“@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.”
“@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“@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”
“@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”
“@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”
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.
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.
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?
