HFBoards

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

Lockout Thread 2: Deal reached in early morning hours

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 09:07 AM
  #301
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
To go on a tangent a bit:
Shea Weber is a great example of why the limits need to be in place.
Nashville had almost no choice but to take the gamble. They stood to lose a ton of fan and corporate support if they lost both players. If the Nashville owners really wanted to pay that kind of money, we would have seen it a year earlier. The rules put them in a place where they had to choose one of two really crappy options.

I didn't agree with all the player hatin' before 2005 about how they shouldn't have asked (with their agents) for ridiculous amounts of money and all the owner hatin' now about how they should never have signed those contracts. Both arguments are not realistic in major professional sports.

The rules create the market and the both sides will push on the rules as far as they can.
With these 'new rules' in place, it just makes it easier for big names to leave these small markets a lot sooner. Why would small market teams want that? Why wouldn't they want to sign their franchise/ticket selling players to life time deals with a lesser cap hit? Less cap hit, more room to fit mid tier players in to compete.

When a limit is finally implemented, I can't wait to see all these small market teams lose their big name free agents to bigger markets that will throw big money at those players.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 09:19 AM
  #302
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,770
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
With these 'new rules' in place, it just makes it easier for big names to leave these small markets a lot sooner. Why would small market teams want that? Why wouldn't they want to sign their franchise/ticket selling players to life time deals with a lesser cap hit? Less cap hit, more room to fit mid tier players in to compete.
What?

The small markets CAN'T afford the front loaded years of the deals. We're talking about teams not spending anywhere near the ceiling, why would they need 'more room' to spend? None of your post makes any sense.

The idea is that if you can get 7 years from your current team or 5 from someone else, you might take the 7. Or, at the very lease, you might be able to do a sign and trade and then the original team can at least get some compensation out of their player leaving.

I don't like sign and trades, would prefer a system like baseball's where teams get extra picks if their FAs leave, but it's better than what we have now.

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:08 AM
  #303
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,221
vCash: 500
From associated press:

“The offer wasn't actually resubmitted by the NHL. Neither side made any proposals Wednesday.”
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...ockout_update/

As I suspected. Fehr may have pushed his luck, er… the players luck. The players may very well have lost out big time by not taking the moderate’s offer who have left the front lines of negotiation. I reluctantly admit that this is looking more and more like we are finished for this season. Irreparable damage will be done and there will be casualties.
If it happens, I’d like to see full decertification and get this game and the players contracts back to the reality of the real world. It will however, likely include one or more franchises folding and numerous lost jobs on the ice and off. Thanks Donald! Great job!

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:21 AM
  #304
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Aren't most of Euro leagues going into a break
I posted only the guys out of Germany and no, there will be no break in germany. Will play on 23rd december and 26th december

Bubba88 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:44 AM
  #305
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaronIndian View Post
Sports fans are inherently irrational and more often than not are at the receiving end of a abusive relationship. That is why the Leafs still sellout or why Cubs have such a loyal following or why Blackhawks were supported during the Dollar Bill era.

When all the CBA dust is settled, I am guessing that even you will go back to cheering for the very same players and handing over money to the very same owners that don't give a damn about you because we are the greatest fans in the world

With that said I can always take the side of the party that I feel is less wrong which in this case is the players
Oh no, don't get me wrong, RBI. I'm not saying I won't go back and be just as much a fan as all of you are once the lockout ends. I'm a diehard - the NHL has me completely and that can't change.
I'm just talking about what we're doing right now. Supporting one side or the other... it just seems odd to me.

That said, when all the CBA dust is settled, I'm not going to be buying merchandise for a very long time. I'll do at least my small part.
Unfortunately, I make it to few enough games as it is that the "no tickets" threat would barely accomplish anything.

Chris Hansen is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:58 AM
  #306
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
What?

The small markets CAN'T afford the front loaded years of the deals. We're talking about teams not spending anywhere near the ceiling, why would they need 'more room' to spend? None of your post makes any sense.

The idea is that if you can get 7 years from your current team or 5 from someone else, you might take the 7. Or, at the very lease, you might be able to do a sign and trade and then the original team can at least get some compensation out of their player leaving.

I don't like sign and trades, would prefer a system like baseball's where teams get extra picks if their FAs leave, but it's better than what we have now.
Players aren't going to take less money on a year to year basis just because it's a shorter term. Weber would of still wanted 12mil dollars for 5 years, or 7 years. So now, instead of having a cap hit of 7+mil, Nashville now has a cap hit of 12mil for one player.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:01 PM
  #307
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,770
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Players aren't going to take less money on a year to year basis just because it's a shorter term. Weber would of still wanted 12mil dollars for 5 years, or 7 years. So now, instead of having a cap hit of 7+mil, Nashville now has a cap hit of 12mil for one player.
Well, the prior CBA had a limit to the percentage of the cap a player could take up. I don't think a $12 million cap hit would've been possible, and I don't think it will be in the new one, so that's completely a moot point.

