HFBoards

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

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 03:04 AM
  #326
KISSland
Registered User
 
KISSland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,682
vCash: 500
I'm actually really happy that it's cancelled. I'll have time to do my courses and pay attention.

KISSland is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 03:30 AM
  #327
ProstheticConscience
Das ist mein Land
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
NHL spent over a year trying to begin talks ,, It was Fehr that refused

NHL only had one option and that was lockout as keeping the past CBA wasn't viable for owners and they had legal right to terminate it

And Fehr's 94 strike is one of the reasons leagues lockout now as soon as CBA expires because it is not viable playing without a CBA in modern sports as Fehr helped usher in the strike to screw owners right before playoffs tactic

Of course the NHLPA used that tactic before as well in 1992

So given NHLPA/Fehr history a lockout was no doubt as there refusal to discuss CBA was sign that players were gearing up for a lockout
Yeah, you're right there. There's nothing that's ever happened ever that might point to a history of labour strife coming out of the owners camp with Bettman at the helm. Nothing at all. Certainly not two other lockouts...oh, wait. Are you one of those Blackhawks fans whose knowledge of anything NHL-related before 2006 comes via Google?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Lord vs serf? Really?

I'm not pro owner, the players deserve every dollar they can negotiate. It's a huge pie and I don't really take either side seriously when they use the labour rhetoric. I mean yeah, it's a lock out, but this isn't a blue collar warehouse with padlocks on the door.
I meant Lords vs serfs in the owners' minds. These are the same guys who casually skimmed through the players' proposals for about 30 seconds before rejecting them, but freak out, stomp and scream when the players don't genuflect about proposals sent their way.

Quote:
IMO the CBA should be about making the game better, how ever the HRR gets split up everyone makes a buncha cash. 50-50 linked makes it a partnership. I'd like to hear the owners spell out why they've picked certain mountains to die on, but most of their contract stuff I feel would benefit the competitiveness of the league.
Oh, this "hills we'll die on" thing is just a bunch of melodramatic crap. It's a negotiation. Eventually they'll pick it back up more or less where they were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL are fighting for the betterment of the league. Whichever way you look at it.

Hence, why I'm a huge proponent of the players "losing". As a fan, I have no reason, and honestly, could care less what the players get.

50-50 is more than fair. The players are acting like they gave the world by coming down those number. Such a farce.


The NHL is fighting to have the players give back enough money and bargaining rights to bail the owners out of the mess they've made.

ProstheticConscience is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 05:45 AM
  #328
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
Think of it this way. The ratings are probably the same now as the cup finals.
Ok, say they do come back for half the season. If you're seriously saying that the first week of games having the same ratings as the cup finals is going to somehow offset the amount of money lost from not playing 40+ games plus preseason, etc etc... then I have no idea what to tell you. It's "attention" they get from this being translated into money is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been lost.

Bougieman is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:00 AM
  #329
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I think that take on the NHL's first offer is rather melodramatic. It was just part of a negotiation; there was no reason for anything to be taken personally. The PA merely feigned being insulted as justification for refusing to engage in negotiations.
Exactly. If some guy came to look at my house and offered me $1 I'd definitely start negotiating down with him. It's silly to pretend there would be a "reasonable" place to start in the mixed up world!

Proto is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:02 AM
  #330
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL are fighting for the betterment of the league. Whichever way you look at it.

Hence, why I'm a huge proponent of the players "losing". As a fan, I have no reason, and honestly, could care less what the players get.

50-50 is more than fair. The players are acting like they gave the world by coming down those number. Such a farce.
Hahahaha. The actual betterment of the league would be a system that favours big market teams a bit more.

Proto is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 10:37 AM
  #331
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Hahahaha. The actual betterment of the league would be a system that favours big market teams a bit more.
Hmmmm - the system does that now ... any team that can spend to the cap limit has an edge over a team spending to the floor.

I would love to see some of the revenue sharing come from a soft cap, something like for every dollar you are over the cap, you put a dollar into revenue sharing, up to say $5M, and then after that it double, then triple ...

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:30 AM
  #332
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
I think if the two parties are at all interested in having a season it should be pretty easy to come to an agreement at this point. If the NHL's claim that they have three "must haves" is honest, I think they need to be a bit flexible within that and be ready to give the players back more than they offered last time around and that should pretty much do it.

I think if the league can justify contract term limits as an issue due to the limitations of insurance that's something the players have to look hard at accepting (in return for concessions elsewhere).

