HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

A parable (using real people)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 12:11 PM
  #1
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
A parable (using real people)

Glen Sather calls Jay Feaster and says he wants to trade for Martin St. Louis. Feaster says he's willing but the bidding MUST begin with the Rangers offering 2 full time NHL players (one to replace St. Louis himself, and one to provide depth for the talent lost).

Sather says, "Okay. I'll give you two first round picks."
Feaster replies that there MUST be two NHL players involved, to which Sather says he needs to give the issue some thought.

Getting back to Feaster several days later, Sather offers the two 1st rounder and throws in another along with a 3rd rounder. Feaster repeats yet again what is becoming an old and boring statement for him, while Sather huffs and hangs up to further discuss things with his scouts.

After much consideration, Sather calls Feaster again. He offers the Tampa GM a deal "he won't dare turn down": three 1st rounders, the 3rd rounder, Ken Gernander, and Lee Falardeau. Wildly frustrated at Sather's apparent deafness or blatant refusal to accept even the most basic condition for negotiating this trade, Feaster simply hangs up.

In a rage, Glen Sather dials up Larry Brooks and, as an "anonymous source," fills the Ranger beat writer in on the whole situation with Tampa Bay. Brooks goes on to pen a Sunday Post article, bitterly attacking Jay Feaster for not negotiating in good faith.

Feaster, reading the article, sighs and prepares for the onslaught of outrage over his unfair practices and complete unwillingness to compromise.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:28 PM
  #2
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
The difference, dedalus, is that Feaster does not need to trade Martin St. Louis. Feaster could happily continue with St. Louis and not suffer any adverse effects. In such a situation, it is up to Sather to bring Feaster to the negotiating table, and all Sather can do is determine if he is willing to give up what Feaster demands.

But in the current situation, the NHL and the NHLPA need each other. One cannot exist without the other. As such, they need to create a partnership (a real one, not Bettman's "partnership" of giving in to his demands) and find middle ground. Neither side will get their ideal in such a dispute, and they should realize it. The NHL's ideal would be a low hardcap. The NHLPA's ideal would be maintaining the current CBA. The NHLPA has made concessions and backed off of their ideal as they recognize it as unfeasible given the nature of the dispute. The NHL has not done that as of yet.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:36 PM
  #3
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
The NHLPA has made concessions and backed off of their ideal as they recognize it as unfeasible given the nature of the dispute. The NHL has not done that as of yet.
This is my point. The NHLPA's concessions have not addressed the bare minimum needed to begin negotiation. They keep offering the equivalent of picks, prospects, and AHLers rather than offering even a modest genuine concession (say the CBA equivalents of Jed Ortmeyer and Mike Dunham). Then they complain that they are being rejected. Putting ANY kind of link between revenue and salaries, even the most laughable and ludicrous, would be the opening move in real negotiations, but they flatly refuse this even while they b***ch that the league is intransigent on the very same issue.

In short you say that the NHLPA has backed off its ideal, but that depends on its ideal. The NHLPA's stated ideal is to have no link between revenue and salary, to preserve an entirely free market system. It has not moved a single inch on that.

As for whether the rest of the analogy holds up, it remains to be seen if Gary Bettman needs the players. That may be decided by the NLRB, but there's apparently plenty of good will for the idea of replacement players.


Last edited by dedalus: 12-11-2004 at 12:55 PM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:37 PM
  #4
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
The difference, dedalus, is that Feaster does not need to trade Martin St. Louis. Feaster could happily continue with St. Louis and not suffer any adverse effects. In such a situation, it is up to Sather to bring Feaster to the negotiating table, and all Sather can do is determine if he is willing to give up what Feaster demands.

