Yeah, I'm not going to get into the whole PR smear campaign the owners have done against Fehr... but if this ends up working out, I think this is a fair (fehr?) question:
"What in this deal couldn't have been negotiated over the summer?"
I think that's what some fans were afraid of when the negotiations experienced delay after delay - that we were in for a "nuclear winter" as the players went after the system. Otherwise why delay until December for a deal that was ultimately always going to be available after some hard negotiations. If I was a player, I wouldn't be completely unhappy with Fehr, but I would want some answers on this.
I would be completely unhappy, but I think we agree on that question.
I mean, if Fehr was concerned about his legacy like some have claimed, why wouldn't he be just as eager to come in and show that he can be diplomatic, conciliatory and a deal-maker? He could have accomplished that by just holding out for the preseason and 5-10 games. Or - gasp - getting a deal done before the lockout even started!
It doesn't. I'm pretty sure he's talking about how the players get paid regardless of how good the team is. My response is that the owner should correct the problem with his team.
So the players have no responsibility to play better and win more games?
It's all on the owner to determine how good his team is?
... they could have negotiated some make whole from the original offer as well if they had tried to. Those aren't exactly apples to apples canceling out because they were going to get make whole to compensate for the drop to 50/50 in the next couple of years. They lost their salaries this year and make whole is still there, it wasn't like it is a new piece.
I hear ya, everyone knows my position on this whole thing, just trying to do what neither Gary or Don has done and foster some communication here
Man is it selfish of me to just want to finally see our first Stanley cup champions banner raised?
Absolutely not! You never know when a team can have the chance to ever win a cup again, so it's best to get the most out of a championship. I mean, you guys had to wait 40+ years while my team has been lucky enough to win a few times in the past 20 years. Regardless of what happened in the past, no one really knows what the future holds. Either one of our teams may end up coming close again in the near future or we may have to wait 20+ years for another chance, so I hope you guys get the most out of it and have a great future ahead for your team!
Hopefully the NHL and NHLPA are really as close as these some of these media guys say they are. Hard to believe these clowns who manage our beloved league are actually close.
I hear ya, everyone knows my position on this whole thing, just trying to do what neither Gary or Don has done and foster some communication here
To quote Rocky from Rocky IV (I think):
"During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"
So the players have no responsibility to play better and win more games?
It's all on the owner to determine how good his team is?
Exactly. The fact that Scott Gomez is an overpaid piece of crap has nothing to do with Scott Gomez and everything to do with Glen Sather signing him to that contract. Why should the players bear any responsibility for their play on the ice?
This actually touches on an important point when it comes to the 5 year term limit. Having a cap on the term, theoretically, limits the amount of players who are undeservedly overpaid. This, again theoretically, would mean more money available to those players deserving of it.
Exactly. The fact that Scott Gomez is an overpaid piece of crap has nothing to do with Scott Gomez and everything to do with Glen Sather signing him to that contract. Why should the players bear any responsibility for their play on the ice?
This actually touches on an important point when it comes to the 5 year term limit. Having a cap on the term, theoretically, limits the amount of players who are undeservedly overpaid. This, again theoretically, would mean more money available to those players deserving of it.
Theoretically yes. Check in with me next trade deadline and free agency period and we'll see how that theory holds up!
The players may never recoup that money (that is debatable) but they also never had to play the games.
OK, explain this to me in simple terms so I can understand it. Overly simplistic, but let's say we play a half season and there's a 50/50 revenue split. So, in order for the players to recoup the money they're losing by not playing, the league will have to generate as much revenue in a half season (one which lots of folks predict will lose revenue due to fan backlash) than it would have in a full season. No? Is that feasibly able to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryHabs
They probably started work on the writing of the CBA, this is why lawyers on both sides are there. You don't just write the CBA when all points are agreed upon.
I'm willing to bet that the CBA itself is already drafted. The lawyers would be there to make agreed upon revisions and verify that those revisions are accurate. The guts of the thing is already hammered out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger23
Man is it selfish of me to just want to finally see our first Stanley cup champions banner raised?
Not at all. We had to wait for the entire lockout year to get ours - no fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
Apply it to your own life. If the choice was work 6 months for 50k or sit on the couch for 30k, which do you chose?