If they could arrive at seven year contract limits for all new SPCs (according to Friedman today, that is the maximum insurable amount) and say five years for players over 35, that would mean virtually every deal could be insured and that backdiving contracts could be cut down considerably. Grandfather in the "cap benefit recapture" proposal the players made and the disincentive to circumvent the cap ceiling should be strong enough to satisfy the owners IMO.

If they can come to an agreement there then I think it should be pretty easy to make it worth the players financial while to accept the other two must haves.. probably by coming closer on "make whole."

Honestly I just think that if the league was upfront with the PA in terms of what they want and why, and showed a willingness to make concessions in other areas to get it (rather than the repeated ultimatums and take-it-or-leave-its we've seen) it would probably buy enough goodwill to get something done considering how close the two sides are now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL are fighting for the betterment of the league. Whichever way you look at it.

Hence, why I'm a huge proponent of the players "losing". As a fan, I have no reason, and honestly, could care less what the players get.
If you're a Canucks fan, the league "winning" is a huge problem for your team. Vancouver is a top five franchise in profits and the most valuable expansion era franchise in the league, anything that cuts down their ability to use their largesse to put a better product on the ice (like say, a $60m salary cap with little or no wiggle room to circumvent the ceiling) is a huge problem.

Quote:
50-50 is more than fair. The players are acting like they gave the world by coming down those number. Such a farce.
I'm assuming you think "50-50 is more than fair" because you assume it means an even split, or that it is similar to other leagues. The big problem with that is that the NHL takes huge amounts of money out before they split the rest 50-50 with the players, something the NFL for example does not do. So it is neither a true split nor comparable with other leagues.


Last edited by dave babych returns: 12-11-2012 at 11:37 AM.
dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:44 AM
  #333
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post

I'm assuming you think "50-50 is more than fair" because you assume it means an even split, or that it is similar to other leagues. The big problem with that is that the NHL takes huge amounts of money out before they split the rest 50-50 with the players, something the NFL for example does not do. So it is neither a true split nor comparable with other leagues.
Not seen this discussed much before. What sort of revenues, and what % we talking.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:55 AM
  #334
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I think if the two parties are at all interested in having a season it should be pretty easy to come to an agreement at this point. If the NHL's claim that they have three "must haves" is honest, I think they need to be a bit flexible within that and be ready to give the players back more than they offered last time around and that should pretty much do it.

I think if the league can justify contract term limits as an issue due to the limitations of insurance that's something the players have to look hard at accepting (in return for concessions elsewhere).
It's funny that they have 3 "must haves" AFTER they had their initial "must have" in clawing back 7% of revenues from the players.

I don't buy the excuse of an inability to buy insurance for contracts as a good enough reason for players to relent on that issue. These chumps have happily been signing long term deals for some time now, how much insulation do they need from themselves? The players shouldn't be forced into a box because owners can't control themselves.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:59 AM
  #335
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Hmmmm - the system does that now ... any team that can spend to the cap limit has an edge over a team spending to the floor.
Well, what you're describing is an effort to combat the sort of advantage Proto is talking about.. a limited payroll range for teams ensuring the gap between the rich and poor franchises does not grow beyond $16m.

Quote:
I would love to see some of the revenue sharing come from a soft cap, something like for every dollar you are over the cap, you put a dollar into revenue sharing, up to say $5M, and then after that it double, then triple ...
Yeah I would prefer that too but there is no way the league abandons a hard cap linked to revenue (and it seems like they want to make it harder by closing loopholes that allowed teams to circumvent the ceiling - and floor for that matter).

Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
Not seen this discussed much before. What sort of revenues, and what % we talking.
It's too messy for anyone to get into, put it this way even the league and PA seem to lack the appetite to get into it.

But the big ones I've heard of are 1/3 of luxury box revenue for buildings a team owns or operates, 2/3 of luxury box revenue for buildings a team owns or operates with another major professional sports franchise, 54% of concession revenue league wide, 30% of parking revenue, etc.

Elliotte Friedman gets further into it here: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...d-revenue.html

My understanding is that in the NFL for example where the players went down to 48% of revenue (iirc), the league had been deducting about a billion dollars from revenue every year to cover similar costs and they gave that up in the same agreement - meaning the players got a smaller percentage of a considerably larger figure. There will be no such concession to the players in this agreement, at least not if it's arrived at any time soon.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 12:31 PM
  #336
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,611
vCash: 500


Just to lighten up the atmosphere. What did I just watch??

