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, 02:18 PM
  #801
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
EDIT: As I fear that I'm taking us off track, I'll bring it back to my initial point--contract length limits are unnecessary, especially with a small yearly deviance cap. I'm not advocating for the baseball model, simply illustrating that a lack of contract length limits hasn't been detrimental to the competitive balance of that sport. The "broken" system in the NHL has been just as successful as any other system when it comes to allowing numerous teams to succeed. Capping contract lengths won't suddenly make poor teams profitable, and it won't make them more competitive.
I'm saying max contract lengths is good for the sport and good for ownership and good for most players because most of them are not gonna get over a 5 year deal anyway.

It just frees up badly invested money sooner. And all it costs is the retirement packages for a small handful of superstars.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:19 PM
  #802
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,285
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Not only winning titles. The NFL and NBA simply don't have black hole franchises that do not compete like the MLB does. You would get that but worse if the NHL continued to move towards the MLB product.

The NBA has had a couple that are horribly run but it's not due to lack of income so much.
As my edit explained, I'm not interested in moving toward the MLB system. The NHL needs to come up with its own model for success. I don't think contract limits need to be part of it though.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:20 PM
  #803
useref15
Registered User
 
useref15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Not only winning titles. The NFL and NBA simply don't have black hole franchises that do not compete like the MLB does. You would get that but worse if the NHL continued to move towards the MLB product.

The NBA has had a couple that are horribly run but it's not due to lack of income so much.
Thats not true. Only a few teams in the NBA actually profit.

useref15 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:20 PM
  #804
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,720
vCash: 500
Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
Many feel #NHL is trying to squeeze players as much as possible as long as there's time on the clock.

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
@PredPAPaul Sense players are more willing to miss entire season than owners are if we were to reach that point

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
@AwsumnessReigns players


Tim Panaccio ‏@tpanotchCSN
there is no confirmation whether mediators can arrive today or whether the NHL will agree to re-introduce them to the process.

JoshuaCooper ‏@JoshuaCooper
From the periphery, the mediation request seems like stall tactic...

RGY is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:25 PM
  #805
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,285
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I'm saying max contract lengths is good for the sport and good for ownership and good for most players because most of them are not gonna get over a 5 year deal anyway.

It just frees up badly invested money sooner. And all it costs is the retirement packages for a small handful of superstars.
Sather has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract. You get rid of one, he'll add another. Again, it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of management that's responsible for these deals. You see a quicker turnaround on freeing up poorly spent money, I see a quicker turnaround on new poorly-spent money.

If teams want to waste their money and struggle as a result, we should let them. If the Isles want to give an overrated goalie a gajillion-year contract, hot on the heels of getting burned by Yashin's billion-year deal, why should they be stopped?

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:25 PM
  #806
Rangers79
Registered User
 
Rangers79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
I think we're all just freaking out and speculating about nothing. No one knows what's going on inside right now. Let's just hope they meet this afternoon and that things can be patched over and continue to advance

Rangers79 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:29 PM
  #807
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,285
vCash: 500
Awards:
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:32 PM
  #808
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Sather has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract. You get rid of one, he'll add another.
If a team has 7 million a year tied up in DiPietro for the next decade right now, well, what if he was capped at 5 years instead?

A poor GM might hand out another bad deal, but you can be sure it's not going to DiPietro again.

It's good for the other players to spread the money around instead of keeping it all in Rick DiPietro's pocket.

In a cap system where the owners can't spend beyond a certain amount, less for Rick DiPietro means more for someone else.

So once again, these long term deals are only benefitting the few players who receive them and hurting all the other players.

Quote:
Again, it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of management that's responsible for these deals. You see a quicker turnaround on freeing up poorly spent money, I see a quicker turnaround on new poorly-spent money.
So? It still gets more evenly distributed among the players.

Instead of one 10 year, 70 million dollar contract (for example), at worst you've now got two 5 year, 35 million dollar contracts. It's a 2-for-1.

Quote:
If teams want to waste their money and struggle as a result, we should let them.
Why should we let them? The CBA is in place not only to govern the relationships between players and owners, but also for the good of the game.

It's best for the sport not to allow these deals. You claim you see "new poorly spent money" but that is not necessarily true. Did the Rangers sign another Scott Gomez after freeing themselves from his contract? No, they invested that money much more wisely in Marian Gaborik.

