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, 11:32 AM
  #401
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Bruinswagoner #4762
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Why would this happen if the new CBA works as intended and everyone is doing well?
History.

The last CBA "worked as intended" and the NHL "has 30 healthy franchises".


(I'm just cranky and feeling awfully pessimistic about the entire process.)

Stewie Griffin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:32 AM
  #402
marcel snapshot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 955
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?
Not true. If long-term deals exceeding 5 years are stupid and destructive, then each club can and should decide on their own not to do them. They don't need a CBA provision to exercise judgment.

This is part of the problem with the NHL's whole negotiating stance -- they don't just want a substantial win, which they're already getting from 50/50 and make-not-quite-whole on existing contracts. They want an idiot-proof CBA, so they can be saved from their future stupidity. History shows there's no such thing - but Bettman continues to make the fans suffer on the cross of a CBA that will idiot-proof the clubs against their own poor judgment.

marcel snapshot is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:33 AM
  #403
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
You know that's not a fair response. The Average Joe's income has zero bearing here.
Come on, I was just injecting a little levity in the picture. The point was that , IMO, even at the minimum NHL salary a 5-year contract can't be considered "draconian." I guess I'm just weary of the term, we're not talking about the days of Oliver Twist asking for a little more gruel here.

Quote:
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!
All good points. I guess if we had the magic answer we would have solved this problem by now. Sure wish we did.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:33 AM
  #404
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IcemanTBI View Post
https://twitter.com/TheFourthPeriod

So, whats the point then?
to put up a front like theyre trying. The PA keeps saying the league has a date in mind blahblahblah and by saying that, theyre basically saying theyre not trying to do anything.

isles31 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:34 AM
  #405
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,578
vCash: 2209
It is only human nature to assume that the NHL will always and forever be the gold standard of hockey in North America, but if you care to consider the history of everything in the history of the world that ever existed, you might consider otherwise.

Why does the NHL logo have to be that big warm fuzzy blanket that'll make hockey fans cry if it gets pulled away? **** it, it's a **** league run by greedy morons and populated by prissy, self-entitled, childish athletes.

For the love of hockey, we can do better.

Or am I in the wrong place? Everyone here an "NHL" fan, or a "hockey" fan?


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 12-13-2012 at 12:13 PM. Reason: removed deleted quotes
GrandChelems is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:34 AM
  #406
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
History.

The last CBA "worked as intended" and the NHL "has 30 healthy franchises".
Well, I have to say that I think you're the first person I've heard make that claim!


Quote:
(I'm just cranky and feeling awfully pessimistic about the entire process.)
It's OK, I fully feel your pain on that score.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:35 AM
  #407
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilrider View Post
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.
Another way of looking at that is that the PA still believes that there is a drop dead date for the league and feeling like the league won't budge right now doesn't mean that they think the league won't eventually budge. The PA has worked off a notion that there is a deadline and their gamble is working all the way to that deadline to get as much as they can.

Which raises the question, the PA constantly says that the league has a deadline and they planned it this way all along...however, with the PA saying that they haven't received the league's best offer yet and guys like Ovechkin saying 'it seems like our plan is better than their plan', doesn't that also suggest that the PA had a deadline in their minds all along and that the plan was to ride it as far as it could go. Doesn't that mean the PA is guilty of the same thing they accuse the league of? Not the first time they've been caught saying or doing something contradicting, but just pointing it out.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:38 AM
  #408
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
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!
You cant see why anyone isnt against this??

Im all for a 5 year term on contracts. Why? Because it lends to the possibility of increased player movement with regards to both trades, and free agency.

Player movement, IMO, is one of the most unspoken, but exciting, part in all sports.

Theres a reason why the trade deadline and july 1st are the busiest days in the NHL. Theyve creating day-long tv shows to monitor the events.

Why not look at this from not a pro-owner and not a pro-pa person, and look at this merely as a FAN. Player movement and the increased possiblity of player movement is something almost all fans. Yes, most fans love their players and would hate to see them move, but its easy to forget them when theres new blood being injected into your team.

The busiest section of HF is the trade rumors tab. Its the most agreed-upon principle that player movement increases talk, and buzz, and excitement AND most importantly, the possibility of new fans becoming part of the NHL because of all the talk and buzz.

Yeah, its actually quite easy for me to see how a 5 year term is a good idea.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:39 AM
  #409
GrandChelems
Registered User
 
GrandChelems's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,578
vCash: 2209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
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.
OK, maybe I'm being overly emotional, but no I still don't care too much about the league thing. As long as there's a passion for hockey, there'll always be some kind of league to compete in! For e.g., Winnipeg having an NHL standard rink and competing in the AHL ... fine by me.

