value goes way up. The top teams would be able to bury their mistakes without consequence. Borderline players wouldn't make very much, but top players would have huge salaries. No draft, so the rich teams would aggressively try to sign top prospects, while the have-not teams pick up the scraps. The bottom teams would probably struggle to win 20 games in a season, while the top teams would have 55-60 regulation wins.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:33 PM
  #745
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
On your points, I think it's more important for the NHL to ensure that 100% of the salary that a player is paid gets applied to the salary cap. I've said several times, that should Luongo opt to retire prior to the final 3 yrs of his deal ($3.6 million in total salary versus $16 million of total cap space over that time), it means that $12.4 million of salary that he was paid would never be applied against the salary cap. This big loophole needs to be closed.

That means either salary cap hit is no longer an average (harder for a team to manage) or they make the salary paid to the player over the term of his contract the same each year).

Personally, I rather not see 10 year contracts. To me, 5 years seems pretty long. NBA max length contract is now down to 6 years. So, I think the NHL could bend that to match the NBA.

As for your point about wanting to lock up your top end players, I would counter that arguement with the following: How many players over the past 7 years, top level elite players, have changed teams through free agency?

B. Richards, M. Gaborik, R. Suter, Z. Parise, J. Bo?

Signing a long term deal is still no guarantee that a player will remain with the club over the length of the deal either.

Don't see anything wrong with a player signing 4 contracts over their career, if they are lucky to play that long. Take the elite 18 year old. ELC for 3 years. 5 year deal next to age 26. 3rd contract to age 31. 4th contract to age 36. That's their entire prime years taken care of. Basically, these long term deals are combining the 3rd and 4th contracts together. Sid, Nash, E. Staal, J. Staal, etc. signed long terms deals when they hit UFA.
You have yet to answer my question of why the cap hit should count. Like literally I see no benefit either way. Could you please enlighten me?

None of the players you mentioned in the last line have ever hit UFA.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:54 PM
  #746
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
You have yet to answer my question of why the cap hit should count. Like literally I see no benefit either way. Could you please enlighten me?
It's quite obviously cap circumvention. I don't care either way really but if you're going to bother with a cap you should try and protect the integrity of it.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:18 PM
  #747
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's quite obviously cap circumvention. I don't care either way really but if you're going to bother with a cap you should try and protect the integrity of it.


I can kind of see this, but then there is always the lowest common denominator to worry about. When a team like Detroit starts the game, and begins to take advantage of the loopholes, other GMs are warned to do the same less they fall behind.


To be sure, DET still remains a model for contract efficiency throughout their roster.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:26 PM
  #748
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's quite obviously cap circumvention. I don't care either way really but if you're going to bother with a cap you should try and protect the integrity of it.
That is what the 5% rule would do though. That way it becomes increasingly tough to have $1m years tacked on to the end.

The NHL had its chance to outlaw these the first time they came up - Zetterberg was it?

Why they only chose to punish New Jersey I'll never understand....spirit of the salary cap MY ASS!

arsmaster is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:30 PM
  #749
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
To be sure, DET still remains a model for contract efficiency throughout their roster.
Helps that they have considerable stroke with the league (they have not one but TWO such deals on their club - Zetterberg & Franzen - yet when the league was 'going thru the motions' of investigating so-called cap circumventing deals, neither of these two players were mentioned).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:32 PM
  #750
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Helps that they have considerable stroke with the league (they have not one but TWO such deals on their club - Zetterberg & Franzen - yet when the league was 'going thru the motions' of investigating so-called cap circumventing deals, neither of these two players were mentioned).
Because the players are Swedish, duh!

arsmaster 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 09:13 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.