HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Thread 2: Deal reached in early morning hours

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 01:48 PM
  #126
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Damn you Kozlov, that OT game and 2 more wins and the Hawks would have made for a better final.

I still need the Hawks to beat Detroit in a playoff series to get rid of that memory. It was bad enough to see Detroit win, it was worse because they got swept.
You should be mad at Belfour

He gave up horrendous goals in OT's vs Wings that series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
If we miss another season I wonder if it signals the death knell of teams like Phoenix, Columbus, and the Islanders. I just don't see fans coming back for teams like that.
Isles TV deal + Move to Brooklyn mean they wont go away

Pho is only team that I would put in Dire extinction category

Jackets are tied into a pretty tight lease.. You cant just fold or move a team it will cost $$$ to get out of lease

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayP View Post
It could be... honestly, I don't want to see the league have to contract, but it might be necessary. I'm not sure all these relocations would be a great idea. When do you ever see a sport move teams around so often this day in age?
Teams move all the time

Teams to move in NBA in last 20 years = Hornets , Grizzlies , Sonics
Teams to move in NFL in last 20 years = Raiders , Rams , Oilers , Browns
Teams to move in MLB in last 20 years = Expos
Teams to move in NHL in last 20 years = Whalers , Jets , Nordiques , Thrashers

It happens ,, If a market is not viable any longer and team can move without legal restrictions (No lease)

Hell NBA has a few teams with questionable futures in there current market (Sacramento for instance)

And the threat of being relocated looms for Chargers , Rams , Jags and Bills in NFL

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:49 PM
  #127
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
The question of losing franchises was posed to Bettman in the news conference yesterday. He didn’t respond directly but obviously there is a big concern there. I wonder if the players have even considered the fact that revenues are going to suffer significantly no matter what happens now, and that 60 player’s jobs could very easily be lost with franchises folding up. Fehr talks like he cares about the game but he has carefully spoon fed and shaped the player’s perspective and manipulated the facts in many cases. The group think mentality that we have seen in public is short sighted on many fronts. Some players haved spewed off about Bettman treating them like idiots, and yet don't seem to see what's going on right under their collective noses.
Well, I'm not really going to get to get into the pissing match between Fehr and Bettman. I've been on the players side, however, the way it has been going lately has rubbed me the wrong way on both sides. At this point, it has just become a joke. That being said, I think we need to lose another season to force change. I don't think they should make teams defunct, just move them because there are viable markets such as QC and Hamilton, possibly Seattle as well. That's the no brainer move that hasn't been made and that falls completely on Bettman's head because he will not admit failure in Phoenix. Just say, "Hey, we did everything we could, it just didn't work out" There is absolutely no shame in that, but he is still too stubborn to do that. Then he compounds it by crying poor when it is those horribly placed teams that are making the NHL poor, not the players, not whatever else, just simply Bettman's bad ideas that didn't work out.

digdug41982 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:07 PM
  #128
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
If Toews suffer another concussion then Wirtz should move to terminate his contract with Hawks (Which he can do in event a player gets hurt playing overseas)
Wouldn't Toews insurance cover his contract?
Not only that, even if he got a concussion, he would still get a lot of money once he became a UFA, probably more than he has left on his contract right now.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:17 PM
  #129
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Not sure if it was mentioned, but Ryan O'reilly signed a 2 year deal in the KHL today. He does have an opt out clause that states if he is signed to a more lucaritive contract in the NHL he can leave.

Gives him MAJOR leverage against the Av's once the lockout ends if I understand it correctly.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:29 PM
  #130
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Liner View Post
That Kozlov OT game is still my biggest memory, unfortunately. That my earliest memory of feeling truly hurt by a season ending. I was bummed in the Cup Finals against Pittsburgh but I was just too young to be really be emotionally vested. That Detroit series was the first time I felt the physical and mental pain of a sports team you love losing.
That 3rd period of Game 1 in 92' made me throw food at a wall in somebody else's house. It took away from the satisfaction of the sweep Sarava referenced.

That 95' loss hurt because I knew it was the last really good shot Chicago had against that Detroit team. I never forgave Roenick for half-assing his rehab after he went down with the injury.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:33 PM
  #131
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
You should be mad at Belfour

He gave up horrendous goals in OT's vs Wings that series
lol, the Eagle was small so I gave him a break. That was a brutal goal though.

I blamed Roenick and D. Sutter for losing that series.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:36 PM
  #132
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Not sure if it was mentioned, but Ryan O'reilly signed a 2 year deal in the KHL today. He does have an opt out clause that states if he is signed to a more lucaritive contract in the NHL he can leave.

Gives him MAJOR leverage against the Av's once the lockout ends if I understand it correctly.
I haven't seen the money he signed for but I would agree that this is probably a good move for him in dollar terms.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:12 PM
  #133
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Wouldn't Toews insurance cover his contract?
Not only that, even if he got a concussion, he would still get a lot of money once he became a UFA, probably more than he has left on his contract right now.
Point is if he gets a concussion that would his 3rd in recent years

Either go after his money via termination or trade him ,, If he gets another concussion overseas the Hawks shouldn't keep him and pay him what he is getting

If he is stupid enough to risk his career playing in Europe then so be it ,, Make him pay for his mistake if it comes to it

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:19 PM
  #134
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie just tweeted out a few messages about how many members of the NHLPA would really be effected by the contract limits set forth by the NHL.