But in the current situation, the NHL and the NHLPA need each other. One cannot exist without the other. As such, they need to create a partnership (a real one, not Bettman's "partnership" of giving in to his demands) and find middle ground. Neither side will get their ideal in such a dispute, and they should realize it. The NHL's ideal would be a low hardcap. The NHLPA's ideal would be maintaining the current CBA. The NHLPA has made concessions and backed off of their ideal as they recognize it as unfeasible given the nature of the dispute. The NHL has not done that as of yet.
Well said.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 12:58 PM
  #5
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
This is my point. The NHLPA's concessions have not addressed the bare minimum needed to begin negotiation. They keep offering the equivalent of picks, prospects, and AHLers rather than offering even a modest genuine concession (say the CBA equivalents of Jed Ortmeyer and Mike Dunham). Then they complain that they are being rejected. Putting ANY kind of link between revenue and salaries, even the most laughable and ludicrous, would be the opening move in real negotiations, but they flatly refuse this even while they b***ch that the league is intransigent on the very same issue..
But the NHLPA is addressing the needs of the league, just not in the ideal way that the NHL wants. The NHL says that the problems facing the league are that salaries have gotten way out of hand and the small market teams cannot compete with the big market teams. The NHLPA offers a 24% rollback in salary, revenue sharing, a luxury tax, and other devices to aid (key word, aid) the owners in keeping salaries under control. That's not the equivalent of offering Ortmeyer and Dunham. It's more like Feaster is demanding Jagr and Holik at half salary (your analogy gets difficult because we lack players that have trade value ) and Sather offers Balej and Rachunek. If Feaster is truly motivated to deal, at some point he has to say, "Okay, Balej, Tyutin, and a pick," but as of now, it's still Jagr and Holik at half salary.

Quote:
As for whether the rest of the analogy holds up, it remains to be seen if Gary Bettman needs the players. That may be decided by the NLRB, but there's apparently plenty of good will for the idea of replacement players.
Good will where? Here? This is a hockey board full of diehards. It is not representative of the hockey-going community. Most of the diehards will show, and I'm sure you'll get decent crowds in Canada, but not in most US markets. In San Jose, they held an AHL game at the HP Pavilion. They comped tickets to season ticket holders, and sold the rest at $5 a pop with free parking. Do you know how many people showed? Less than 7,000. The Sharks averaged nearly 16,000 last year. Do you really think changing the jerseys is going to make a huge difference, especially when the level of play with replacement players will likely be below the AHL-level?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:02 PM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I'd disagree dedalus..

The offers needs to be tweaked, in my opinion, but it is a great starting point. It addresses very real, near-term solutions (which of course work themselves out as contracts come up and UFAs are signed), but nonetheless represent real savings to each team, first of all. It also provides a framework to work with to keep costs down in the future while re-distributing income. The numbers that were proposed do not currently work as of yet, but it is a framework that should work. If the league comes back with their own proposal, call is still a cap, but higher, and less salary giveback than the players propose, then I'd say they'd be negotiating in good faith. If it's ignored or reverted back to the same six proposals that were presented in August, it's not.

But the point is moot. If Bettman does declare and imasse and is able to dictate terms, hockey will not be played on a a national level in the U.S. again. Replacement players will spoil the game and drive away fans. At that point, the cap the NHL would need would be $10 million because of the lack of popularity and the Europeans stay in Europe and the product becomes mediocre.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:19 PM
  #7
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
But the NHLPA is addressing the needs of the league, just not in the ideal way that the NHL wants.
We'll simply have to disagree on this. I contend that the NHLPA continues to offer solutions that really don't address the long term problems of the league, and thus that they're avoiding the central point of this whole lockout:
1. The key component of their proposal (the massive salary rollback) helps only with current contracts (which as I've pointed out ceases to help at all in a few years when the vast majority of current contracts have expired). It doesn't even help teams THIS year as they attempt to sign guys like Zhamnov. This is a short term fix and no fix at all where current UFAs are concerned.

2. The luxury tax is laughable. Goodenow has already stated that he willa ceept no tax that acts as a cap. Put simply he will have no tax that puts any real dent in the free market. This is the Mike Dunham of the deal. Goodenow claims to be offering something, but it's of no real value. (Sorry if you're reading this, Mr. Dunham.)

3. Revenue sharing still doesn't prevent player salaries from eating up a greater and greater proportion of total revenue. That's what needs to happen.

On the replacement player issue, I think what you have is a simple time issue. Replacement games will go pretty well in Canada as you state. Here in the US there will be initial interest, then a dropoff, and then a return as more NHLers break ranks, more AHL prospects make the jump (and while people might not pay to see Ken Gernander at the Garden, things will be different if the team has a number of Tyutins, Balejs, Lundquists, and Moores there), and more draftees who are not yet part of the association jump into the league.

