HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 11:50 AM
  #426
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,105
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 owners and player are gonna share half of the revenues. It's the leagues problem, but the players also will have to share the responsibility of help keeping their own contracts in check.

Yes owners give/pay those contracts out, but the players are the one who probably demand that to be stuck in a weaker market at that point. Restraint has to come from both parties, if not, then a measure has to be put into place and here we are.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:50 AM
  #427
tbcwpg
Registered User
 
tbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,599
vCash: 500
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.
Nothing is wrong with it if backdiving is eliminated. However, the players' proposal for backdiving is toothless (75% variance), and unless signing bonuses are included as salary amounts when it comes to variance, signing bonuses will be an easy loophole. I think 25% variance over the course of the contract is best (eg. if $5 million is the max, then no year in the contract can be less than $3.75 million). That eliminates backdiving too much and discourages these longer deals with $1 million tacked on at the end for a couple of years to lower the cap hit.

tbcwpg is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:52 AM
  #428
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
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
Umm...yeah, if Bettman gives in to the NHLPAs demands the lockout will end.

Apparently the alternative has not been considered by this fellow: that the NHLPA gives in to the nhl's demands.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:52 AM
  #429
GordieHoweHatTrick
Registered User
 
GordieHoweHatTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,829
vCash: 500
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.
If you eliminate the back-diving contracts the contract lengths should take care of themselves. Even someone who's annoyed with the PA, like myself, should admit limiting contract lengths to 5 years is too much for the Owners to be asking for.

GordieHoweHatTrick is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:52 AM
  #430
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
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.
I have no problems with 6 or 7 or 8. It doesnt matter to me. I was responding to a person who said that if long term deals are no good, then gms should just abstain from doing them. And that idea, IMO, is a naive look at how competition doesnt work. Its always about finding an edge.

Im ok with 5 years, because as i wrote in a post higher up, it increases player movement. UFAs, more trades. Its really that simple for me. 5 years is long time to have a general core on your team before it gets completely dismantled.

Over the course of the last CBA, it became apparent how there were fewer and fewer UFAs at each end of season, and a decreased amount of trades every trade deadline. That cannot continue if the NHL wishes to continue to grow and gain new fans. 5 years, 6 years, 7 years...it doesnt matter, they all force gms and owners to abide by rules, and it seems, thats the best way for EVERYONE involved.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:53 AM
  #431
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
The owners and player are gonna share half of the revenues. It's the leagues problem, but the players also will have to share the responsibility of help keeping their own contracts in check.

Yes owners give/pay those contracts out, but the players are the one who probably demand that to be stuck in a weaker market at that point. Restraint has to come from both parties, if not, then a measure has to be put into place and here we are.
Absolutely disagree. The players objective should be to maximize the amount of money they make. GM's who make bad decisions should see their teams suffer. With a hard cap and no back diving contracts that is exactly what will happen. If you want to hand out 7 year contracts to Scott Gomez I'm not going to put the blame on Gomez but the GM who signed him should see his team suffer. That way good GM's get rewarded which is as it should be.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:55 AM
  #432
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbcwpg View Post
Nothing is wrong with it if backdiving is eliminated. However, the players' proposal for backdiving is toothless (75% variance), and unless signing bonuses are included as salary amounts when it comes to variance, signing bonuses will be an easy loophole. I think 25% variance over the course of the contract is best (eg. if $5 million is the max, then no year in the contract can be less than $3.75 million). That eliminates backdiving too much and discourages these longer deals with $1 million tacked on at the end for a couple of years to lower the cap hit.
Agreed. That's why I think that there are some pretty easy compromises here. The owners can give on contract length but then the players need to give on % variance. Then like in any competitive environment good GM's get rewarded and bad GM's get punished and ultimately fired.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:56 AM
  #433
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Umm...yeah, if Bettman gives in to the NHLPAs demands the lockout will end.