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:03 PM
  #308
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Well, the prior CBA had a limit to the percentage of the cap a player could take up. I don't think a $12 million cap hit would've been possible, and I don't think it will be in the new one, so that's completely a moot point.
20% of the cap, so on a $60mil dollar cap, the max cap hit can be $12mil.

Not a moot point at all.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:05 PM
  #309
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,770
vCash: 772
It is, though, because HE WOULD NOT GET THAT.

No one would give up 20% of the cap for 1 player, that's WHY THE CIRCUMVENTED THE CAP

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:08 PM
  #310
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
It is, though, because HE WOULD NOT GET THAT.

No one would give up 20% of the cap for 1 player, that's WHY THE CIRCUMVENTED THE CAP
Why wouldn't he? He's the best Dman in the league. If he didn't want to stay in Nashville, he could demand the max if he wanted to.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:11 PM
  #311
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,770
vCash: 772
I don't care what he'd demand, teams know you need depth to win. If you're spending that much on 1 guy, there is no cap space for depth.

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:13 PM
  #312
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
I don't care what he'd demand, teams know you need depth to win. If you're spending that much on 1 guy, there is no cap space for depth.
Teams also need players to market their team around. That's why you had front loaded long term deals, so they could still have their player, pay them what he wants, and still provide depth to your team.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:22 PM
  #313
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Why wouldn't they want to sign their franchise/ticket selling players to life time deals with a lesser cap hit? Less cap hit, more room to fit mid tier players in to compete.
Because they can't always afford to pay the 36 million or whatever Suter was going to get the first 14 months of his contract.

The upfront money is as much of a deal killer as anything.

It's not about working a cap, it's about running the business.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 01:34 PM
  #314
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Players aren't going to take less money on a year to year basis just because it's a shorter term. Weber would of still wanted 12mil dollars for 5 years, or 7 years. So now, instead of having a cap hit of 7+mil, Nashville now has a cap hit of 12mil for one player.
But Nashville doesn't have to shell out all the money up front and they don't have the insurance issues, and they don't have to worry about skill decline after 7 or 8 years.

FYI Nashville is paying 68 million for 5 years and 80 million for 6, and 86 for 7. Not only that but the bonus money is gauranteed. Nashville doesn't even get to save much during the lockout on Shea.

8 milllion on Weber that won't be spent on the rest of the roster over the next 5 years. Nashville only spent 4 million over the cap floor last year. How the hell does the PA make out better with the Weber contract? They have a history of penny pinching. There is no reason to suggest that the PA will get all that cap savings back anytime soon. This hurts both sides in the short term and intermediate term. Only Weber and the monster (the agent) make out well.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:12 PM
  #315
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
Because they can't always afford to pay the 36 million or whatever Suter was going to get the first 14 months of his contract.

The upfront money is as much of a deal killer as anything.

It's not about working a cap, it's about running the business.
If they can't afford it up front, how are they going to afford it at 5 years 60mil? It's the same deal. There will still be signing bonuses, and the 'front' part of the deals will just become the cap hit.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:39 PM
  #316
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
If they can't afford it up front, how are they going to afford it at 5 years 60mil? It's the same deal. There will still be signing bonuses, and the 'front' part of the deals will just become the cap hit.
They are already paying 68 million for the next 5 years and 86 over 7 with a ton of it gauranteed.

It's not the same deal since they're spending more than 20% up front. Given Nashville's history and fiscal restraints, I'm not sure all the extra money will ever even have a chance to be spent on the rest of the roster. Nashville takes on more risk and a bunch more in terms of immediate cost and the PA gets fewer members extra money.

The Weber deal is an absolute loser for Nashville compared to a capped deal at 5-7 with 20% variance. Plus, Holmgren clowns can't make 7 year bids.

It will be extremely difficult for the PA to benefit (outside of Weber and his agent) on his current contract unless he maintains an extremely high level of play well into his late 30s. It will almost be impossible for them to benefit if he stays in Nashville.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 10:51 PM
  #317
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,298
vCash: 500
Aside from the debate if Weber's deal is better or worse, I can really see the 5 year term limits screwing small market teams. They have no option to pay more and spread out the term. They have to compete dollar for dollar with the big market teams over 5 years. That's fine if both teams spend up to the cap but what about the ones that don't. Imagine as the cap gets raised again. The contact limits on percentages are good but the term limits are unnecessary to avoid circumvention. I'm not buying the insurance garbage. The owners state 5 years max but 7 years own UFA. Insurance co's don't care about if it's a team's UFA. They should be able to do 6 and 8.

There is also the possibility that contracts are going to be very similar due to constraints. Then it will come down to preference or market. Do you want to be in Chicago or Columbus? Detroit or Phoenix?