Bloody hell a lot of you take being a fan too seriously! For some it's about cracking a beer, going to the game, and eating some wings after ... and having you wife/GF do the same!

GrandChelems is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:39 AM
  #410
WinterEmpire
Praise Dalpe
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Well, I have to say that I think you're the first person I've heard make that claim!
Bettman and the owners made that claim everyday time they were asked for 7 years until it was time to negotiate.

WinterEmpire is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:40 AM
  #411
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
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!
Almost every rule and restriction in the CBA "restricts" GMs, from the nhl draft to entry level salary, UFA age, salary cap, etc etc. Rules and restrictions on GMs are a necessary part of every league in the world...the only debate is what those restrictions should be.

The owners can't solve this problem on their own, that would be collusion. They legally have to have the nhlpa agree to the rules governing the league...that's what this lockout is about.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:41 AM
  #412
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcel snapshot View Post
Not true. If long-term deals exceeding 5 years are stupid and destructive, then each club can and should decide on their own not to do them. They don't need a CBA provision to exercise judgment.
This is part of the problem with the NHL's whole negotiating stance -- they don't just want a substantial win, which they're already getting from 50/50 and make-not-quite-whole on existing contracts. They want an idiot-proof CBA, so they can be saved from their future stupidity. History shows there's no such thing - but Bettman continues to make the fans suffer on the cross of a CBA that will idiot-proof the clubs against their own poor judgment.
In a system which is in essence, a competition, GM's, Owners and teams will do what they can to find any type of competitive advantage, ESPECIALLY if that advantage, can lead to more money.

All it takes is 1 guy to sign a 6 year deal, before agents and gms keep going round til they either get a 6 or 7 year deal.

As long as there are owners who can afford to be destructive, with no long term penalties, it is impossible to maintain competitive integrity in a league without forcing it down their throats.


Last edited by ThirdManIn: 12-13-2012 at 12:14 PM. Reason: flaming
EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:41 AM
  #413
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,277
vCash: 500
Two kids each wanting the other to make the first move. The interests of the fans are the lowest priority for both of them. Except of course until a deal is signed when we will all become the main focus of all of their attention again. I've already decided that I won't attend any games this year. It won't make any difference in this city but it's about all I can do.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
  #414
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Bruinswagoner #4762
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Well, I have to say that I think you're the first person I've heard make that claim!


Gary Bettman is not a person?

Isn't that his standard rhetoric during the term of a CBA when asked about the financial status of the NHL?

Stewie Griffin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
  #415
5 Minute Major
Registered User
 
5 Minute Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Binghamton, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilrider View Post
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.
We will find out if the PA has even less brain cells than many have imagined. If there is no season, the NHL will come back with another offer......one that is significantly less than the one on the table right now.

5 Minute Major is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
  #416
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
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!
The 5 years is about limiting risk. Injury or a fluke year wont kill a team in the long run. There will always be one owner that will find a way to tweek the rules to his advantage. The other owners will have to follow suit or lose the ability to compete. The second reason is to hold young players longer. By only giving 5 year deals owners get more chances to sign players as RFA vs UFA. The third reason is more UFAs on the market. This means pkayer X wont be the only UFA and demand as crazy money.
Now these are just my ideas so no links, no quotes, and no logic

onlyalad is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:44 AM
  #417
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
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.
So I don't think it's fair to call the other system a 'joke'.

It's not like I'm saying it's better, just also viable. North American leagues don't like it because it often returns 0 profits where with a capped world you can hope to make more return on an investment.

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:44 AM
  #418
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
The bolded is just being naive.

In a system which is in essence, a competition, GM's, Owners and teams will do what they can to find any type of competitive advantage, ESPECIALLY if that advantage, can lead to more money.

All it takes is 1 guy to sign a 6 year deal, before agents and gms keep going round til they either get a 6 or 7 year deal.
If you eliminate backdiving, what in principle is the problem with 7 year deals. If a GM signs Scott Gomez to an exorbitant 7 year deal then they suffer competitively which is the way most businesses work. The well run ones do better than the poorly run ones. With a hard cap of 50% of revenues the players' share is alwasy fixed. It doesn't seem unfair that teams with a good GM should have an advantage over teams with a poor GM.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:46 AM
  #419
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
OK, maybe I'm being overly emotional, but no I still don't care too much about the league thing. As long as there's a passion for hockey, there'll always be some kind of league to compete in! For e.g., Winnipeg having an NHL standard rink and competing in the AHL ... fine by me.