Taelin is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 04:51 PM
  #337
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's funny that they have 3 "must haves" AFTER they had their initial "must have" in clawing back 7% of revenues from the players.
Yeah. I think the owners were hardly in a position to claim the players were moving the goalposts, at least not without looking like hypocrites.

Quote:
I don't buy the excuse of an inability to buy insurance for contracts as a good enough reason for players to relent on that issue.
Well, I guess my point is that the league needs to pick one "hill to die on," explain to the PA why it is that way (and it had better be a much better explanation than 'because we want it' - and explaining that increasing liabilities in the form of uninsured contracts are going to mean they need a larger share of HRR to account for it would be a pretty good one IMO) and then demonstrate a willingness to move on other issues to achieve that.

Quote:
These chumps have happily been signing long term deals for some time now, how much insulation do they need from themselves? The players shouldn't be forced into a box because owners can't control themselves.
I think the owners need a lot of protection from themselves. Free agency is a marketplace and like any other marketplace it should be well regulated if it's going to be stable.

It just takes one team to throw everything out of whack for most other teams - except the ones that don't need to use free agency and the ones that are willing to leave holes in their roster on principle.

If the CBA is going to ensure stability for the league over a long period it needs to define limits for what that one wackadoo owner is able to do - as once the ink is dry teams are going to find and exploit whatever they can in order to entice free agents to sign with them.

I'm not saying it isn't a big sacrifice for the players in many respects, and that's why ownership needs to step up and make some major concessions to make it happen.

Basically the players need to figure out what hill they are going to die on, and if it's different than the one the owners are intent on then each side needs to suck it up and get ready to make some sacrifices.

If they want to pull this out of the fire that is.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 05:42 PM
  #338
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Yeah. I think the owners were hardly in a position to claim the players were moving the goalposts, at least not without looking like hypocrites.



Well, I guess my point is that the league needs to pick one "hill to die on," explain to the PA why it is that way (and it had better be a much better explanation than 'because we want it' - and explaining that increasing liabilities in the form of uninsured contracts are going to mean they need a larger share of HRR to account for it would be a pretty good one IMO) and then demonstrate a willingness to move on other issues to achieve that.



I think the owners need a lot of protection from themselves. Free agency is a marketplace and like any other marketplace it should be well regulated if it's going to be stable.

It just takes one team to throw everything out of whack for most other teams - except the ones that don't need to use free agency and the ones that are willing to leave holes in their roster on principle.


If the CBA is going to ensure stability for the league over a long period it needs to define limits for what that one wackadoo owner is able to do - as once the ink is dry teams are going to find and exploit whatever they can in order to entice free agents to sign with them.

I'm not saying it isn't a big sacrifice for the players in many respects, and that's why ownership needs to step up and make some major concessions to make it happen.

Basically the players need to figure out what hill they are going to die on, and if it's different than the one the owners are intent on then each side needs to suck it up and get ready to make some sacrifices.

If they want to pull this out of the fire that is.
I think a solid revenue sharing policy or luxury tax penalty for teams that overspend should be more apt rather than trying to take it out on the players by limiting their rights. Players shouldn't be penalized for owners who can't be fiscally responsible. The onus should be on owners, and their GM's to act responsibly. Obviously there should be some rules in place (variance), but limiting term to 5 years is a bit extreme and unnecessary.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 06:00 PM
  #339
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Yeah. I think the owners were hardly in a position to claim the players were moving the goalposts, at least not without looking like hypocrites.



Well, I guess my point is that the league needs to pick one "hill to die on," explain to the PA why it is that way (and it had better be a much better explanation than 'because we want it' - and explaining that increasing liabilities in the form of uninsured contracts are going to mean they need a larger share of HRR to account for it would be a pretty good one IMO) and then demonstrate a willingness to move on other issues to achieve that.



I think the owners need a lot of protection from themselves. Free agency is a marketplace and like any other marketplace it should be well regulated if it's going to be stable.

It just takes one team to throw everything out of whack for most other teams - except the ones that don't need to use free agency and the ones that are willing to leave holes in their roster on principle.

If the CBA is going to ensure stability for the league over a long period it needs to define limits for what that one wackadoo owner is able to do - as once the ink is dry teams are going to find and exploit whatever they can in order to entice free agents to sign with them.

I'm not saying it isn't a big sacrifice for the players in many respects, and that's why ownership needs to step up and make some major concessions to make it happen.

