HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

why are teams letting their players play in AHL ?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2004, 02:45 PM
  #1
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
why are teams letting their players play in AHL ?

Why are NHL teams allowing any of their players to go to the AHL and pay and GET PAID !

Doesnt it hurt their ability to make a lockout work in their favour and dont they have to pay these players if they are playing for their farm team ?

It doesnt make much sense.

DR


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=98452

Hasek, 39, could accept a two-week conditioning assignment to Binghamton and it can be extended if Hasek agrees.

A team spokesman told The Citizen that the team will not make any official decisions on Hasek until after Wednesday, when the current collective bargaining agreement expires.

Centre Jason Spezza, tabbed by many to the team's No. 1 pivot, confirmed to the Ottawa Sun that he would likely report to Binghamton in the event of a lockout

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
09-12-2004, 02:53 PM
  #2
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 18,684
vCash: 500
Hasek would be a big exception. Guys like Spezza and the hordes of other young players are still on entry-level 2-way contracts, probably, so it's not like it's any big financial loss.

Besides, it's not as if the NHLPA represents any of these guys anyway. Hasek will retire after this year, he doesn't want to lose a year. Young players and entry-level salaries are the NHLPA's traditional sacrificial lambs. The NHL knows this, and the players themselves should figure it out too eventually. In the meantime, let them play and develop; at least there is this small limit to the madness.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 02:54 PM
  #3
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
Why are NHL teams allowing any of their players to go to the AHL and pay and GET PAID !

Doesnt it hurt their ability to make a lockout work in their favour and dont they have to pay these players if they are playing for their farm team ?

It doesnt make much sense.
I guess I can see what you mean but if everybody is satisfied right now with the working conditions in the AHL, it doesn't do much wrong and it does some good.

I guess the first thing for me is, I would like to know more about how the AHL usually works as far as salaries are concerned. Who pays the players that are NHL property usually?

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 03:23 PM
  #4
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I guess I can see what you mean but if everybody is satisfied right now with the working conditions in the AHL, it doesn't do much wrong and it does some good.

I guess the first thing for me is, I would like to know more about how the AHL usually works as far as salaries are concerned. Who pays the players that are NHL property usually?
well, clearly i dont support the owners in this lockout, but to get the full effect and into the minds of the players you need to make them sit, not play. as long as they are playing, staying in shape, going to the rink, basically maintaining a similar routine they are used to, they will not get the mental pains of being locked out.

if i was the owner, id say damned be development, no one with an NHL level contract is playing, period. unless they of course signed an idependant contract with that AHL team. however, i would use all my leverage with the AHL to deter them from sidetracking the labour stoppage.

anyhow, just one more point to show the owners arent going to go the distance with this lockout, if they meant business no one would be playing, period. no matter how "insignificant it may seem". seriously, if the young uns are the sacrificial lamb, you arent going to get htem to vote to accept a cap by letting htem play. if you want to get those guys on side, make them sit too !

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
09-12-2004, 03:32 PM
  #5
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Do they even have the right to prevent them from playing in the AHL?

Doesn't change the fact that, like you, I don't think the NHL will make much in terms of gains in the next CBA. I expect they will make minimal progress, though.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 03:40 PM
  #6
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Do they even have the right to prevent them from playing in the AHL?

Doesn't change the fact that, like you, I don't think the NHL will make much in terms of gains in the next CBA. I expect they will make minimal progress, though.
which makes you wonder why go through this BS. they should negotiate some concessions on a shorter term CBA and then peck away at the deal over time.

its partly why i am so anti owner in this case, because they should know better and should have a better strategy instead of this scorched earth all or nothing policy.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
09-12-2004, 03:41 PM
  #7
HFNHL PIT GM
The Darth of Tytan
 
HFNHL PIT GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Do they even have the right to prevent them from playing in the AHL?

