HFBoards

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

The 2012-2013 NHL Lockout Discussion Thread

View Poll Results: Will there be any NHL games before 8/15/13?
Heck yeah! 11 44.00%
Only on my Playstation 14 56.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 05:38 PM
  #351
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Does this season count against contracts? Lets assume they come to an agreement in like April, so the 2013-14 season is on but this season is completely canceled. Does Mike Smith become a UFA over the summer or does he still have to complete the final year on his contract?

Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 05:40 PM
  #352
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sinurgy View Post
does this season count against contracts? Lets assume they come to an agreement in like april, so the 2013-14 season is on but this season is completely canceled. Does mike smith become a ufa over the summer or does he still have to complete the final year on his contract?
ufa.

hbk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 06:00 PM
  #353
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,974
vCash: 50
Unless they make the contract year rollback part of the new cba...

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 06:10 PM
  #354
RR
Moderator
 
RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cave Creek, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
Unless they make the contract year rollback part of the new cba...
Wouldn't that also mean Scott Gomez and others like him on bad contracts would have to give up a year of bloated salary? I don't know. If it does I can't see the players assoc agreeing to anything that would be grossly unfair to guys, primarily with diminishing skills, who are still on big pay-day contracts.

RR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 07:14 PM
  #355
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,851
vCash: 500
Last time around the lock-out burned a year off contracts. I expect it to be the case again this time around. This means Smith will be UFA. Assuming of course that Don Fehr doesn't convince the players to completely destroy professional hockey in North America. I tend to believe it's his mission to either destroy the cap or destroy the league.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:03 PM
  #356
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,974
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR View Post
Wouldn't that also mean Scott Gomez and others like him on bad contracts would have to give up a year of bloated salary? I don't know. If it does I can't see the players assoc agreeing to anything that would be grossly unfair to guys, primarily with diminishing skills, who are still on big pay-day contracts.
No, because in the scenario they would be gaining an additional year under the current contract. The lost league year would not count toward existing contracts. They'd have to explicitly write it into the CBA like they did the 25% rollback of existing contracts under the last CBA.
Essentially, as of this moment all contracts are legally meaningless. It'll be up to the new CBA to recognize current contract validness (which I completely expect to happen. It always does).
Team's with albatross contracts would be stuck paying them the full contract term (which the overpaid players would probably be all for), but they'd recoup contract years on young players and the potential UFA's. Middling players with one year left on their deals might prefer to be paid out their contract next year instead of losing their contract/job next year. Overpaid guys, I'm sure will be all for it. Younger guys with one year left and due a raise might chafe a bit.
I'd expect each team would have it's own reasons for and against such a move. It'd depend on how many teams/players thought it was worth it.

Pretty confident Smith stays. He's in the perfect situation here. And with only last season under his belt, GMDM still holds some cards. Might be more favourable to get a longer/cheaper deal than if he had lit it up again this year and then went into UFA with more suitors. I expect other teams will be wary right now of throwing big money at him after the Bryzgalov experiment.

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:39 PM
  #357
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,851
vCash: 500
^ I'm more worried about giving Smith way too big a contract for way too long a term after one single good season in the NHL. I do think he'd be a fool to leave but the thought of giving him four years and sixteen million bucks is terrifying to me. There is a great deal of flash in the pan potential, here.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:27 AM
  #358
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
^ I'm more worried about giving Smith way too big a contract for way too long a term after one single good season in the NHL. I do think he'd be a fool to leave but the thought of giving him four years and sixteen million bucks is terrifying to me. There is a great deal of flash in the pan potential, here.
Let's be honest here. The one thing the Coyotes desperately need and can afford to overspend on is goaltending. He was, quite literally, the only reason the team did as well as it did or went as far. I also think that him being a humble journeyman plays into Maloney's hands. He may end up taking less than what he can command on the free market.

I don't really think last season was a fluke. He was technically sound on most nights and that's all you really need to win in Tippett's system. Another way to look at this is the alternative to taking a risk on Smith. Do we want a 3rd starting goalie in 3 years? Who the hell is out there that has the potential to be better? Can we even afford him? Would he even come to Phoenix?

