HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 12:06 PM
  #726
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,338
vCash: 500
I think they've come too far for this to fall apart, however, if it does, the season is lost definitely. This is obviously it one way or another.

Lundsanity30 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:08 PM
  #727
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,745
vCash: 500
Because nobody benefits. Small market teams still won't be able to afford the cream of the crop while big markets, hamstrung by small markets lowering the cap, will be in cap hell. If the CBA gives the players the option to have Kovalchuk-esque deals, players will get Kovalchuk deals and everybody elese loses.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:09 PM
  #728
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
I think they've come too far for this to fall apart, however, if it does, the season is lost definitely. This is obviously it one way or another.
While you are probably right, you never know. They could have a blow up today and it could look like a lost cause, only to have them come to an agreement tomorrow. At the end of the day, it's not over until it's over.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:09 PM
  #729
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,074
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
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.
Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong.

What is the need for contract length limits? If you agree to a 5% variance from year to year, and reports are that the NHLPA is somewhat likely to agree to this, then "lifetime" deals become much less of an issue.

Why should the players be forced to sacrifice job security because the owners and GMs can't control themselves? You tighten up these loopholes and management will just find some new way to exploit the system and **** themselves. And predictably, they'll come back and try to force the players into conceding some other benefit.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:09 PM
  #730
The Perfect Paradox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,514
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
I think they've come too far for this to fall apart, however, if it does, the season is lost definitely. This is obviously it one way or another.
I agree, I feel that this is the final 'push' to save the season. However, I can't help but to feel that people are living and dying with every single tweet/report (then again, this is HF :laugh). This is a negotiation, constant ups and downs are nothing but expected.

The Perfect Paradox is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:11 PM
  #731
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong.

What is the need for contract length limits? If you agree to a 5% variance from year to year, and reports are that the NHLPA is somewhat likely to agree to this, then "lifetime" deals become much less of an issue.

Why should the players be forced to sacrifice job security because the owners and GMs can't control themselves? You tighten up these loopholes and management will just find some new way to exploit the system and **** themselves. And predictably, they'll come back and try to force the players into conceding some other benefit.
This is why I don't see why its not the PA asking for a longer term. The players will always win out at the end of the deal as long as revenue continues to grow.

iamitter is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:12 PM
  #732
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,074
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
Because nobody benefits. Small market teams still won't be able to afford the cream of the crop while big markets, hamstrung by small markets lowering the cap, will be in cap hell. If the CBA gives the players the option to have Kovalchuk-esque deals, players will get Kovalchuk deals and everybody elese loses.
But with yearly variance limits a Kovalchuk-type deal is impossible. That deal was "illegal" because of all the extra years with negligible cap hits that decreased the AAV. If a cap hit can't decrease more than 5% from one season to the next, there's no benefit to signing a guy to a 15 year deal because you're not helping decrease the AAV of the contract.

nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:13 PM
  #733
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,020
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
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?
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with it. But its obviously beneficial for the owners if its not in there, which is why they're trying to negotiate it out.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:15 PM
  #734
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong.

What is the need for contract length limits? If you agree to a 5% variance from year to year, and reports are that the NHLPA is somewhat likely to agree to this, then "lifetime" deals become much less of an issue.

Why should the players be forced to sacrifice job security because the owners and GMs can't control themselves? You tighten up these loopholes and management will just find some new way to exploit the system and **** themselves. And predictably, they'll come back and try to force the players into conceding some other benefit.
The need is to prevent mega-term contracts that get longer and longer and longer over time as players seek the guaranteed security of contract length as part of their contract demands. If there was no cap on length, teams would eventually outbid each other to give more and more marginal players longer and longer deals to lure them to sign. The very thing which the owners are apparently supposed to "control themselves from doing" is built into the bidding process.


What happens when a player signs a long term deal and then declines rapidly or gets injured? The team is still on the hook to pay that player. The flexibility in teams to get out from those contracts in a reasonable amount of time promotes turnover for the best talent to get on the ice, which is good for the game.

The NFL and NBA both have term limits because it's good for the sport in general. The vast majority of NHL players will never even be affected by having 5 (or 6 or 7) year long max contracts.

The people losing out are the Brad Richards and Rick DiPietros who want retirement contracts.

And the rest of the NHLPA is apparently ready to follow them off a cliff so that they can have it.

It's insane. The players are actually hurting themselves here.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:16 PM
  #735
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,074
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with it. But its obviously beneficial for the owners if its not in there, which is why they're trying to negotiate it out.
Well, it's beneficial for the poorer clubs if it's not an option. It's not beneficial for profitable teams that can afford to sign someone for 12 years. Which is why the owners, I'd wager, will cave on the contract length--they're divided.

nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:20 PM
  #736
PassShootScore
208 Row 18
 
PassShootScore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 634
vCash: 1150
“@brianlawton9: Don't get bogged down in the drama playing out today, which sure 2 continue, deal gets done, both parties see finish line! @nhl @nhlpa #CBA”

PassShootScore is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:20 PM
  #737
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,020
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Well, it's beneficial for the poorer clubs if it's not an option. It's not beneficial for profitable teams that can afford to sign someone for 12 years. Which is why the owners, I'd wager, will cave on the contract length--they're divided.
I will disagree with you there. I'd guess if term limits were put to owners in a silent vote it would be 30-0 for them.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:21 PM
  #738
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,678
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
Then there's this: transition issues have not been discussed at all. Many minefields remain ahead. It's going to take time.
Thanx Larree

Quote:
Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Told that two sides have "tentatively" agreed to meet this afternoon
Traction

BBKers is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:23 PM
  #739
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I will disagree with you there. I'd guess if term limits were put to owners in a silent vote it would be 30-0 for them.
Especially when you consider contracts can only be insured up to 7 years.

iamitter is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:23 PM
  #740
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong.