Only 42 current contracts in the NHL would be effected by the 5 year contract limit 7 year limit for resigning with same team. Most of those wouldn't be allowed in the new CBA anyway since their the back diving contracts. Last year 894 players played in the NHL. So the NHLPA has refused a deal that only effects 4.6% of it's members.


Last edited by Sir Psycho T: 12-07-2012 at 05:29 PM.
Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:55 PM
  #135
MurrayBannerman
Moo Points
 
MurrayBannerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 219
Country: United States
Posts: 24,258
vCash: 500
Brennan Klak ‏@nhlupdate

Rick Nash will be examined by Rangers team doctors on his groin injury? That's interesting.

edit: apparently this is par for the course in lockouts.


Last edited by MurrayBannerman: 12-07-2012 at 06:22 PM.
MurrayBannerman is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:35 PM
  #136
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Bob McKenzie just tweeted out a few messages about how many members of the NHLPA would really be effected by the contract limits set forth by the NHL.

Only 42 current contracts in the NHL would be effected by the 5 year contract limit 7 year limit for resigning with same team. Most of those wouldn't be allowed in the new CBA anyway since their the back diving contracts. Last year 894 players played in the NHL. So the NHLPA has refused a deal that only effects 4.6% of it's members.
You can say the same for the NHL. They refused an 8 year term limit that only effects probably less than 4.6%.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 11:47 PM
  #137
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Bettman wasn't at the hotel until after the meetings were over. Fehr was involved.
bettman/fehr's involvement had nothing to do with "physical presence" - they were both very involved in the process.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:10 AM
  #138
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
You can say the same for the NHL. They refused an 8 year term limit that only effects probably less than 4.6%.
Again it's not about the players it's about the teams.

The NHL wants 5 year contracts so the players can be insured and so that that smaller market teams can have the same chance to sign players as big money teams.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 12:10 AM
  #139
RomersWorld*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Point is if he gets a concussion that would his 3rd in recent years

Either go after his money via termination or trade him ,, If he gets another concussion overseas the Hawks shouldn't keep him and pay him what he is getting

If he is stupid enough to risk his career playing in Europe then so be it ,, Make him pay for his mistake if it comes to it
Okay, but he won't pay for anything because once his contract is terminated he will become a UFA and probably get paid more, concussion history or not.

Hey, lets do something stupid and cut Toews for spite! That sounds like a good idea. Personally, I'd rather keep him and put him on LTIR if need be and wait until he gets fully healthy. He is only under contract for 2 more years after this one so it would be dumb to just terminate his contract and have no Toews rather than wait and possibly have Toews and while we don't... have his cap hit covered by LTIR.

RomersWorld* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:17 PM
  #140
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Again it's not about the players it's about the teams.

The NHL wants 5 year contracts so the players can be insured and so that that smaller market teams can have the same chance to sign players as big money teams.
And the players want longer contracts so the mid tier and lesser players can make more money. Insurance covers up to 7 years IIRC, so if an owner wants to take a risk on the 8th year, thats their choice. Its a joke that they need a rule to save them from themselves.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:39 PM
  #141
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
And the players want longer contracts so the mid tier and lesser players can make more money. Insurance covers up to 7 years IIRC, so if an owner wants to take a risk on the 8th year, thats their choice. Its a joke that they need a rule to save them from themselves.
^
Insurance has changed from what I heard

Only will cover 5 years going forward

And how about the Preds ,, What choice did they have when the Flyers tried to steal there star player with BS front loaded offer? Its about leveling playing field as much as it has to do with insurance

Thus why 5 yr UFA , 7 yr own guy makes alot of sense

And just because a few owners are giving out outlanding deals doesn't mean it should be acceptable ,, And they cant control it outside CBA because that would be called collusion

And the top tier players saying this is about the mid tier low tier guys is BS ,, Its about the stars and they want to be able to continue to front load longterm deals and get big bonus money upfront... That is why NHLPA wants 25% variance not 5% variance on contracts

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:42 PM
  #142
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Insurance has changed from what I heard

Only will cover 5 years going forward

And how about the Preds ,, What choice did they have when the Flyers tried to steal there star player with BS front loaded offer? Its about leveling playing field as much as it has to do with insurance

Thus why 5 yr UFA , 7 yr own guy makes alot of sense

And just because a few owners are giving out outlanding deals doesn't mean it should be acceptable ,, And they cant control it outside CBA because that would be called collusion

Front loaded deals are nixed in the PA's last offer. You don't need a term limit. They can not vary more than 25% of highest amount. Owners want 5%, either way term limits are not required to prevent circumvention. In addition, not all front loaded deals are circumvention.