.
i think they could partly stop it by not assigning their players to the minors. like i said, the players might be able to sign independant contracts with AHL teams, but if i was an owner, i wouldnt be facilitating it by sending them to the minors to play and be paid.

dr

HFNHL PIT GM is online now  
Old
09-12-2004, 03:57 PM
  #8
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
which makes you wonder why go through this BS. they should negotiate some concessions on a shorter term CBA and then peck away at the deal over time.

its partly why i am so anti owner in this case, because they should know better and should have a better strategy instead of this scorched earth all or nothing policy.

dr
Well, that posturing by the owners is very typical of any negociation process. To be fair, up until now it's very normal for both sides to play the uncompromising tough guy. We weren't even close to CBA expiration (in negociation terms).

Now they will most likely let it expire at which point talks will resume and we will see how serious the NHL and NHLPA are. Historically, the NHL fols like a cheap suit sooner or later so I expect the same this time, with minimal gains.

I think both sides are making extreme demands all the time. It just happens that instead of a compromise in the middle, the NHLPA has been very good at getting pretty much exactly what it wants.

Which makes all the cries by fans demanding that Goodenow be fired by the NHLPA absolutely hilarious.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 04:16 PM
  #9
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
if i was the owner, id say damned be development, no one with an NHL level contract is playing, period. unless they of course signed an idependant contract with that AHL team. however, i would use all my leverage with the AHL to deter them from sidetracking the labour stoppage.
The NHL team is contractually obligated to provide players to the AHL franchise. I suppose it is possible that they could go out and hire more players for the AHL team but that would leave them with 70 odd contracts if the dispute settles and they only have room for about 45-50.

It would also mean the AHL would be trying to sell ECHL hockey at AHL prices. It is not in the interest of the NHL teams to screw their AHL affiliates and it is not in their interest to let their young players sit. Anyone who can clear waivers and has a two way deal will be going to the AHL.

I doubt if Hasek's conditioning stint will last long. The Senators won't want to pay that money to a minor league goalie. They will want to keep their minor league goalies, the goalies they are developing, busy.

Quote:
seriously, if the young uns are the sacrificial lamb, you arent going to get htem to vote to accept a cap by letting htem play. if you want to get those guys on side, make them sit too !
It is one of the ironies. The young players can't be offside. Their salary has been capped so they have not cashed in yet for the most part. They have the most to gain and the least to lose by sitting a year. The players who have cashed in - the ones with the most to lose and the least to gain - are onside because as Yzerman said on the CBC the other night, "I got to cash in because the older players in my position in 1994 held firm. It's my obligation to do the same now."

Lots of them are not happy about it - Roenick and Hull have both made comments - but none of them will break. I don't think the owners can win a battle of wills with hockey players. To the owners the fight is just about money. To the players the fight is about winning and teamwork and doing whatever it takes. There isn't going to be a salary cap. There isn't going to be a link between revenues and payroll.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 04:20 PM
  #10
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Well, that posturing by the owners is very typical of any negociation process. To be fair, up until now it's very normal for both sides to play the uncompromising tough guy. We weren't even close to CBA expiration (in negociation terms).

Now they will most likely let it expire at which point talks will resume and we will see how serious the NHL and NHLPA are. Historically, the NHL fols like a cheap suit sooner or later so I expect the same this time, with minimal gains.

I think both sides are making extreme demands all the time. It just happens that instead of a compromise in the middle, the NHLPA has been very good at getting pretty much exactly what it wants.

Which makes all the cries by fans demanding that Goodenow be fired by the NHLPA absolutely hilarious.
But to be fair, if the PA's ideal situation is to maintaint he status quo, and they've at least recognized that isn't going happen and have tried to compromise, even if you fell its not that meaningful.

But like DR said, since pretty mcuh everybody is signed for this season and those contracts are likely going to be grandfathered into any new system, why not go into just expend this CBA for a year and use that time to really negotiate. In the end, the game will suffer a helluva lot less.

hockeytown9321 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 12:47 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.