HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIII: "The 11th Hour" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 10:30 AM
  #701
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 30,992
vCash: 500
From: @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Sent: Dec 6, 2012 11:29a

On one hand, don't think they're far from agreement on principle issues. But on flip side, clearly a sense this thing is hanging by a thread

sent via web
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun/s...25016727535616

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:32 AM
  #702
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: Talk to some owners/NHL people, sense is this blows up today. Talk to other owners who say no way we lose season over these differences.”

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:34 AM
  #703
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: Talk to some owners/NHL people, sense is this blows up today. Talk to other owners who say no way we lose season over these differences.”
That's why there'll be a season. The players know this too.

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:38 AM
  #704
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 30,992
vCash: 500
Both sides have divided houses. Read McKenzie's tweets.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:40 AM
  #705
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I think they will. Every contract that's signed is in some way relative to past contracts that are signed. What you wrote is indeed what I'm suggesting. Top players will get five year deals. Lesser players are going to have to have to settle for less--GMs will take the approach that, "Player X is great and he got five years, there's no way we're giving you the same." Some lesser players may see longer-term deals still but on average you'll see less and less.
I completely disagree.

The owners are attempting to get the length of contracts under control with a "cap" on them via the rules through the CBA.

Once the bidding starts, the inherent flow of those deals is to escalate, because that's the nature of bidding.

It would be unfathomable to me to see a downward swing in new contract lengths.

If the Rangers only want to give Del Zotto a three year deal, someone else will give him four or five, as long as they can afford him under the cap.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:40 AM
  #706
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Both sides have divided houses. Read McKenzie's tweets.
Okay...and that doesn't imply those owners or players bent over about the small things think it's worth losing a season over them.

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:43 AM
  #707
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
“@DarrenDreger: A few of the owners pushed hard yest to boost Make Whole to $300 mil to close deal. It wasn't received well which infuriated owners.”


The owners came all the way to $300 million and the players didn't like it.

But the players aren't being greedy.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:45 AM
  #708
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 15,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post


The owners came all the way to $300 million and the players didn't like it.

But the players aren't being greedy.
It's not actually $300M. It's $250M with $50M set aside for pensions.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:46 AM
  #709
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,763
vCash: 50
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...26611993309184

Quote:
Many players here don't like what's on table - "what's in it for us" mantra - but many others not here say this could be a workable deal.
What's in it for us? How about a billions of dollars?

-31- is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:46 AM
  #710
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
By every fabric of my being and someone on the far left of the political spectrum, I am pro-union, pro-player, and pro-worker.

But if the terms of the CBA are as have been leaked, the players have to accept them.

Perhaps they are holding out for the one more small bit of league concession and it they don't get it, will accept things as they are.

We're so close you can taste it, but perhaps also so far if neither side want to come to a negotiated middle.

It's time for both sides to swallow any misgivings and come to an agreement. Now.

alkurtz is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:47 AM
  #711
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post


The owners came all the way to $300 million and the players didn't like it.

But the players aren't being greedy.
Players originally asked for $389 million...NHL originally offered $211 million. However, the league now upped it to $300 million, but only $250 million of that goes to the Make Whole, the other $50 million goes to pension funding.

NHL needs to come up to something like $350 million for the players to feel its a fair compromise I would assume.

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:48 AM
  #712
fxhomie
Registered User
 
fxhomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: East CoCo County, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
It's not actually $300M. It's $250M with $50M set aside for pensions.
In other words, $50M deferred...

fxhomie is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:50 AM
  #713
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 500
Yea but the 50M pension funding is still going to their pensions. They will get that is just won't be as soon as the first 250M.

Its not like they will not actually be getting the full 300 mil.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:53 AM
  #714
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
I want a deal today god ****ing dammit.

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:54 AM
  #715
silverfish
Comfortably Numb
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 13,179
vCash: 500
This is what I get to allowing any sense of optimism to creep in yesterday.