Last edited by HawksFan74: 12-08-2012 at 02:47 PM.
HawksFan74 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:54 PM
  #143
ndgt10
Registered User
 
ndgt10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland
Country: United States
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
What's the deadline for the entire season to be cancelled?

ndgt10 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:59 PM
  #144
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Front loaded deals are nixed in the PA's last offer. You don't need a term limit. They can not vary more than 25% of highest amount. Owners want 5%, either way term limits are not required to prevent circumvention. In addition, not all front loaded deals are circumvention.
^
Term limits still are needed

Flyers and other big market teams would be able to throw 12 yr deals with huge $$$ still at small market stars

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:02 PM
  #145
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndgt10 View Post
What's the deadline for the entire season to be cancelled?
NHL wanted to get games going here in December to get 60 games in (Thus full share on sponser $$$)

Because of Fehr that wont happen

Many believe 48 games is minimum the NHL can play (So a deal needs to be in place early Jan)

But the NHL will reduce there make whole (If they put it back on table) because Fehr just cost them alot of money and the NHLPA would probably complain so the likelyhood is there wont be a season now because of Fehr

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:06 PM
  #146
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Term limits still are needed

Flyers and other big market teams would be able to throw 12 yr deals with huge $$$ still at small market stars
The length of the deal is not the problem. In some cases, it would be easier for a small market team to offer more money and spread it out. It's the annual hit they can't handle. This just means you will see larger shorter term deals that they can not compete with. With cap circumvention you had low annual cap hits with high initial salary amounts. That is where they lost out. The PA's proposal gets rid of this. It's not going to make it any easier for them. Big market teams will still be able to pay guys 8 million per year, ect.

Maybe a small market team would be able to offer more money over additional years, now that option is gone. They have to compete dollar to dollar over five years. How do you think that will play out? I'd rather see more options, at least 7 years with the percent cap on the high dollar amount. I also like the longer term for own UFA's.

I could also see FA's pretty much offered the same deal by several teams. Then it would come down to preference of location. I don't know if that bodes well for a Columbus or Phoenix.


Last edited by HawksFan74: 12-08-2012 at 03:15 PM.
HawksFan74 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:10 PM
  #147
ndgt10
Registered User
 
ndgt10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland
Country: United States
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
NHL wanted to get games going here in December to get 60 games in (Thus full share on sponser $$$)

Because of Fehr that wont happen

Many believe 48 games is minimum the NHL can play (So a deal needs to be in place early Jan)

But the NHL will reduce there make whole (If they put it back on table) because Fehr just cost them alot of money and the NHLPA would probably complain so the likelyhood is there wont be a season now because of Fehr
Well I wish they would make a decision so I could get my 9K back for my tickets this season, if in fact there is no season. Could put it towards Christmas shopping.

ndgt10 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:14 PM
  #148
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Insurance has changed from what I heard

Only will cover 5 years going forward

And how about the Preds ,, What choice did they have when the Flyers tried to steal there star player with BS front loaded offer? Its about leveling playing field as much as it has to do with insurance

Thus why 5 yr UFA , 7 yr own guy makes alot of sense

And just because a few owners are giving out outlanding deals doesn't mean it should be acceptable ,, And they cant control it outside CBA because that would be called collusion

And the top tier players saying this is about the mid tier low tier guys is BS ,, Its about the stars and they want to be able to continue to front load longterm deals and get big bonus money upfront... That is why NHLPA wants 25% variance not 5% variance on contracts
Star players will ALWAYS be paid top dollar. Nothing about this process is about the star players. If it was, why are non-star players the ones speaking out more often, and attending a lot of the meetings.

They want the variance on contracts so they can still fit mid tier players on the roster. Star players will always make the most they can get, but if theres no room for mid tier players under the cap, teams wont sign them. Just look at the NBA, 4 guys make all the money, the rest are minimum guys.

I don't understand why teams wouldnt want to sign their best players to long term contracts. If Nashville could only sign Weber to a 5yr contract, he will be gone in 5 years. I hope star players in small markets only sign 5 year deals and leave town after its done. That would show them.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:21 PM
  #149
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,819
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Star players will ALWAYS be paid top dollar. Nothing about this process is about the star players. If it was, why are non-star players the ones speaking out more often, and attending a lot of the meetings.

They want the variance on contracts so they can still fit mid tier players on the roster. Star players will always make the most they can get, but if theres no room for mid tier players under the cap, teams wont sign them. Just look at the NBA, 4 guys make all the money, the rest are minimum guys.

I don't understand why teams wouldnt want to sign their best players to long term contracts. If Nashville could only sign Weber to a 5yr contract, he will be gone in 5 years. I hope star players in small markets only sign 5 year deals and leave town after its done. That would show them.
^
Nashville under NHL proposal would be able to sign a guy like Weber to 7 yr deal

He would be only allowed to sign 5 yr deal with another team

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:27 PM
  #150
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
Nashville under NHL proposal would be able to sign a guy like Weber to 7 yr deal

He would be only allowed to sign 5 yr deal with another team
So he'd leave after 7 years. And Nashville wouldnt be able to sign anyone else, because in those 7 years he would make 12mil against the cap. The cap would only be 50 something million. No more Fishers, Kostitsyns, or Erats.

Hawkaholic 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 07:46 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.