Last edited by HawksFan74: 12-13-2012 at 10:57 PM.
HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:07 PM
  #318
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Aside from the debate if Weber's deal is better or worse, I can really see the 5 year term limits screwing small market teams. They have no option to pay more and spread out the term. They have to compete dollar for dollar with the big market teams over 5 years. That's fine if both teams spend up to the cap but what about the ones that don't. Imagine as the cap gets raised again. The contact limits on percentages are good but the term limits are unnecessary to avoid circumvention. I'm not buying the insurance garbage. The owners state 5 years max but 7 years own UFA. Insurance co's don't care about if it's a team's UFA. They should be able to do 6 and 8.

There is also the possibility that contracts are going to be very similar due to constraints. Then it will come down to preference or market. Do you want to be in Chicago or Columbus? Detroit or Phoenix?
They where always going to limit the long term back diving contracts so it's really a moot point. 5-8-10 year contract limit it doesn't matter that much.

Allowing teams to resign their own player to longer contracts is a good idea, it might allows teams like Edmonton and NYI to keep their young talent and not be feeder systems for bigger teams.

Yes at the end of the day, players are more then likely going to want to play in Det, Chi, Mon, Tor, NYR vs CLB, PHX, NAS, FLA, TB. However the league wants to make is so that in terms of $ and contracts teams are playing on as equal a playing field as possible.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:13 PM
  #319
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Players aren't going to take less money on a year to year basis just because it's a shorter term. Weber would of still wanted 12mil dollars for 5 years, or 7 years. So now, instead of having a cap hit of 7+mil, Nashville now has a cap hit of 12mil for one player.
That's the point.

The league wants it so that some teams can't just sign all the superstars to these deals that circumvent the cap. They want it so that teams can only have 1-2 top paid players and role players. It makes is so that more teams can sign top talent. Now a player might have to decide to play for TOR for much less then he could in PHX.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 11:14 PM
  #320
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,298
vCash: 500
This is the current rumor on a possible deal being worked back room. Leaked by an NHL Governor to ESPN. God, I hope it's true but take it for what it's worth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6344601/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...cba-right-here
Quote:
One NHL governor provided ESPN.com with the framework for a deal he insisted would be palatable to both sides. Assuming the elements that were discussed last week in New York were still in place -- like $300 million in "make-whole" monies, agreements on free agency and arbitration rights -- the governor said he believes the following elements would represent the middle ground in the outstanding contracting, CBA term and transition issues.

Let’s call it the Do This Deal or Get Coal in Your Stocking for a Thousand Years deal.

-A nine-year CBA with a seven-year out for either side.
-A six-year contract limit with front-load/back-diving protection and eight-year limits for players who have been with a team for five years.
-Some simple buyout option as long as the buyouts are within the salary cap.

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:08 AM
  #321
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Now POTUS is having his say about the lockout. And I must say he pretty much nailed it.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...on-nhl-lockout

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:21 AM
  #322
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Now POTUS is having his say about the lockout. And I must say he pretty much nailed it.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...on-nhl-lockout
Have my issues with the guy, but he has it right here.

Granted, someone would have to be pretty blind not to say exactly what he did. This lockout is a pathetic farce.

Chris Hansen is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 01:22 AM
  #323
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Now POTUS is having his say about the lockout. And I must say he pretty much nailed it.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/87...on-nhl-lockout
Yep, I wish he would use even harsher language.

More from ESPN on the governor's proposal.

Quote:
When the proposal was described to one high-profile veteran player, he agreed it was the kind of offer that at the very least could be put to a vote by the players’ association.

Another player familiar with the often-tumultuous nature of the negotiations agreed that the governor's offer should prompt a vote. He wasn’t certain it would pass, but at least it would give an accurate gauge of the union membership’s feelings about settling. Such an offer would also show that the owners were negotiating as opposed to merely making demands, which is the perception many players were left with after a second attempt at mediation Wednesday in New Jersey.

“I think it's definitely worth looking at,” another veteran player told ESPN.com. "We'd have to look it over and see what the implications are, but it's something to work with for sure. I think that will get some traction.

“But I would like our people to look at it before we say it's worth a vote. We hire them for these reasons, so I would like to hear their input.”

Several players and agents we spoke to asked to reach out to the deal's author.

A veteran agent agreed that this is the kind of compromise on both sides that is needed for a deal, although he remained skeptical that hard-line owners would go for it.

HawksFan74 is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:09 AM
  #324
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,417
vCash: 500
Anything that has ESPN and hockey in the same sentence, doesn't even deserve a view.

Hawkaholic is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:11 AM
  #325
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,770
vCash: 772
ESPN.com is alright.

It's just an AP story, anyways. Would be exactly the same wherever you read it.

IU Hawks fan 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 09:15 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.