Basically the players need to figure out what hill they are going to die on, and if it's different than the one the owners are intent on then each side needs to suck it up and get ready to make some sacrifices.

If they want to pull this out of the fire that is.
Free agency will never be stable with teams needing to hit the cap floor, hence why the Florida Panthers overpaid and NMC'd players that should never otherwise recieve 3-4 year deals north of $3m/per year.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:35 AM
  #340
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,975
vCash: 500
So everybody here thinks it's perfectly reasonable for a 31 year old Alex Burrows to get a 4 year deal worth 16 million?

I love Burrows, but it's crazy that things haven't gotten to a point where a player of his calibre is making that kind of money relative to what we saw just prior to the last lock-out. The teams and owners will pay whatever necessary to field the best possible team within the rules. And the system is broken. Nothing that they are asking for is ridiculous or totally out there.

It's within reason. With the way things are going, some of these contracts that are being handed out could kill franchises. Literally. The onus isn't on the owners, it's on the system.

Edonator is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:15 AM
  #341
Britton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
So everybody here thinks it's perfectly reasonable for a 31 year old Alex Burrows to get a 4 year deal worth 16 million?

I love Burrows, but it's crazy that things haven't gotten to a point where a player of his calibre is making that kind of money relative to what we saw just prior to the last lock-out. The teams and owners will pay whatever necessary to field the best possible team within the rules. And the system is broken. Nothing that they are asking for is ridiculous or totally out there.

It's within reason. With the way things are going, some of these contracts that are being handed out could kill franchises. Literally. The onus isn't on the owners, it's on the system.
Brenden Morrison who was a similar age and filled a similar role got 3 year 3.5 million dollar contract coming out of the last lockout with a $39 mil cap. So no Burrows' contract is not unreasonable at all.

Britton is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:21 AM
  #342
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,503
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Maybe it's the 8 mill/4year deal talking here but what Burrows makes is obscene. I like the guy, the player, the community guy but 4.5 seems a bit high. I'm more than happy to have him back though, hopefully we see more 2011 playoff performances from him and less 2010/12 playoff performances.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:44 AM
  #343
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I think a solid revenue sharing policy or luxury tax penalty for teams that overspend should be more apt rather than trying to take it out on the players by limiting their rights. Players shouldn't be penalized for owners who can't be fiscally responsible. The onus should be on owners, and their GM's to act responsibly. Obviously there should be some rules in place (variance), but limiting term to 5 years is a bit extreme and unnecessary.
I think there should also be solid revenue sharing to supplement a cap, and like I said earlier I'd prefer a luxury tax (as obviously all the regulars on this board are fans of a big money franchise - by NHL standards anyways).

I also think that limiting term to 5 years is extreme, that's why I said something like 7 (without the home town advantage) would be better.

Honestly we've not been able to see one of these backdiving contracts through to their completion yet so I'm not convinced they are bad for the league, but I can see why they'd want to cut down on them. They are huge liabilities - it's absurd that the Minnesota Wild owe two players 90% of their estimated franchise value.

I recognize that this is not the players problem per se, but like I said it's time for each side to make some major concessions and if contract term limits is what the league wants to achieve then they'd better be ready to move on other areas (such as fluctuations from year to year.. thereby still allowing teams to circumvent the cap ceiling to some extent) to make it palatable for the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Free agency will never be stable with teams needing to hit the cap floor, hence why the Florida Panthers overpaid and NMC'd players that should never otherwise recieve 3-4 year deals north of $3m/per year.
You picked a poor example IMO. Sure Jovanovski and Upshall are overpaid (by no more than $1m each) but guys like Fleishman and Kopecky were more or less full value for their contracts - by UFA standards - and more importantly the Panthers jumpstarted their ascent towards (hopefully) being a perennial playoff team.

Nobody who looked at that team on June 30 2011 would have thought they'd be in the playoffs next season, but a handful of "bad" contracts got them there. And no one deal is big enough to blow up in their faces.

Anyway there is always going to be inflation and there are always going to be bad contracts. However if a certain type of contract is identified as a hazard to the health of most teams then it makes sense to look at eliminating those.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 11:46 AM
  #344
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Maybe it's the 8 mill/4year deal talking here but what Burrows makes is obscene. I like the guy, the player, the community guy but 4.5 seems a bit high. I'm more than happy to have him back though, hopefully we see more 2011 playoff performances from him and less 2010/12 playoff performances.
The guy has roughly comparable numbers to perennial All Stars, and it's not as if he's a one dimensional player either.

