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.

Owners and GM's are idiots for:

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2004, 06:42 PM
  #1
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Owners and GM's are idiots for:

sending mixed signals and sigining all the players they signed this past summer. Also for allowing countless players to play in the AHL or in Europe for that matter. They encouraged and allowed players to bypass the necessary waivers system and signed players to AHL contracts so that they could continue to play hockey. ODD isn't it? They could have put so much more pressure on the players, player agents and the NHLPA if they just held their ground and sent a strong message to everyone concerned. Instead they go out and in many cases sign players for what will certainly be above market value under a new system. Why were some rookie paid the rookie max this past summer when it's all but certain that there will be a much lower entry level system in place after the new CBA takes affect. I don't buy the we want our players to continue their development arguement either so why didn't owners and GM's take a stand and show their collective will this past summer if their as consolidated as they want us all to believe?

eye is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:00 PM
  #2
sunb
Registered User
 
sunb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yale University
Country: China
Posts: 3,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
sending mixed signals and sigining all the players they signed this past summer. Also for allowing countless players to play in the AHL or in Europe for that matter. They encouraged and allowed players to bypass the necessary waivers system and signed players to AHL contracts so that they could continue to play hockey. ODD isn't it? They could have put so much more pressure on the players, player agents and the NHLPA if they just held their ground and sent a strong message to everyone concerned. Instead they go out and in many cases sign players for what will certainly be above market value under a new system. Why were some rookie paid the rookie max this past summer when it's all but certain that there will be a much lower entry level system in place after the new CBA takes affect. I don't buy the we want our players to continue their development arguement either so why didn't owners and GM's take a stand and show their collective will this past summer if their as consolidated as they want us all to believe?

They are letting players play in the AHL and over in Europe because they want players to develop and not deteriorate over the course of the lock-out.

sunb is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 08:14 PM
  #3
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
It was business as usual or as close to it as possible till Sept 15th.....

What's wrong with signing guys?? What happens if the owners/players came to an agreement and the GM's got caught with their pants down and half complete rosters?? Then you'd have a signing frenzy rather then proper negotiations......

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
09-29-2004, 09:25 PM
  #4
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Why were some rookie paid the rookie max this past summer when it's all but certain that there will be a much lower entry level system in place after the new CBA takes affect.
Because those "idiots" prefer to sign guys like Phaneuf to top prices than to lose them because they re-enter after two years. This could be a long conflict.

Because of the North American rules, a couple of prospects had to be signed. Those from 2002 would have been lost for sure otherwise. Those from 2003 could be lost if the conflict drags on for over a year.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:09 PM
  #5
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Because those "idiots" prefer to sign guys like Phaneuf to top prices than to lose them because they re-enter after two years. This could be a long conflict.
Your correct.I don't think signing guys like Phaneuf to the rookie max is the problem,signing guys like Belfore for multi-millions is what the term "idiot" should be all about!

Iggy-4-50 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:49 PM
  #6
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji Frank
It was business as usual or as close to it as possible till Sept 15th.....

What's wrong with signing guys?? What happens if the owners/players came to an agreement and the GM's got caught with their pants down and half complete rosters?? Then you'd have a signing frenzy rather then proper negotiations......
Call me silly but I happen to believe that if owners and GM's took a stand right after the Lightning won the cup and refused to sign any players until a new agreement was reached and also played hardball with players on 2 ways wanting to play in the AHL that we might already have an agreement in place. All these concessions and allowing players to play only prolongs the issue. If I'm president of Ford and my employees want a raise right before are CBA is ratified, they don't get one. I also don't allow them or encourage them to work elsewhere while we are in negotiations. It's called establishing leveridge. Now NHL owners are rubbing off on AHL owners with this rediculous Chris Chelios signing in Chicago. No wonder Goodenow is so sure he will get his way eventually. The owners still don't get it. At least not collectively.

eye is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 02:49 PM
  #7
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,524
vCash: 500
they arent forcing guys like staal and spezza to play in the minors, botht those guys want to be there and need to work on their game. it would be short sighted for either team to let these guys potentially rot at the ages they are at. they need to play, the players AND the owners know it.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 03:14 PM
  #8
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Call me silly but I happen to believe that if owners and GM's took a stand right after the Lightning won the cup and refused to sign any players until a new agreement was reached and also played hardball with players on 2 ways wanting to play in the AHL that we might already have an agreement in place. All these concessions and allowing players to play only prolongs the issue. If I'm president of Ford and my employees want a raise right before are CBA is ratified, they don't get one. I also don't allow them or encourage them to work elsewhere while we are in negotiations. It's called establishing leveridge. Now NHL owners are rubbing off on AHL owners with this rediculous Chris Chelios signing in Chicago. No wonder Goodenow is so sure he will get his way eventually. The owners still don't get it. At least not collectively.
Do you think the owner of the Chicago Wolves doesn't see a good opportunity? Will he ever have a chance to put a Chris Chelios in front of his fans again??

If they didn't want them to work elsewhere during negotiations, why not just leave the doors open and let them report to work without a collective agreement? They locked the doors!!!! They can't now turn around and tell Chris Chelios and all his playmates to have a seat till they come to an agreement!!!

A guy like Forsberg or Morozov is not signed ... they've both apparently (from memory) signed contracts that are not lockout protected ... ie -> they aren't coming back this year regardless. The Avs have lost their best player for at least a season no matter what happens. I'm assuming teams wanted to avoid that situation. Also, what happens if the owners do settle for less?? Teams like the Pens, Wild, Hawks, & Coyotes suddenly have some pretty nice contracts on their hands. Sure, teams like the Leafs made some questionable moves, but Niewy & Roberts are only signed for a season. That's not a big risk. 2/13ths of their pay is already pretty much out the window with October cancelled.

I do not think several unsigned players would convince the players to have accepted a cap and be playing by now as you suggest. In fact I think the other way. Come Oct. 15th and the day they're to see the 1st of their 13 paycheques, guys like Madden, Conroy, Thonrton, Gonchar, etc. etc. are going to look at their bank account and go ... "Whoa, I was supposed to have US$ 235,658.71 after taxes direct deposited in my chequing account today. Geezus I hope Bob & Gary butt heads and put somehting together quick!!! Hopefully October 31st cheque comes!!!"

As for signing kids to 2-ways, big whoop. They're making a fraction in the AHL or juniors as to NHL, & they're being developed the way management envisions. Plus, as Vlad mentions, they're tied up now with no chance of reentering the draft.... I could be wrong, but I doubt there'll be huge adjustments to the rookie salary structure anyway ... maybe a little more tightening of bonus clauses, but probably not to the point where an owner would have wished he'd backed off......

Benji Frank 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 06:11 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.