It improved their team more, which improves the quality of the product they put on the ice, which improves the game.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:34 PM
  #809
tpb209
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by useref15 View Post
Thats not true. Only a few teams in the NBA actually profit.
A good portion of the "losses" of several NBA teams is actually due to accounting.

For instance, after the Nets were sold, the purchase price was much greater than the tangible assets of the franchise, so the difference between the two had to go on the balance sheet as an intangible asset. A portion of this total is then amortized over a certain length of time. This shows up on the income statement of the team as an expense, but no actual money was lost.

In 2005, the Nets declared a loss of over $40 million, but actual dollar amounts were around $7 or $8 million. This is true for all franchises that have been sold recently.

tpb209 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:34 PM
  #810
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.
Agreed - get creative with it. At 5 years, the year to year variance can be 10%, at 7-8 years, its 5%, something like that. But overall, yes, I think the 5 year thing is bonkers.

I also cant believe this is the issue that could cancel a season.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:35 PM
  #811
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I could probably capitulate to a contract length limit if I gained something in return. The players may eventually as well. Not five years though. Five years is insane. Eight years, something like that.
I don't see why the players should have to "get anything." They are getting the benefit of shorter contracts, which helps most of them.

But I agree I think 5 years is a bit too short. There is also something to be said for a team being able to maintain stability with it's stars. That is also good for the product.

I'd go with 7 years like the NFL does.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:37 PM
  #812
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I don't see why the players should have to "get anything." They are getting the benefit of shorter contracts, which helps most of them.

But I agree I think 5 years is a bit too short. There is also something to be said for a team being able to maintain stability with it's stars. That is also good for the product.

I'd go with 7 years like the NFL does.
How do limited contracts benefit the players? Thats an insane thing to say.

Its about security for them.

Ive taken the owners side on a lot of issues, but not this one. They need to deal with the year to year variance issues far more than capping a term on contract lengths. Thats like going to the dentist for a cleaning and coming out with a root canal.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:37 PM
  #813
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
Many feel #NHL is trying to squeeze players as much as possible as long as there's time on the clock.

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
@PredPAPaul Sense players are more willing to miss entire season than owners are if we were to reach that point

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland
@AwsumnessReigns players


Tim Panaccio ‏@tpanotchCSN
there is no confirmation whether mediators can arrive today or whether the NHL will agree to re-introduce them to the process.

JoshuaCooper ‏@JoshuaCooper
From the periphery, the mediation request seems like stall tactic...
Still time on the clock? For what?

It's ****ing 12/6/12 already.

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:39 PM
  #814
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,285
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
If a team has 7 million a year tied up in DiPietro for the next decade right now, well, what if he was capped at 5 years instead?

A poor GM might hand out another bad deal, but you can be sure it's not going to DiPietro again.

It's good for the other players to spread the money around instead of keeping it all in Rick DiPietro's pocket.

In a cap system where the owners can't spend beyond a certain amount, less for Rick DiPietro means more for someone else.

So once again, these long term deals are only benefitting the few players who receive them and hurting all the other players.



So? It still gets more evenly distributed among the players.

Instead of one 10 year, 70 million dollar contract (for example), at worst you've now got two 5 year, 35 million dollar contracts. It's a 2-for-1.



Why should we let them? The CBA is in place not only to govern the relationships between players and owners, but also for the good of the game.

It's best for the sport not to allow these deals. You claim you see "new poorly spent money" but that is not necessarily true. Did the Rangers sign another Scott Gomez after freeing themselves from his contract? No, they invested that money much more wisely in Marian Gaborik.

It improved their team more, which improves the quality of the product they put on the ice, which improves the game.
I'm getting too tired to keep going back and forth.

Goes to show how tough these negotiations are. You and I could go for days on just this topic. And neither of us (I'm assuming) have any financial stake in these discussions.

I do collective bargaining for a living, and damn does it get stressful. When you have a true vested interest in the negotiations it gets that much more heated.

I just hope that they get a deal done that works for all parties...and soon.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:43 PM
  #815
-31-
portnor, pls
 
-31-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,738
vCash: 50
https://twitter.com/adater/status/276788428388052992

Quote:
I've been pro-union most of the way,but I truly feel Fehr is messing up by pushing for peanut differences. Risk of losing all peanuts real
https://twitter.com/HackswithHaggs/s...87647672897536

Quote:
I think the players and NHLPA have been in right for most of this CBA fight, but they have to be real careful of alienating moderate owners

-31- is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:45 PM
  #816
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
How do limited contracts benefit the players? Thats an insane thing to say.