I think if you really look at the situation, giving Mike Smith a nice deal is the best option.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:27 AM
  #359
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,974
vCash: 50
Oh definitely. But I think losing the season increases the chances that he ends up with a cheaper "prove it" contract again rather than that four year, 16 million dollar contract.

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:41 AM
  #360
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
No, because in the scenario they would be gaining an additional year under the current contract. The lost league year would not count toward existing contracts. They'd have to explicitly write it into the CBA like they did the 25% rollback of existing contracts under the last CBA.
Essentially, as of this moment all contracts are legally meaningless. It'll be up to the new CBA to recognize current contract validness (which I completely expect to happen. It always does).
Team's with albatross contracts would be stuck paying them the full contract term (which the overpaid players would probably be all for), but they'd recoup contract years on young players and the potential UFA's. Middling players with one year left on their deals might prefer to be paid out their contract next year instead of losing their contract/job next year. Overpaid guys, I'm sure will be all for it. Younger guys with one year left and due a raise might chafe a bit.
I'd expect each team would have it's own reasons for and against such a move. It'd depend on how many teams/players thought it was worth it.

Pretty confident Smith stays. He's in the perfect situation here. And with only last season under his belt, GMDM still holds some cards. Might be more favourable to get a longer/cheaper deal than if he had lit it up again this year and then went into UFA with more suitors. I expect other teams will be wary right now of throwing big money at him after the Bryzgalov experiment.
It's not that the contracts are meaningless. It's that they're currently unenforceable while the labor dispute is ongoing. The moment a new CBA is signed (or the union gains recognition of successfully decertifying and ending the labor dispute) they become enforceable again.

A new CBA doesn't need to do anything special to acknowledge the contracts. In fact I'm pretty certain the last CBA said nothing about the 2004-2005 year burning off the contracts--it was the default behavior of the contract, no need to codify it in the CBA. Only need to codify the exceptions where things were changed, like the 24% rollback.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:24 AM
  #361
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,156
vCash: 1329
Looks like there was a big crowd at the Ice Den today to see the players skate.

Naurutger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:35 AM
  #362
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,974
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
It's not that the contracts are meaningless. It's that they're currently unenforceable while the labor dispute is ongoing. The moment a new CBA is signed (or the union gains recognition of successfully decertifying and ending the labor dispute) they become enforceable again.
If I give you an unenforceable check for a million dollars, how meaningful is the check? The contract is meaningful only with the existence of a CBA which acknowledges them. Without such a CBA the contract is meaningless. That is why the league can legally lock the players out. They could not lockout the players out (a de facto voiding of their contractual obligation) if there were a CBA which enforced them. The players would simply sue to force compliance. Similarly, if the players decertify abandoning the PA and any future CBA rights, all existing contracts remain meaningless pieces of paper. The contracts were signed under the terms of the previous CBA and only have value in that context (or under a new CBA which affirms them).
The contracts will become meaningful again under the new CBA only if the new CBA guarantees that (and I have no doubt that it will, as I said earlier).

The decertified players could sue and ask the courts to uphold the 2005 SPC's. Precedence is that the courts have ruled that pro-sport contracts are intrinsically linked to the CBA.


Quote:
A new CBA doesn't need to do anything special to acknowledge the contracts.
Article 11.1 of the previous (2005) CBA specifically acknowledges existing contracts for this very reason. They are termed 1995 SPCs (contracts signed under the 1995 CBA).

Quote:
In fact I'm pretty certain the last CBA said nothing about the 2004-2005 year burning off the contracts--it was the default behavior of the contract, no need to codify it in the CBA. Only need to codify the exceptions where things were changed, like the 24% rollback.
Correct. The 2005 CBA affirmed the 1995 SPCs. They had to modify the exceptions/terms of those existing SPC's explicitly to affect the salary rollback.
Which is why I said if the league/players wanted to retain that contract year instead of burning it, they would have to specifically write that accrued contract year into the new CBA. It would not happen automatically when(technically if) they acknowledge existing contracts.

Oh, how I would much rather be talking about hockey than legalese...


Last edited by _Del_: 11-30-2012 at 11:45 AM.
_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:58 AM
  #363
Blubba Jenkins
Staying Faithful
 
Blubba Jenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NE Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Looks like there was a big crowd at the Ice Den today to see Crosby skate.
Fixed.

