HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout XXVIII: Don't worry about the lockout. Let me worry about blank.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 10:55 AM
  #376
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Okay so you think the 7% extra HRR the owners scored is in the same ballpark as the additional hotel room costs they've assumed? Do the math and let me know how that works out.

And I'm not a PA supporter and resent the judgment. Debate like an adult. Is it impossible for me to see a point where owners are now at fault without being a PA supporter? Do I need to be completely in bed with owners? No player positions have merit here?
How are the owners now at fault?

kingpest19 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:57 AM
  #377
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapAttack View Post
So we have the puck daddy article about teams calling players back. We have the Yotes laying down a fresh sheet of ice at their arena. Numerous reports tonight that the owners think they have the PA right where they want them, etc etc..
I think they're just grasping at straws. The ice has been down in Tampa for months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Other Flame View Post
Yes, it would hurt the owners, in the sense that the 'pie' would be smaller. But it would hurt the players more because they have the larger share. Plus, the players, already unhappy with the escrow system as it were, would be furious at the very notion of having to write checks to billionaire owners. It just wouldn't happen.
All good points, thanks. One thing you didn't consider, however, is Fehr's clear willingness to cost his constituency a fortune while trying to gain a much lesser amount. Would he be willing to do the same with a strike before the playoffs, knowing it would hurt the owners? Frankly, I think he would. His primary concern seems to be how hard he can hit the owners, his own folks be damned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
The players have a point - where is the negotiation on the part of the owners?
It's ironic, isn't it, to hear this question? I mean, at the start of things a lot of people were asking the same thing on the part of the PA, which stalled and stalled and stalled and when it did "negotiate" it consisted basically of "no," "no," "no," without counteroffers or proposals. That was the PA's tactic. The league continued to submit revised proposals while the PA stalled. Now the league has (apparently) reached its limit (or close to it) and the PA is upset that the league won't continue to modify its proposals. Perhaps the stall tactic wasn't the best method, or perhaps they used it too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan1968 View Post
I find it funny that some of the things the owners have added to this deal are brushed aside as "peanuts" when in fact they just double the hotel bills for the players by agreeing to have one player per room, someone do the math on that.
Can't do it exactly but can give you a ballpark. A few years back some friends and I went to see the Bolts play the Caps and the team got us our room on their account so we got the team discount. Thank goodness - the room was $435 a night but we only had to pay $185. So, using totally round numbers because I'm lousy at math, let's say a team had at that time no players who qualified for private rooms, and there were 20 players on the roster. So, that would have been 10 rooms, $1,850. 20 rooms obviously would have been $3,700. So, even if every single road trip consisted of only one night in a hotel each, the difference would be $75,850 for shared rooms to $151,700 for single rooms. Obviously, there would be single rooms already which would take some of those totals down, but there are far more nights in hotels than 41, which would take it way up. Also, that's using the $185 rate per night, which probably isn't the same in every hotel around the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailor Hopberle View Post
Maybe after talking to the PA, the mediator can go to the league and say something along the lines of "The PA is willing to move on X if you're willing to move on Y".
That's exactly what he'll do. Of course, that's exactly what he would have been doing all day yesterday, as well.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:59 AM
  #378
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelleckStache View Post
I wonder if that the proposed 5/7 year max contract length will have any unintended consequences, like more holdouts or trade demands, because becoming a UFA suddenly become far less attractive for a player.
By creating an extra incentive to go to a team who is capable of guaranteeing an extra 2 years upon re-signing, the trade market will possibly be shifted towards the 'have' teams especially for players with No Movement and No Trade Clauses. These clauses will be much more sought-after by agents too.
I definetely think that there would be consequences (not sure if unintended) of a 5/7 max contract term.

Trade deadline deals become MUCH more significant, because the team that pays at the deadline to get a guy would have a HUGE advantage when it comes time to resign him as a UFA. The ability to offer 2 extra years could easily translate in a teams ability to offer $15+ more than another team. That is HUGE, and would very likely impact the trade value of rentals. If you're renting an elite player at the deadline, AND getting a HUGE increase in your ability to resign the player - that's worth a lot more than a rental in the past.

Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:06 AM
  #379
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
If that is the PA's intention, isn't that what they have Fehr for? He is their negotiating head afterall. If the PA wants to make requests through a mediator, the only thing that makes sense to me is that it's because they feel that the league will be more receptive if it doesn't come from Fehr.
And vice versa. The purpose of the mediator is to have a cool head talking to both sides, a neutral party. Takes the animosity out of the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Okay so you think the 7% extra HRR the owners scored is in the same ballpark as the additional hotel room costs they've assumed? Do the math and let me know how that works out.
There are so many areas governed by a CBA, it's impossible to pick two and say that those two balance each other out. It's the sum total that matters.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:08 AM
  #380
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
How are the owners now at fault?
Put simply: Contract length.

They've scored victories on all other major points. They'll likely score a victory on CBA length too, which I agree with them on. but limiting contract terms to 5 years is simply to put limits on their own fellow owners, and it ends up hurting the players. I think they need to find another way to resolve that issue without screwing the players. It's their mistake. It's their problem. They've asked the players to help them on all other issues. They should fix this one on their own.

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:11 AM
  #381
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
And vice versa. The purpose of the mediator is to have a cool head talking to both sides, a neutral party. Takes the animosity out of the picture.



There are so many areas governed by a CBA, it's impossible to pick two and say that those two balance each other out. It's the sum total that matters.
And is there any disagreement that the net result of this CBA will be a CBA that moves towards the owners compared to the last one? Isn't that a given?

Again, I think the owners SHOULD get movement on this CBA. But the 5 year contract limit is wrong, IMO. It's too much to ask, it borders on collusion, and it's all based off their own failings. Is it too much to ask them to solve one of their own problems?

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:13 AM
  #382
IcemanTBI
Registered User
 
IcemanTBI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod

Told the NHLPA is in a waiting pattern right now... waiting for a response from NHL/mediator. NHLPA doesn't believe NHL will budge right now
https://twitter.com/TheFourthPeriod

So, whats the point then?

IcemanTBI is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:13 AM
  #383
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post

It's ironic, isn't it, to hear this question? I mean, at the start of things a lot of people were asking the same thing on the part of the PA, which stalled and stalled and stalled and when it did "negotiate" it consisted basically of "no," "no," "no," without counteroffers or proposals. That was the PA's tactic. The league continued to submit revised proposals while the PA stalled. Now the league has (apparently) reached its limit (or close to it) and the PA is upset that the league won't continue to modify its proposals. Perhaps the stall tactic wasn't the best method, or perhaps they used it too long.
I'm not talking about agreeing to meet or submitting proposals, so "negotiate" was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant "concede". The owners should concede on contract length, or at least, compromise severely. 5 years is simply draconian.

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:14 AM
  #384
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
MLB looks exactly like the NHL did in the 1990s. If you have money in that uncapped world, you can both help your own team and destroy the others in the process. If you don't have money, you get to develop players who will simply leave as free agents.

You ignore the fact that going into every season, the same 10 fan bases have zero hope to make the postseason at all, and another 5 recognize that it would take a miracle to get there at all. MLB is a two-tiered system, and it's a joke.
That's what most sports look like around the world outside of NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS.

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:17 AM
  #385
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 14,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Put simply: Contract length.

They've scored victories on all other major points. They'll likely score a victory on CBA length too, which I agree with them on. but limiting contract terms to 5 years is simply to put limits on their own fellow owners, and it ends up hurting the players. I think they need to find another way to resolve that issue without screwing the players. It's their mistake. It's their problem. They've asked the players to help them on all other issues. They should fix this one on their own.
There can't be another way to "fix it" other than CBA language - it's called collusion. How is it screwing the players, regardless?

Ducks DVM is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:17 AM
  #386
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Put simply: Contract length.

They've scored victories on all other major points. They'll likely score a victory on CBA length too, which I agree with them on. but limiting contract terms to 5 years is simply to put limits on their own fellow owners, and it ends up hurting the players. I think they need to find another way to resolve that issue without screwing the players. It's their mistake. It's their problem. They've asked the players to help them on all other issues. They should fix this one on their own.
So the players' insurance amounts and the value and liabilities of the franchises are of no concern to the players?