Back to full on pessimism for me!

silverfish is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:54 AM
  #716
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 15,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Yea but the 50M pension funding is still going to their pensions. They will get that is just won't be as soon as the first 250M.

Its not like they will not actually be getting the full 300 mil.
It is, but the "make whole" provision is supposed to pertain to existing contracts that will be negatively effected by the new CBA. That $50M chunk could have a big impact on how that fund is divided amongst current contracts.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 10:56 AM
  #717
fxhomie
Registered User
 
fxhomie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: East CoCo County, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 141
vCash: 500
Assuming the pension money is properly invested, the net net would actually be >$300M.

fxhomie is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:04 AM
  #718
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
“@aaronward_nhl: At this stage,doesn't appear the Union will take this present NHL offer to a full vote.PA still actively engaged in internal meetings #TSN”

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:06 AM
  #719
PassShootScore
208 Row 18
 
PassShootScore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 619
vCash: 1150
“@aaronward_nhl: At this stage,doesn't appear the Union will take this present NHL offer to a full vote.PA still actively engaged in internal meetings #TSN”

PassShootScore is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:20 AM
  #720
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis View Post
“@aaronward_nhl: At this stage,doesn't appear the Union will take this present NHL offer to a full vote.PA still actively engaged in internal meetings #TSN”
Makes sense.

Too much time until Friday.

ltrangerfan is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:24 AM
  #721
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,398
vCash: 500
This is ridiculous. The long-term cap circumventing deals are effectively stealing from the average player through escrow. Those long-term deals really only benefit the best. And I don't believe in a trickle down effect either. Which players are we even talking about, that will suddenly get shorter deals? How many mid- to low-profile UFAs got 4+ years before? I don't think that really an issue.

And CBA length? Didn't the NHLPA learn from these two lockouts? The players would've gladly kept the old CBA in place, so a longer CBA will most likely benefit them. They can't really believe that they will suddenly get a bigger share next time, can they?

The owners should increase the make whole like was suggested here and maybe offer 6/8 as contract limits. And then let's drop the puck please. If these issues are the reason for a lost season, that has to be the dumbest decision in sports ever.

jniklast is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:27 AM
  #722
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,466
vCash: 500
“@KatieStrangESPN: #CBA As of ten minutes ago, NHLPA was still meeting internally”

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
  #723
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
This is ridiculous. The long-term cap circumventing deals are effectively stealing from the average player through escrow. Those long-term deals really only benefit the best. And I don't believe in a trickle down effect either. Which players are we even talking about, that will suddenly get shorter deals? How many mid- to low-profile UFAs got 4+ years before? I don't think that really an issue.

And CBA length? Didn't the NHLPA learn from these two lockouts? The players would've gladly kept the old CBA in place, so a longer CBA will most likely benefit them. They can't really believe that they will suddenly get a bigger share next time, can they?

The owners should increase the make whole like was suggested here and maybe offer 6/8 as contract limits. And then let's drop the puck please. If these issues are the reason for a lost season, that has to be the dumbest decision in sports ever.
There is no need for a contract term limit. Simply implement a strict policy preventing the salary from deviating by more than 10% or 20% per year (compared to ~50% at present) and the issue of cap circumvention is essentially resolved. Furthermore, require that any years beyond a certain age count against a team's cap, like the over 35 contracts now. If a team still wants to offer a lifetime contract to a player why should anyone have a problem with that? The only reason the owners want to implement all these limits is to protect them from themselves...but that's their problem.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:03 PM
  #724
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,763
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
The only reason the owners want to implement all these limits is to protect them from themselves...but that's their problem.
No, it's simple economics.

If the option is there for players to get ridiculous term, they will.

-31- is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:04 PM
  #725
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
No, it's simple economics.

If the option is there for players to get ridiculous term, they will.
Again, if a player can get a ridiculous term/contract what's wrong with that as long as it doesn't give that team an unfair advantage by skirting the cap?

broadwayblue 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 06:40 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.