Blubba Jenkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:00 PM
  #364
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,156
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blubba Jenkins View Post
Fixed.
Well ok, I give ya that but I saw a few Yotes jerseys. But they were probably there to watch Smith stop Crosby

Naurutger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:17 PM
  #365
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
Well ok, I give ya that but I saw a few Yotes jerseys. But they were probably there to watch Smith stop Crosby
I must be missing something here. Why is Crosby in Phoenix? Athletes' Performance?

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:38 PM
  #366
Naurutger
#FreeMax
 
Naurutger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maricopa County
Country: United States
Posts: 5,156
vCash: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
I must be missing something here. Why is Crosby in Phoenix? Athletes' Performance?
A mini training camp for about 30 players.

NHL players take ice for minicamp in Scottsdale

http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/11/2...97&feedID=3702


Last edited by Naurutger: 11-30-2012 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Added article
Naurutger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 01:18 PM
  #367
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
If I give you an unenforceable check for a million dollars, how meaningful is the check? The contract is meaningful only with the existence of a CBA which acknowledges them. Without such a CBA the contract is meaningless. That is why the league can legally lock the players out. They could not lockout the players out (a de facto voiding of their contractual obligation) if there were a CBA which enforced them. The players would simply sue to force compliance. Similarly, if the players decertify abandoning the PA and any future CBA rights, all existing contracts remain meaningless pieces of paper. The contracts were signed under the terms of the previous CBA and only have value in that context (or under a new CBA which affirms them).
The contracts will become meaningful again under the new CBA only if the new CBA guarantees that (and I have no doubt that it will, as I said earlier).
That hasn't been the legal precedent. The NBA threatened to take that position in its most recent lockout--that the player contracts would be voided in the absence of a CBA should the NBAPA decertify. Where the courts might ultimately rule on that position we'll never know since the NBA and PA settled. It was a novel legal argument that has never been fought in court by a major sports organization to my knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_ View Post
The decertified players could sue and ask the courts to uphold the 2005 SPC's. Precedence is that the courts have ruled that pro-sport contracts are intrinsically linked to the CBA.
Precedent is that contracts are subject to the results of collective bargaining, and any CBA resulting from it. Courts have ruled consistently that pro-sports contracts are subject to a CBA. That is not that same as saying that contracts have no validity in the absence of a CBA. There have been many examples of pro sports leagues that played seasons or portions of seasons without a CBA.

The contracts are unenforceable at the moment not because there is no CBA, but because the owners have locked out the players. Labor law provides that in the case of a lawful lockout by the owners, or strike by the players that no party is entitled to bring any action or proceedings for:
- Breach of an employment agreement
- Injunction against the lockout/strike
- Court compliance order
- Penalties
- Or other legal actions founded on tort law

If the owners lifted the lockout tomorrow the contracts would be fully enforceable even though the NHL and PA hadn't negotiated a new CBA yet.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #368
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk View Post
ufa.
That's what I was afraid of, I would greatly prefer to have had this season to see him prove himself a second year but it would seem that luxury will not be available. It's going to be tough for DM next summer (assuming the lockout is even over yet) having to make a decision on Smith. Not only does he have to decide on giving a big contract to a player who put together 1 very good year but he'll also have to consider that same player hasn't played NHL hockey in a year either. The Coyotes were primed for good things but this lockout introduces a lot of uncertainty.


Last edited by Sinurgy: 11-30-2012 at 05:01 PM.
Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:52 PM
  #369
awfulwaffle
Registered User
 
awfulwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 6,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by naurutger View Post
A mini training camp for about 30 players.

NHL players take ice for minicamp in Scottsdale

http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/11/2...97&feedID=3702
I am betting they were here for some minicamp, and amazing weather this time of year down in Phoenix.

I wonder what most players feel about hockey in the desert, outside of the problems off the ice with ownership and finances. I would imagine most players love coming here not having to worry about wearing 2 jackets and a beanie with wind chill below 0, etc. like it is in some places they might go to play hockey.

awfulwaffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:03 PM
  #370
Sinurgy
Embrace Passion
 
Sinurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awfulwaffle View Post
I am betting they were here for some minicamp, and amazing weather this time of year down in Phoenix.