It's not just a league problem because it involves the players as well. 5 years is not a good limit, I agree, but to say it isn't a players' issue is naive.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:18 AM
  #387
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
That's what most sports look like around the world outside of NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS.
So what? We're talking about a closed North American league built around a franchise system. The rest of the world doesn't have that.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:21 AM
  #388
SelleckStache
Registered User
 
SelleckStache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,688
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan View Post
I definetely think that there would be consequences (not sure if unintended) of a 5/7 max contract term.

Trade deadline deals become MUCH more significant, because the team that pays at the deadline to get a guy would have a HUGE advantage when it comes time to resign him as a UFA. The ability to offer 2 extra years could easily translate in a teams ability to offer $15+ more than another team. That is HUGE, and would very likely impact the trade value of rentals. If you're renting an elite player at the deadline, AND getting a HUGE increase in your ability to resign the player - that's worth a lot more than a rental in the past.
Absolutely.
Interesting you mention the rental market, a vet on the tail-end of his long contract suddenly becomes less attractive to trade-for. With only a proposed 5% variance in salary, they become more expensive in real-dollars. Budget teams will have to think thrice.

SelleckStache is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:21 AM
  #389
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
this is why I am convinced the owners are crushing this negotiation. So far, the player share has been reduced to 50% of the pie and the owners are getting no limitations on how they decide how big the pie is.

Accounting is beyond the understanding of most players and media so this issue is being ignored. IMO, the definition of HRR is either the 1 or 1A issue when determining the winner and the NHLPA was never able to bring it to the table.
Can you please explain a little more clearly. I'm not thinking straight today, need more sleep. Pissed about how this whole thing is unfolding, more than anything

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:23 AM
  #390
Freudian
luck paper scissors
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 26,842
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Put simply: Contract length.

They've scored victories on all other major points. They'll likely score a victory on CBA length too, which I agree with them on. but limiting contract terms to 5 years is simply to put limits on their own fellow owners, and it ends up hurting the players. I think they need to find another way to resolve that issue without screwing the players. It's their mistake. It's their problem. They've asked the players to help them on all other issues. They should fix this one on their own.
If they fix this on their own, they would be colluding and could be sued by the players.

I don't see how the current situation is the owners mistake. If anything it's been players/agents/GMs that have all created this mess with long term contracts. Anyone not believing that Parise/Suter weren't as much behind their contracts as Wild were is being naive.

If NHL leaves this door open, you'll continue to see massive long term deals and that's not good for the league. It increases risk for teams (injury, retirement) even more than before. It increases insurance cost. It lessens flexibility (harder to trade long expensive contracts and there will be fewer UFAs each year, pushing salaries for them up).

I can see why players and agents wants it. I have no idea why any fan would think this change would be bad.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:26 AM
  #391
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
I'm not talking about agreeing to meet or submitting proposals, so "negotiate" was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant "concede". The owners should concede on contract length, or at least, compromise severely. 5 years is simply draconian.
Not to be snarky, but one definition of "draconian" is "severe." Perhaps rather than making severe demands of the owners to what is perceived as a severe demand of the players, they should both make moderate concessions and meet in the middle.

Another definition of "draconian" is "cruel." Five years at even the NHL minimum salary... I wish someone would be that cruel to me! And doesn't this benefit good players in a way? The chance to negotiate for bigger $$ sooner, which would keep them more on pace with the going rate than being underpaid for years due to a lengthy contract? Or is that too simplistic?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:26 AM
  #392
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
There can't be another way to "fix it" other than CBA language - it's called collusion. How is it screwing the players, regardless?
If you were a guy like Tyler Seguin and loved Boston, why should you be precluded from signing a 7 year deal? And if you were his GM, why should you be precluded from locking him up for 7 years?

The owners will tell you "because too many owners use those deals to sign mediocre players, then they end up losing money and coming to us for help." Does that sound like an explanation any parent would accept from their kid? Or any Econ professor would sign off on?

If the issue is that franchises mismanage contracts, then put in rules to allow teams to trade for cap space. Or allow teams to pay part of contracts in trade. You know, reasonable, free-market-type solutions that other leagues have implemented.