There WILL come a time, if the owners are patient enough (and if the NHLPA can actually hold out that long) when the NHL will be reconstituted. Part of this will come at the urging of agents, a group that has been pretty quiet, but will become progressively noisier as their own paychecks suffer.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the mechanics of the replacement world. My point was merely to say that your attack on my analogy was not so definitive as you say it is. There are differences between the trade scenario and the CBA wars of course. If there weren't, it would no longer be an analogy, we'd be talking about the actual thing, but a meaningful comparison can be made.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:26 PM
  #8
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
The offers needs to be tweaked, in my opinion, but it is a great starting point. It addresses very real, near-term solutions
And this is why we disagree, Fletch. The owners had a short term victory in the last CBA, yet here we are. Taking care of near-term problems, even those that are very real, is worthless if in three years we're right back to where we started. (And as I pointed out to Kodiak, this proposal doesn't even take care of the near-term problem of this year's UFAs. It doesn't change their potential new contracts one iota, which is exactly why Goodenow has proposed this. Even with a rollback there's no limitation of the free market. Without that limitation, things will never be fixed.)

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 01:56 PM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
But dedalus...

there is more than one component to the proposal. One is the near-term solution, which is that of a rollback, which does have some go-forward effect as it relates to comparable arbitration situations. The tax is meant to address long-term problems by artificially keeping salaries down and redisrtributing income. So salaries come down and the teams with lower revenue have a chance to make more income. That, ro me, solves a long-term problem. Admittedly, the players' proposal falls short, but it's not meant as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Rather, it's a framework for negotiating.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:11 PM
  #10
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,601
vCash: 500
eh, your original analogy was very poor cuz i originally thought you were saying how stupid it was for feaster to be acting the way he was

you're basically saying that the players need to give in to whatever the league wants

this is supposed to be about negotiations to come to an agreement. not one side bending over and taking it in the ass from the other side.

Levitate is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 02:51 PM
  #11
riz
Registered User
 
riz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,546
vCash: 500
Damn...and I was so sure that this was one of those "Tampa won't deal me St.Louis even for 3 first rounders" threads about NHL EHM.....

riz is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:03 PM
  #12
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
the major point here is that this is about ideology more than it is about numbers.

The NHLPA is getting heaps of praise for for making huge 'concessions' in it's recent offer, but all they've done is improve the numbers within a framework that they had already proposed.

The NHL could come back and ofer a 40 million doller hard cap with a 24% salary increase and they would have made the same conssesions as the NHLPA. They would have simply improved the numbers within the framework of they're previous proposal.

The NHLPA is geting praise for not sacraficing they're ideology, yet everyone is asking the NHL to do just that.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:09 PM
  #13
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
the major point here is that this is about ideology more than it is about numbers.

The NHLPA is getting heaps of praise for for making huge 'concessions' in it's recent offer, but all they've done is improve the numbers within a framework that they had already proposed.

The NHL could come back and ofer a 40 million doller hard cap with a 24% salary increase and they would have made the same conssesions as the NHLPA. They would have simply improved the numbers within the framework of they're previous proposal.

The NHLPA is geting praise for not sacraficing they're ideology, yet everyone is asking the NHL to do just that.
You make it sound like the NHLPA wanted the luxury tax all along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
The NHL's ideal would be a low hardcap. The NHLPA's ideal would be maintaining the current CBA. The NHLPA has made concessions and backed off of their ideal as they recognize it as unfeasible given the nature of the dispute. The NHL has not done that as of yet.
If the NHLPA were truly sticking to their ideology as the NHL is, they would be pushing for a free market system with minimal controls. Offering a luxury tax IS a break from their ideology and a concession in and of itself.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:12 PM
  #14
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
We'll simply have to disagree on this.
Agreed. If we keep pushing this we'll just go in circles from this point. Back to the real issues, like what kind of candy bar Jagr is.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:20 PM
  #15
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
You make it sound like the NHLPA wanted the luxury tax all along.



If the NHLPA were truly sticking to their ideology as the NHL is, they would be pushing for a free market system with minimal controls. Offering a luxury tax IS a break from their ideology and a concession in and of itself.
well yes, but that's not where they where coming into this. Coming into this dispute they where offering a luxery tax, so that's what i'm basing this off. And it's not like this a recent postion, this has been they're stance for some time.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 03:33 PM
  #16
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I think the point Dedalus was trying to make is that you can't strike a deal {no matter how good someone else may think it is} if the other party isn't offering what you want.

Edge is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:05 PM
  #17
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I think the point Dedalus was trying to make is that you can't strike a deal {no matter how good someone else may think it is} if the other party isn't offering what you want.
I think so too and even if you don't like the analgoy, it's refreshing to visit a very tired subject in another light. Good job dedalus.