What is the need for contract length limits? If you agree to a 5% variance from year to year, and reports are that the NHLPA is somewhat likely to agree to this, then "lifetime" deals become much less of an issue.

Why should the players be forced to sacrifice job security because the owners and GMs can't control themselves? You tighten up these loopholes and management will just find some new way to exploit the system and **** themselves. And predictably, they'll come back and try to force the players into conceding some other benefit.
Exactly. Strict variance allowances and over 35 rules on contracts eliminate the need for contract limits. Is a team really going to want to give a 28 year old star a 13 year, 100M contract when they are going to have nearly an 8M cap hit for the entire duration of the term?

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:26 PM
  #741
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,074
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
The need is to prevent mega-term contracts that get longer and longer and longer over time as players seek the guaranteed security of contract length as part of their contract demands.

What happens when a player signs a long term deal and then declines rapidly or gets injured? The team is still on the hook to pay that player. The flexibility in teams to get out from those contracts in a reasonable amount of time promotes turnover for the best talent to get on the ice, which is good for the game.

The NFL and NBA both have term limits because it's good for the sport in general. The vast majority of NHL players will never even be affected by having 5 (or 6 or 7) year long max contracts.

The people losing out are the Brad Richards and Rick DiPietros who want retirement contracts.

And the rest of the NHLPA is apparently ready to follow them off a cliff so that they can have it.

It's insane. The players are actually hurting themselves here.
And MLB doesn't have term limits, nor a salary cap. And yet nearly all of the teams post operating profits (27 of 30). Term limited contracts are not a prerequisite to a successful league or profitable teams.

It's fiscal irresponsibility on the part of management that drives these massive deals. They think, "We have to spend big bucks to compete!" when in fact they don't. Smart utilization of resources is what makes a consistent winner. But these guys in front offices across the league get into bidding wars and piss themselves. Then they try to correct their idiocy by making rules that state they can only act stupid to a certain degree. At the expense of the players, of course.

nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:31 PM
  #742
PassShootScore
208 Row 18
 
PassShootScore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 634
vCash: 1150
“@LouisJean_TVA: Th plan that was discussed with owners was that IF season resumes soon, 56-game season is porbable. 4 games within Division. Limited travel.”

PassShootScore is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:38 PM
  #743
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,120
vCash: 500
Can they stop dicking around and get this done idc which side is being stupid just man up.

RGY is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:39 PM
  #744
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
And MLB doesn't have term limits, nor a salary cap. And yet nearly all of the teams post operating profits (27 of 30). Term limited contracts are not a prerequisite to a successful league or profitable teams.

It's fiscal irresponsibility on the part of management that drives these massive deals. They think, "We have to spend big bucks to compete!" when in fact they don't. Smart utilization of resources is what makes a consistent winner. But these guys in front offices across the league get into bidding wars and piss themselves. Then they try to correct their idiocy by making rules that state they can only act stupid to a certain degree. At the expense of the players, of course.
Right, in this age of a hard cap the goal is to maximize the value from each player. That's a lot easier to do when you are paying someone 2.5M than when you are paying 7.5M. At the very least you're already expecting nearly 3 times the production from the higher priced guy...and as we all know that doesn't usually happen. When you add to the fact that these stars production will decline as they hit their mid 30s and beyond, that further supports the importance of proper resource utilization. But again, the owners don't want to be responsible...they just want to restrict how much they can spend so they don't act stupidly. At the end of the day they simply can't control themselves.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:53 PM
  #745
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,120
vCash: 500
The transition issues Brooks is making a big deal about can probably be taken care of after the deal is agreed to.

RGY is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 12:57 PM
  #746
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
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.
It's simple bargaining. If you give up anything you should do it for a price. The players aren't getting anything for term limit, they'll lose more next cba. This is essentially all take. The union has to hang onto rights for future bargaining.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:03 PM
  #747
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
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.
It's not just cap circumvention at stake, it's also teams having to offer extra years for players they know won't compete at the end of the contract because the extra years is what gets them to sign.

"We'll deal with it later". Owners would rather it be prohibited under the CBA and not have to deal with it at all

GordonGecko is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:03 PM
  #748
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,020
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
It's simple bargaining. If you give up anything you should do it for a price.
Yeah, I have no issue with the players putting up a fight against term limits.

I just have issue with the suggestion that owners have the power to control contract lengths. It's spitting in the face of basic economics.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:04 PM
  #749
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
It's simple bargaining. If you give up anything you should do it for a price. The players aren't getting anything for term limit, they'll lose more next cba. This is essentially all take. The union has to hang onto rights for future bargaining.
Exactly. Once the players agree to put it on the table it will be hacked at further next time around. If the players were to agree to even a 10 year term limit, that's a win for the owners, because next time they'll ask for 5 and expect to meet somewhere in the middle.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 01:05 PM
  #750
GordonGecko
Stanley Cup 2015
 
GordonGecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassShootScore View Post
@LouisJean_TVA: Th plan that was discussed with owners was that IF season resumes soon, 56-game season is porbable. 4 games within Division. Limited travel.
Except that they lose substantial TV money if there's anything less than 61 games

GordonGecko 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 05:09 PM.

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.