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:28 AM
  #393
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Though in all honesty, I don't think a rival league would have the same effect today as it did 30 years ago. It'd be much worse for the game these days than it was back then.
Ha I'm just havin' a laugh with you too. But as far as a rival league ... I don't really care so much about league success/failure. We seem to think so much in corporate terms these days, but for me it is just having my home team to cheer for. My home arena drew bigger crowds and louder fans in the WHA than in the NHL, back when the league was arguably better!


Last edited by Chairman Maouth: 12-13-2012 at 11:31 AM. Reason: edited quote
GrandChelems is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:28 AM
  #394
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Bruinswagoner #4762
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Sakich View Post
this is why I am convinced the owners are crushing this negotiation. So far, the player share has been reduced to 50% of the pie and the owners are getting no limitations on how they decide how big the pie is.

Accounting is beyond the understanding of most players and media so this issue is being ignored. IMO, the definition of HRR is either the 1 or 1A issue when determining the winner and the NHLPA was never able to bring it to the table.
And in ten years (or eight, or six) the next lockout will be about redefining HRR (as they tried in their first few proposals) and getting whatever they "conceded" to the PA in the finalized CBA.

Stewie Griffin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #395
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Not to be snarky, but one definition of "draconian" is "severe." Perhaps rather than making severe demands of the owners to what is perceived as a severe demand of the players, they should both make moderate concessions and meet in the middle.

Another definition of "draconian" is "cruel." Five years at even the NHL minimum salary... I wish someone would be that cruel to me! And doesn't this benefit good players in a way? The chance to negotiate for bigger $$ sooner, which would keep them more on pace with the going rate than being underpaid for years due to a lengthy contract? Or is that too simplistic?
You know that's not a fair response. The Average Joe's income has zero bearing here.

By limiting contract length you're taking an arrow from the GM's quiver, you're limiting the amount of security a player can secure, and you're doing it all because you don't/can't trust your fellow owners or craft free-market language to solve the problem. It's lazy and punitive. I honestly can't see why anyone, pro-owner or not, isn't against this. Why can't the owners find another way to solve this problem - it's their problem!

bp13 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #396
Ilrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago Burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcemanTBI View Post
https://twitter.com/TheFourthPeriod

So, whats the point then?
Yeah, no kidding. If Fehr really has been holding out thinking the league can give more, and now the PA senses they won't, time to get this done. Or, it will be no season. This could actually be a positive that the PA senses Bettman means it this time.

Ilrider is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #397
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Though in all honesty, I don't think a rival league would have the same effect today as it did 30 years ago. It'd be much worse for the game these days than it was back then.
A rival league works if there are cities to put teams in. And, of course, most importantly, that rival league would need to be able to offer more money, at the very least. That's not going to happen in North America. There are other leagues around the world that players could sign in when their contracts are up.

However, any player that is still wanted by an NHL team ends up signing in the NHL, every time. Unless they do what Jagr did. Which is weird, since so many players hate Bettman and don't trust the owners. You would think they would want to show the NHL that it needs them more than they need it, but that sweet siren song of money always bring them back to the league they don't seem to like much.


Last edited by Chairman Maouth: 12-13-2012 at 11:31 AM. Reason: edited quote
KingsFan7824 is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #398
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,280
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
And in ten years (or eight, or six) the next lockout will be about redefining HRR (as they tried in their first few proposals) and getting whatever they "conceded" to the PA in the finalized CBA.
Why would this happen if the new CBA works as intended and everyone is doing well?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:29 AM
  #399
McRib
2nd Rate Fan
 
McRib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,273
vCash: 500
No urgency from either side, but they're trying to fake urgency. Pathetic.

McRib is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:32 AM
  #400
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bogor, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
Ha I'm just havin' a laugh with you too. But as far as a rival league ... I don't really care so much about league success/failure. We seem to think so much in corporate terms these days, but for me it is just having my home team to cheer for. My home arena drew bigger crowds and louder fans in the WHA than in the NHL, back when the league was arguably better!
Wait, you want to have a home team to cheer for, but don't care about the league is a failure?

Go back and see how many WHA franchises folded. You need a league to be successful in order to keep your team in that league.

BonkTastic 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 08:47 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.