I wonder what most players feel about hockey in the desert, outside of the problems off the ice with ownership and finances. I would imagine most players love coming here not having to worry about wearing 2 jackets and a beanie with wind chill below 0, etc. like it is in some places they might go to play hockey.
I would think most players would love the idea of hockey here because it provides the opportunity for them to have their cake and eat it too.

Sinurgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:30 PM
  #371
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 2,974
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
That hasn't been the legal precedent... It was a novel legal argument that has never been fought in court by a major sports organization to my knowledge.
Actually, it was this guy(John Feerick) in 1999 who made that decision and argument -- but as an arbiter! So, you're right it would not be binding precedent, but you can bet the league will reference it. I seem to remember that it was him acting from a bench, but I was clearly wrong.

The decertification process would never go anywhere because the players are complete idiots and you have guys like Ryan Miller saying things like, “They want to see if we will take a bad deal because we get desperate or if we have the strength to push back. Decertification is a push back and should show we want a negotiation and a fair deal on at least some of our terms.”
Which makes the decertification a transparent part of the negotiating -- and that has been stomped repeatedly by the NLRB, including in the sports arena.
It would also take several years and millions of dollars in legal fees to sort out in court even if the NLRB did allow it, and I'm sure that neither side sees that as ideal. Then the players would be sitting there unemployed paying out the individual lawyer fees in Anti-trust suits for at least a year without a union to pay for it and without a union to agree to negotiate a new CBA. It'd be the worst move on the table -- it's so clearly a negotiating ploy.

Quote:
There have been many examples of pro sports leagues that played seasons or portions of seasons without a CBA.
The owners and union both agreed to honour the contracts under those circumstances.

Quote:
The contracts are unenforceable at the moment not because there is no CBA, but because the owners have locked out the players.
Well, this is becoming a semantic argument. You are correct -- the CBA guarantees the contracts by binding the league to an agreement prohibiting a lockout. Without such a CBA, the league can unilaterally refuse to honour the contracts. The contracts are null in such a circumstance. If a party may leave an agreement at will, the contract is pretty meaningless.


Quote:
If the owners lifted the lockout tomorrow the contracts would be fully enforceable even though the NHL and PA hadn't negotiated a new CBA yet.
Yes, if the owners unilaterally decide to honour the contracts, they would be binding. We're just arguing semantics. I don't think we're in real disagreement anywhere.

_Del_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:09 AM
  #372
TickleMeYandle
Not so fast,
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Jamaica
Posts: 1,262
vCash: 500
My husband was at the practice, lots of coyotes fans there - although I did tell him he should go specifically because Crosby et all were there, and when will you ever get a chance to see such a collection of players, other than the all star game?

It was sad to see Whitney with a stars sticker on his bucket.

TickleMeYandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:38 PM
  #373
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,851
vCash: 500
Looks like Morrow and Ribeiro are UFA after this season. Both players LOVE Tippett and played by far their best hockey under him.

I know it's just a pipe dream but...

Doan-Vermette-Boedker
Morrow-Ribeiro-Korpikoski
Sullivan-Hanzal-Vrbata
Chipchura-Gordon-Moss
Bissonnette

OEL-Michalek
Yandle-Morris
Klesa-?????????
???

Smith
Not LaBarbera

rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 06:47 PM
  #374
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
Looks like Morrow and Ribeiro are UFA after this season. Both players LOVE Tippett and played by far their best hockey under him.
If that comes to pass (UFA free-for-all) Dallas is going to look pretty stupid, giving up assets for Roy and Ribeiro. The Coyotes are relatively unexposed, with Smith, Gordon and Torres up for grabs should this madness come to pass. Have to wonder if Maloney planned for it. If so... genius.

XX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 10:06 PM
  #375
Blubba Jenkins
Staying Faithful
 
Blubba Jenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NE Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
If that comes to pass (UFA free-for-all) Dallas is going to look pretty stupid, giving up assets for Roy and Ribeiro. The Coyotes are relatively unexposed, with Smith, Gordon and Torres up for grabs should this madness come to pass. Have to wonder if Maloney planned for it. If so... genius.
All 3 of those are quality assets though, depending on whether Torres castrates himself.

Blubba Jenkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:08 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.