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...??
right, term is perhaps an indication of how good a deal the owners think they're making for themselves and how the players are skittish about all the givebacks they're making once again.
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****
We are being fed info which might or might not be accurate.
My guess is that Fehr only knows 1 way to play the game and that is to extract every concession he can. I do believe one of his strengths is his understanding of when it's time to make a deal. That's why he was hired.
The trick is for him not to overplay the hand since a cancelled season might not make him a hero? Looking back everyone will be able to judge if the pA prospered or was set back under a Fehr union.
We are being fed info which might or might not be accurate.
My guess is that Fehr only knows 1 way to play the game and that is to extract every concession he can. I do believe one of his strengths is his understanding of when it's time to make a deal. That's why he was hired.
The trick is for him not to overplay the hand since a cancelled season might not make him a hero? Looking back everyone will be able to judge if aFehrr victory is a credit to him but a loss to the players.
Good points.
Elliot Friedman (I believe its him just tuned in) is on Sirius. Pretty good listen with him evaluating both sides right now. He's ripping the situation and how people are reacting to the media. He does believe there is still hope tonight.
I think Fehr walks into the meeting tonight and backs off a little.
NHLPA has been meeting all day at the location. Owners arrived 45 minutes ago.
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...??
It's an unfortunate effect of contentious bargaining. If one side asks for a long term, the other side questions why and usually figures it's because the proposing side thinks they're making out like bandits. So they'll fight over it even if it's not in their best interest to do so.
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.
Do they sign bottom 6 guys now for 3-4 years?
If you are referring to a young, valuable bottom 6 guy, I don't see why not.
If I give Gaborik a 5 year deal, what's preventing me from giving Boyle a 3-4 year deal if the price is right?
You see backups in the NBA and NFL getting multi-year deals so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.
If you are referring to a young, valuable bottom 6 guy, I don't see why not.
If I give Gaborik a 5 year deal, what's preventing me from giving Boyle a 3-4 year deal if the price is right?
You see backups in the NBA and NFL getting multi-year deals so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.
NFL contracts and many low-end NBA contracts are non-guaranteed. Minimal risk. NFL allows contracts to be restructured. NHL isn't like that. The Jets could cut most of their backups tomorrow and face no penalty. The Knicks could drop Copeland and Rasheed. You can't cut or restructure Boyle.
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: No NHL owners in today's negotiating session with NHLPA. Some have gone home, some still around but "owner-player" train left station.”
If you are referring to a young, valuable bottom 6 guy, I don't see why not.
If I give Gaborik a 5 year deal, what's preventing me from giving Boyle a 3-4 year deal if the price is right?
You see backups in the NBA and NFL getting multi-year deals so your argument doesn't seem to hold up.
To be honest, I dont really know what you're arguing anymore.
You keep bringing up Gaborik as some sort of template. He was coming off of major surgery when he was signed to the current 5 year deal. Minnesota offered him 10 when he was healthy.
I do agree that contract term lengths only effect the top 10% of players in the league. But where is it going to help the other players exactly? If anything it will drive contracts down for them. The longer deals of the past circumvented the cap to a degree and actually created MORE cap space on an annual basis for bottom 6 guys to get signed.
Those were all 3 year deals (minus Avery I think). I just don't see how a 5 year limit would affect them.
Boogaard was four. Toronto signed Orr for four. I'm just thinking of our guys and there are probably plenty more.
It depresses the market. Creates a new normal. Bottom six guys won't see three- and four-year deals anymore. Two years instead. The new normal will be shorter deals for all. I know you and Schmidt don't buy it but I'm convinced.
Cap the years at 8, maybe even 7, and it's not an issue. No more retirement contracts and no effect on the other guys. 5 years is lunacy.
“@TSNBobMcKenzie: No NHL owners in today's negotiating session with NHLPA. Some have gone home, some still around but "owner-player" train left station.”
Something about this whole storyline doesn't ring true
Boogaard was four. Toronto signed Orr for four. I'm just thinking of our guys and there are probably plenty more.
It depresses the market. Creates a new normal. Bottom six guys won't see three- and four-year deals anymore. Two years instead. The new normal will be shorter deals for all. I know you and Schmidt don't buy it but I'm convinced.
Cap the years at 8, maybe even 7, and it's not an issue. No more retirement contracts and no effect on the other guys. 5 years is lunacy.
Yeah, just don't see the players agreeing to go from no limit to 5 or 6 years. Not happening imo. Perhaps 7 or 8, but even that is asking them a lot.
Boogaard was four. Toronto signed Orr for four. I'm just thinking of our guys and there are probably plenty more.
It depresses the market. Creates a new normal. Bottom six guys won't see three- and four-year deals anymore. Two years instead. The new normal will be shorter deals for all. I know you and Schmidt don't buy it but I'm convinced.
Cap the years at 8, maybe even 7, and it's not an issue. No more retirement contracts and no effect on the other guys. 5 years is lunacy.
Well, the NHL wants to allow 7 years for re-signing players which are actually most who are affected. But I'd also say a little increase (6/8) would be better.
Either way I just don't think this issue should be the reason to miss even one more game, let alone the season.
Count me not a fan of a 5 year limit. 7 is a solid number.
Yes, I'm not a big fan of the special treatment for a team re-signing their own player. Call it 7 or 8 years max on all contracts, 10% variance from year to year salary, and get this done. Let's play hockey already.