Apparently the alternative has not been considered by this fellow: that the NHLPA gives in to the nhl's demands.
It's has been beaten to death. Basically I see people on this board every couple weeks evaluate the situation, decide which side is worse off by continuing the workstoppage, railing on that side for not giving in.

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:57 AM
  #434
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Absolutely disagree. The players objective should be to maximize the amount of money they make. GM's who make bad decisions should see their teams suffer. With a hard cap and no back diving contracts that is exactly what will happen. If you want to hand out 7 year contracts to Scott Gomez I'm not going to put the blame on Gomez but the GM who signed him should see his team suffer. That way good GM's get rewarded which is as it should be.
So nhl players objective should be to maximize the amount of money they make. What about the Owner and GMs objective? Shouldn't that be to maximize the amount of money their franchise makes?

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:59 AM
  #435
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YogiCanucks View Post
It's has been beaten to death. Basically I see people on this board every couple weeks evaluate the situation, decide which side is worse off by continuing the workstoppage, railing on that side for not giving in.
Yep and often it's a person on one of those sides. The imaginary moderates earn themselves all types of kudos for pretending they may do something while letting the hardcore do what they want.

Section337 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:59 AM
  #436
YogiCanucks
Registered User
 
YogiCanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordieHoweHatTrick View Post
If you eliminate the back-diving contracts the contract lengths should take care of themselves. Even someone who's annoyed with the PA, like myself, should admit limiting contract lengths to 5 years is too much for the Owners to be asking for.
I tend to disagree. Back diving deals were only the face of a much larger underlying problem.

YogiCanucks is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:00 PM
  #437
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
So nhl players objective should be to maximize the amount of money they make. What about the Owner and GMs objective? Shouldn't that be to maximize the amount of money their franchise makes?
Yes. That seems pretty obvious.
My response was to a poster suggesting that the players should show restraint when negotiating their contracts. Would you expect Gomez to say to the GM, no I'm sorry that's far too much money you're offering me. I'll take half of that. That's not realistic at all.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:00 PM
  #438
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Umm...yeah, if Bettman gives in to the NHLPAs demands the lockout will end.

Apparently the alternative has not been considered by this fellow: that the NHLPA gives in to the nhl's demands.
Um, that's all they have done.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:01 PM
  #439
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Um, that's all they have done.
Not entirely, as the lockout continues.

CpatainCanuck is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:01 PM
  #440
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,776
vCash: 500
Bettman and Daly screamed and yelled about getting a proposal from the players in writing. Any proposal. They get a 2nd proposal in 3 weeks and Bettman won't even acknowledge it. A proposal which is talking his language. No guaranteed fixed amount. A straight %. Long term CBA. Contract limits. Bettman is playing hard to get and its his way or no way.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:03 PM
  #441
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman and Daly screamed and yelled about getting a proposal from the players in writing. Any proposal. They get a 2nd proposal in 3 weeks and Bettman won't even acknowledge it. A proposal which is talking his language. No guaranteed fixed amount. A straight %. Long term CBA. Contract limits. Bettman is playing hard to get and its his way or no way.
That's his style. He loves confrontation and drama. Compromise and a conciliatory approach is not in his DNA. Hence the reason why we're in our third work stoppage in 17 years. Unfortunately for Bettman the guy on the other side has just as bad a record at compromising.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:03 PM
  #442
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Not entirely, as the lockout continues.
So they should just bend over backwards for the owners?

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:05 PM
  #443
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
So they should just bend over backwards for the owners?
They already have in a sense, because they're never going to get the money back that they've lost, no matter how favorable a deal they sign.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:06 PM
  #444
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman and Daly screamed and yelled about getting a proposal from the players in writing. Any proposal. They get a 2nd proposal in 3 weeks and Bettman won't even acknowledge it. A proposal which is talking his language. No guaranteed fixed amount. A straight %. Long term CBA. Contract limits. Bettman is playing hard to get and its his way or no way.
Lol, when they ask for proposals, they dont get any.

When the league doesnt want any more proposals, the PA has pockets full of proposals.

EdAVSfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:06 PM
  #445
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,779
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.
First of all, the owners want a 5 year restriction with an exception of 7 years for any player RE-signing with the same team that holds their rights. So, nothing precludes Seguin from signing for 7, nor management from offering him 7.

And, to be honest, it's worrisome when we're this deep into the discussions and fans who are passionately taking a stand and posting with high frequency still don't even have these kinds of details figured out. You can't really accurately contribute to the conversation if you don't even have a full understanding of the facts, and the spread of disinformation and misinformation has been a plague throughout this entire fiasco, both in the arguments here at HF and in the twitter world. Knowing the facts is really a precursor to have an argument to stand by in the first place.

SERE 24 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:08 PM
  #446
Samzilla
Registered User
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,284
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman and Daly screamed and yelled about getting a proposal from the players in writing. Any proposal. They get a 2nd proposal in 3 weeks and Bettman won't even acknowledge it. A proposal which is talking his language. No guaranteed fixed amount. A straight %. Long term CBA. Contract limits. Bettman is playing hard to get and its his way or no way.
Did you even read the proposal? It's linked in name only.

Samzilla is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:08 PM
  #447
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,776
vCash: 500
From: @DavidAlter590
Sent: Dec 13, 2012 1:06p

PA met with mediators in Jersey... Are currently on break for lunch... Should be an interesting afternoon.

sent via Twitter for BlackBerry®
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/DavidAlter590/sta...86148851978240

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:11 PM
  #448
c4fn8d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
First of all, the owners want a 5 year restriction with an exception of 7 years for any player RE-signing with the same team that holds their rights. So, nothing precludes Seguin from signing for 7, nor management from offering him 7.
This is intended to kill competition. FA will get less term for jumping teams. The only way to offset that is to increase the dollar value, but because you've reduced the cap due to the split, you've effectively reached into the players pocket twice. And it's a wonder why the players aren't jumping up and down about this offer.

c4fn8d is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:12 PM
  #449
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
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.
Assuming Dreger is correct about the league's 'take it or leave it but we can actually negotiate off of that' offer, perhaps 7 year deal isn't a problem. It's clear that the league wants to include something in the way of contracts to give home teams some sort of advantage in resigning their players. Is that point something that they will lose an entire season over? I don't know. However, the league has already put the notion of a 7 year max length on the table (the advantage to home teams for their players).

Again, assuming that Dreger's tweet has some merit (and he seems pretty plugged in with NHL sources), perhaps the NHL's current take it or leave it is a way for the PA to stop beating around the bush and start negotiating off the league's framework. For example, the league is trying to close as many loopholes with the contracts and back diving, etc. The PA puts a proposal on the table that on the surface agrees to that principle but their solution is to find other loopholes to manipulate to create the same problem the league wants to eliminate. Of course that isn't going to fly with the league. League wants a 5% variance (or more realistically, they may not mind a higher variance but they don't want it to be too high) so the PA's solution? How about we apply no variance to contracts that are 5 years or shorter but in years 6-8, we can then apply a variance of a maximum of 75% from year 1 to the last year of contract. The league says, we want to increase our share and reduce our costs outside the system. What is the PA's solution? Oh, how about we cap escrow and introduce amnesty buyouts that all come out of the league's end (hence outside the system).

Perhaps there is flexibility in contract length (maximum of 7) and variance (5 or higher - and this is where you can give the home team the advantage with a greater variance to work with). I think it's possible that the league's line in the sand isn't actually the contents of their offer but rather the structure of their offer itself. The contents can probably be negotiated if the PA chooses to do so.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:12 PM
  #450
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,776
vCash: 500
From: @SunGarrioch
Sent: Dec 13, 2012 1:10p

Bill Daly says "no final decision on whether mediation process is concluded for now." Take from that what you will. #NHL #NHLPA

sent via web
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/SunGarrioch/statu...87291053223936

RangerBoy 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 05:43 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.