Bloody hell a lot of you take being a fan too seriously! For some it's about cracking a beer, going to the game, and eating some wings after ... and having you wife/GF do the same!
Most nhl fans want to watch the best players in the world playing the nhl...so we would have a problem with seeing our nhl team replaced by an ahl one. I guess some people just look at hockey as a social outing though.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:47 AM
  #420
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Bruinswagoner #4762
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
If you eliminate backdiving, what in principle is the problem with 7 year deals. If a GM signs Scott Gomez to an exorbitant 7 year deal then they suffer competitively which is the way most businesses work. The well run ones do better than the poorly run ones. With a hard cap of 50% of revenues the players' share is alwasy fixed. It doesn't seem unfair that teams with a good GM should have an advantage over teams with a poor GM.
The only problem I can see is insurance costs - however I haven't seen any solid figures regarding these costs, I'm assuming because they'll vary from player to player, depending on age, injury history, salary, etc.

Stewie Griffin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:48 AM
  #421
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandChelems View Post
It is only human nature to assume that the NHL will always and forever be the gold standard of hockey in North America, but if you care to consider the history of everything in the history of the world that ever existed, you might consider otherwise.

Why does the NHL logo have to be that big warm fuzzy blanket that'll make hockey fans cry if it gets pulled away? **** it, it's a **** league run by greedy morons and populated by prissy, self-entitled, childish athletes.

For the love of hockey, we can do better.

Or am I in the wrong place? Everyone here an "NHL" fan, or a "hockey" fan?
If and when the time comes where conditions are right for a rival league to exist, it will. But it's not now.

The AHL isn't a rival league. It's a developmental league for the top league.

No other sport has a rival league anymore. They either went away, or somehow merged with the leagues that are left standing today. That's over and done with.

If the NHL starts contracting teams, or moving anything west or south of Chicago to the northeast corridor, then maybe a rival league pops up. Since that's not going to happen, at least not enough to mean that much, I'd say don't worry about it.

KingsFan7824 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:48 AM
  #422
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 30,992
vCash: 500
Bettman will determine when the lockout ends. He holds all of the cards. From: @FriedgeHNIC
Sent: Dec 13, 2012 12:42p

With time to kill, a few thoughts on the commish -- http://t.co/3elgHVW0

sent via Twitter for BlackBerry®
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/statu...80055199358976

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:48 AM
  #423
Ilrider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chicago Burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Another way of looking at that is that the PA still believes that there is a drop dead date for the league and feeling like the league won't budge right now doesn't mean that they think the league won't eventually budge. The PA has worked off a notion that there is a deadline and their gamble is working all the way to that deadline to get as much as they can.

Which raises the question, the PA constantly says that the league has a deadline and they planned it this way all along...however, with the PA saying that they haven't received the league's best offer yet and guys like Ovechkin saying 'it seems like our plan is better than their plan', doesn't that also suggest that the PA had a deadline in their minds all along and that the plan was to ride it as far as it could go. Doesn't that mean the PA is guilty of the same thing they accuse the league of? Not the first time they've been caught saying or doing something contradicting, but just pointing it out.
Yep, that is another realistic way of looking at it, and I do think that is how far Fehr is pushing it.

That's why I really wish Bettman would have held firm sooner and mean it rather than saying they wouldn't budge on their offers, only to give more. It might have inadvertantly caused Fehr to drag this out longer (unless some owners hoped it would drag on to lose less revenue), and despite all the blame Fehr is getting, what negotiater wouldn't hold out longer if the other side kept giving more? People are talking about cost-benefit analysis, but that really only affects the players' pay this season. Fehr appears to want to take care of players in the long-term, so he's getting every dollar he can back.

I hope Bettman does announce a drop-dead date here soon, and really mean it, because that should help a deal get done no later than that date if the PA really intends to agree to a deal. We might go right up to it, but that wouldn't surprise me anyway.

Ilrider is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:49 AM
  #424
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
The only problem I can see is insurance costs - however I haven't seen any solid figures regarding these costs, I'm assuming because they'll vary from player to player, depending on age, injury history, salary, etc.
I've heard that too. But even the NHL has proposed allowing teams to sign their drafted players to 7 year contracts. So I'm not sure how big a cost it is.
I like 7 year deals as it gives good GM's a competitive advantage. The amount of money that can go to the players collectively under the cap is fixed so teams who sign bad contracts suffer. I'm all for parity but teams with bad GM's should suffer.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:50 AM
  #425
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
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.
That doesn't do much for the league.

- long contracts still exposed to insurance liability
- still an arms race for player contracts
- on top of that, allowing tradable cap space essentially raises the cap by the average unused cap space

Your method of free market solutions doesn't work because the NHL is attempting to artificially keep contracts down.

YogiCanucks 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 03:03 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.