I'd be much happier if Burrows made $1m less each year - especially with the cap coming down - but there's no question if he'd been a UFA this past offseason he would have got more than $4.5m.. he might even if he had hit UFA with a $60m cap this coming summer.

It's a liability for the Canucks (I think the term is worse than the salary) but the fact is that no player has proven to be as successful with the Sedins while still contributing in other areas.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:07 PM
  #345
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I recognize that this is not the players problem per se, but like I said it's time for each side to make some major concessions and if contract term limits is what the league wants to achieve then they'd better be ready to move on other areas (such as fluctuations from year to year.. thereby still allowing teams to circumvent the cap ceiling to some extent) to make it palatable for the players.
I agree that both sides have to make some major concessions, but I still haven't seen any from the owner's side.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:21 PM
  #346
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I agree that both sides have to make some major concessions, but I still haven't seen any from the owner's side.
Certainly not from the last CBA.

I suppose depending on how you frame these negotiations they've made major concessions from their original laughable offer, but yes it's time for them to think long and hard about what they are willing to give up - and to approach the players and offer it up in exchange for those things they aren't willing to give up.

The bottom line is that owners will have to give up some of their demands around contracting rights if they want to get term limits, and it would be helpful if they could also make concessions from contracting rights players did not have in the last CBA.

Like I said if they asked for longer term limits than they have so far and a much more flexible means of preventing cap circumvention (the cap benefit recapture rule rather than a variance limit), their demands might not fall on deaf ears if they offer up other contracting rights in return - dropping the other punitive rules for deals signed after a player is 35 or carrying past age 40, changes to ELC rules or RFA compensation or even UFA age.

Some combination of that and more dollars going to the players bottom line should hopefully be enough to get to an agreement.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:31 PM
  #347
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,975
vCash: 500
FWIW, from Gord Miller's twitter feed:

Quote:
The consensus among NHL management types/agents here this morning is that there will definitely be a resolution to the lockout, and soon.
But he's in Alberta right now for the WJC camp so he's not in the thick of it.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:35 PM
  #348
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Certainly not from the last CBA.

I suppose depending on how you frame these negotiations they've made major concessions from their original laughable offer, but yes it's time for them to think long and hard about what they are willing to give up - and to approach the players and offer it up in exchange for those things they aren't willing to give up.

The bottom line is that owners will have to give up some of their demands around contracting rights if they want to get term limits, and it would be helpful if they could also make concessions from contracting rights players did not have in the last CBA.

Like I said if they asked for longer term limits than they have so far and a much more flexible means of preventing cap circumvention (the cap benefit recapture rule rather than a variance limit), their demands might not fall on deaf ears if they offer up other contracting rights in return - dropping the other punitive rules for deals signed after a player is 35 or carrying past age 40, changes to ELC rules or RFA compensation or even UFA age.

Some combination of that and more dollars going to the players bottom line should hopefully be enough to get to an agreement.
Common sense would agree with that, now lets see if the owners do.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:50 PM
  #349
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
So everybody here thinks it's perfectly reasonable for a 31 year old Alex Burrows to get a 4 year deal worth 16 million?

I love Burrows, but it's crazy that things haven't gotten to a point where a player of his calibre is making that kind of money relative to what we saw just prior to the last lock-out. The teams and owners will pay whatever necessary to field the best possible team within the rules. And the system is broken. Nothing that they are asking for is ridiculous or totally out there.

It's within reason. With the way things are going, some of these contracts that are being handed out could kill franchises. Literally. The onus isn't on the owners, it's on the system.
I think it's fine. If he keeps producing for 2 more years at the same pace, he will be underpaid according to market value.

This is the classic overpayment for previous underpayment. Happens all the time. We should just feel lucky that the Canucks established a winning standard while paying the guy only $2M - think about how much Malhotra makes - so IMO Burrows was and is worth every penny.

Besides, there are going to be some bad contracts even if the limits on the table go through. It's inevitable. The key is that teams could conceivably get out of the deals earlier. GMMG has already done this by limiting the term of deals he's offered.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:27 PM
  #350
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,314
vCash: 500
Sounds like both sides are speaking the same language about penalizing existing long term deals so I think it's safe to assume the Canucks are going to have a whack of dead cap space when Luongo retires. So now it's just a question of whether the Canucks will have $4M or so in dead cap space (NHLPA's plan) or $5.33M (NHL's suggestion).

opendoor 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 01:19 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.