Its about security for them.
If they think it's about security, they need to re-think the issue.

Seriously, tell me how much of a percentage of the players get over 5 year deals anyway.

Is it more than 5%? 10%? I highly doubt it.

So for the vast majority of players, they never get more than 5 year deals anyway. So by capping contract lengths at 5 years, 90% of those players are not affected.

Therefore, the argument that it's about "security" only affects the players getting contracts longer than 5 years.

And for a player that is getting a longer-than-5-year-deal.... well... it ain't gonna be for the league minimum, ya follow? A player who has gotten one of these ten or twelve year deals is getting $5 million, $7 million, or $9 million a season.

So don't tell me about security. They don't need it. They want more cash in their pockets like any greedy person.

The people who need "security" are the players who make the league minimum. The ones who are only gonna have 4-5 year careers and who will sacrifice their bodies and then have to get real jobs afterwards.

So how does this benefit them?

Well, like I just said.... if you give Rick DiPietro a 10 year, $70 million deal, under a cap system, that is $70 million that cannot be given to any other player who plays during that 10 year period.

So if you limit Rick DiPietro's contract to 5 years, well, Rick still walks away with $35 million. So I scoff at his silly "security" needs.

But now after 5 years, you can divide that remaining $35 million among new players. Some of it will trickle down to the role players and the smaller guys who DO NEED security.

At the very least, even if a GM rushes right out and makes another bad contract, at the very least, it has been two 5 year contracts worth $35 million each, instead of one 10 year contract worth $70 million. At the very worst, you have turned one bad contract into two.

But now, the money that you would have paid that second bad contract has been freed up. So it will trickle down to the smaller players.

That's how it helps the players.

The only people who have a vested interest in these long term deals are the megastars.

It's only "insanity" not to realize they are the ones who primarily benefit here, and that the small time players who NEED the money would benefit much more from shorter contracts for everyone. It puts the big fish more on their level.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:47 PM
  #817
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 30,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Plus, while the rank-and-file membership might support the official NHLPA position of a shorter deal being better, their instincts could be to want a longer deal. That would prevent them from having to go through another CBA squabble during their careers.

They don't like the cap on contracts, but the reality is that the majority of players don't receive contracts longer than five years. Those multiyear deals are generally for star players.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...posal/1750611/

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
  #818
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL605 View Post
Still time on the clock? For what?

It's ****ing 12/6/12 already.
until the season is canceled there is still time on the clock

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
  #819
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 30,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Owners just arrived at the hotel. Don't know yet at what time talks will start.
https://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/sta...89799669596161

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:49 PM
  #820
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
They don't like the cap on contracts, but the reality is that the majority of players don't receive contracts longer than five years. Those multiyear deals are generally for star players.
Ding ding ding!

Winner!

I should write for the USA Today.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:54 PM
  #821
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,092
vCash: 500
I like how basically the entire day has been no real news because the players have been in meetings, so every person with a twitter account needs to weigh on what's happening right this moment, where talks stand, who's screwing up and making a mistake, etc

Nothing at all has happened, nothing has changed, players have been meeting and that's it.

Levitate is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:55 PM
  #822
nevesis
#30
 
nevesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 6,407
vCash: 500
“@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Told meeting between NHL and NHLPA will start 5 pm ET at the earliest.”

nevesis is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:56 PM
  #823
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
I was thinking about this earlier. It seems like it would be backwards. You'd think the NHL would want a shorter term in case they screw up the CBA again and you'd think the players would want a longer term so they don't have to have as many givebacks in future CBA's...??

Jackson Ranger is online now  
Old
12-06-2012, 02:56 PM
  #824
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Ding ding ding!

Winner!

I should write for the USA Today.
Youve given little to no thought about how that would effect the market for players overall.

If the longest they can sign a star player for is 5 years, you think they're going to be willing to sign a bottom 6 guy for 3-4 years. They'd see their terms lowered to. You've apparently fooled yourself into thinking all will be fine with them.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
12-06-2012, 03:03 PM
  #825
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,720
vCash: 500
Like the tweets above, I'm pro union, but if Fehr is going to pull this bs trying to salvage every last victory/peanut for the NHLPA then he is a true ass****

RGY 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 06:16 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.