Depends on if I'm accustomed to a $50K lifestyle and felt I was unable to sustain that lifestyle on $30K. It would also be a lot different for a regular shmoe like most of us since, say, there would still be jobs in the accounting field when I decided to return to work, but athletes can have their careers expire while they're sitting on that couch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr
300m for doing no work > 500m for playing 34 games no matter how you slice it.
Theoretically yes. Check in with me next trade deadline and free agency period and we'll see how that theory holds up!
No no. Some players need to be (slightly) overpaid. Historically sports teams have to pay a little extra to make up for undercompensation for previous performance. Look at Burrows. I think he deserved a nice fat raise - and he might STILL be underpaid.
The good players will get paid. No matter what. That's just the way it is. Some of them won't live up to expectations but their overpayment will even out a little with their past performance. Some players will just always be overpaid because player development is a dice roll.
For me it is more about possibly being able to see my favourite players stay with a team and still get decently compensated. Since I don't see the $ amount as a huge issue, I'm cool with the term limit. Or at least with what the term limit is hypothetically supposed to do.
Theoretically yes. Check in with me next trade deadline and free agency period and we'll see how that theory holds up!
I thought the point was that a 5-year contract doesn't mean players won't be undeservedly overpaid, it means they wouldn't be undeservedly overpaid for 10, 11, 15 years. The team can get out from under a bad contract (which may not be "bad" except that the player doesn't live up to it) sooner.
No no. Some players need to be (slightly) overpaid. Historically sports teams have to pay a little extra to make up for undercompensation for previous performance. Look at Burrows. I think he deserved a nice fat raise - and he might STILL be underpaid.
The good players will get paid. No matter what. That's just the way it is. Some of them won't live up to expectations but their overpayment will even out a little with their past performance. Some players will just always be overpaid because player development is a dice roll.
For me it is more about possibly being able to see my favourite players stay with a team and still get decently compensated. Since I don't see the $ amount as a huge issue, I'm cool with the term limit. Or at least with what the term limit is hypothetically supposed to do.
I hear you. My point was mainly that some GM will still hand out another dumb Gomez, Redden or Finger type contract. At least they will probably be limited to a 5 to 7 year term though.
Man is it selfish of me to just want to finally see our first Stanley cup champions banner raised?
Are you kidding? After all these years, after all the crap teams, after all the heartache, all the looking at the playoffs and seeing nothing but what looked like an unclimbable mountain of 16 wins and 4 rounds when your franchise only makes it beyond the 2nd round once in 40-some years...hell yes it's selfish to want to see the banner raised. What else would it be?
But seriously, that Cup win still masks some of the annoyance of this lockout.
Let's say you and I are negotiating and I have an internal deadline of Feb.1 that I don't tell you about. But you guess that my deadline is somewhere around that date. And one thing you know is that you won't see my best offer until that date.
Now it's early December and I make you an offer. Do you accept it knowing that I haven't reached my own personal pressure point?
Let's say you choose not to because you strongly believe there's something better to come. Does that mean you are wasting time or does it mean you are just reacting to a negotiating partner that you know to be willing to waste time?
It depends.
What does it cost to wait till that date?
How much "better" will that offer be than this one?
Does the benefits of the better deal outweigh the cost of waiting?
How much "better" will that offer be than this one?
Does the benefits of the better deal outweigh the cost of waiting?
What if you're wrong and it doesn't get better?
Get your crazy cost-benefit analysis out of here! Better to just stick it to the man and defeat the Proskauer-Rose playbook....by doing exactly what the PR playbook expects you to do! No adapting tactics here, no sir!
When the two sides reach a deal, they are going to come storming towards the fans saying "We had to get a deal done so we could do right by the fans", "Our great fans deserve to watch hockey", "All we wanted this whole time was to play in front of our fans".
Get a deal done, gets some games going, save the BS.
I have literally zero faith in these guys to get a deal done. No matter how close they are, I just can't see them actually coming to an agreement. They will find some way to **** it up.
When the two sides reach a deal, they are going to come storming towards the fans saying "We had to get a deal done so we could do right by the fans", "Our great fans deserve to watch hockey", "All we wanted this whole time was to play in front of our fans".
Get a deal done, gets some games going, save the BS.