One thing I hear from the "pro-NHL" people is that the PA offer is short-sighted and doesn't address the long term problem of salariy escalation. To me that says, the owners should continue to bear ZERO responsibility for not only the economics of their business, but the health of their industry as a whole. Something has to change with the way these organizations are run. Owners and GM are all going to have to show some restraint with future contracts, in addition to other expenditures a hockey franchise incurs.

In my opinion, this offer lets owners off the hook for all the bad choices they've made with regard to player contracts, something they should not have been held responsible for. Getting their "house" in order financially is now up to franchises themselves. It's got to be a 2 way street.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:16 PM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I do agree with you xander...

but it makes me laugh.

First, the players are giving up a significant amount of money (those currently under contract). Yeah, they make a lot of money, but if someday someone in here (if he or she isn't already) may be at the point where he or she's making oodles of money. You may then someday realize the difference between getting $9 million on year, and about $6.8 million the next: or the difference between getting $1 million and $760K. It's real money being lost: it's lost from a contract they worked hard to achieve and two sides agreed to that money. And for some, it's more than just this season (just ask Yashin).

On the owners' side - they're looking to be saved from themselves. In many cases, or most, they can afford to spend the money they have spent despite the losses (again, billionaires and congolmerates do not become that by making tons of bad business decisions - on an annual basis.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:38 PM
  #19
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
One thing I hear from the "pro-NHL" people is that the PA offer is short-sighted and doesn't address the long term problem of salariy escalation. To me that says, the owners should continue to bear ZERO responsibility for not only the economics of their business, but the health of their industry as a whole. Something has to change with the way these organizations are run. Owners and GM are all going to have to show some restraint with future contracts, in addition to other expenditures a hockey franchise incurs.

In my opinion, this offer lets owners off the hook for all the bad choices they've made with regard to player contracts, something they should not have been held responsible for. Getting their "house" in order financially is now up to franchises themselves. It's got to be a 2 way street.
I keep hearing this argument, but I don't really understand it. Owners, when they offer contracts, do so induvidually, not collectivly. 'The Owners' don't offer high contracts, single owners do, and they do so becouse they can afford to do so to make they're team better. If the wings decide to sign a player to a contract that is higher than his team, say the oilers, can afford, but that player will signifigantly help the wings, then it's not a bad contract. The problem is that now all contracts are going to esculate becouse of that signing, which is bad for the league, but that doesn't meen the induvidual signing is bad for the wings. Owners are going to act and compete induvidually for players to make they're teams better, and you can't ask induvidual owners not to sign contracts that makes sense for them but not for the league, that would be collusion.

the 'the owners have to be responcible for the contracts they issue' arguement doesn't work becouse it assumes the owners are acting collectivly when they issue contracts, they're not, they're acting induvidually. Right now, when negotiationg a CBA, is the only time when owners have the change to act collectively and institute a system which will allow owners to operate induvidually, which is what we want them to do, and not seriously harm the league while doing so.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 04:49 PM
  #20
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That's true, xander, but...

the reason for the stalemate in the new CBA is because of the mounting losses (or at least this is what Bettman & Co. have said over and over again). These losses are primarily concentrated within a few teams - mostly teams that can afford the salaries they've signed players to (Rangers, Blues, 'Hawks and Wings). They drove up the prices for free agents, and they're the ones that Bettman is trying to help out in the new CBA (or at least that's what they've basically said). Calgary, who needs a new CBA, makes money, as do the Canucks. I think Bettman positioned himself improperly from the get-go as I believe the problem is not the losses (and hence not about the Rangers), but it's about the Edmonton's not being able to afford its own players once they become good - a direct result of the Rangers' overpaying, but Bettman talks more about losses than anything else.

Fletch is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:13 PM
  #21
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
you can't ask induvidual owners not to sign contracts that makes sense for them but not for the league
Hey, it's their league too. Without it, their franchises don't exist. It's in an owner's best interest to help control the market value of a player, isn't it? I'm not talking about collusive aggreements that ensure no players gets more then $XMil, but just to exorcise some common sense and operate within a practical budget when negotiating with a player to ensure that the economics of the game don't threaten to ruin it.....again.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:39 PM
  #22
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
the reason for the stalemate in the new CBA is because of the mounting losses (or at least this is what Bettman & Co. have said over and over again). These losses are primarily concentrated within a few teams - mostly teams that can afford the salaries they've signed players to (Rangers, Blues, 'Hawks and Wings). They drove up the prices for free agents, and they're the ones that Bettman is trying to help out in the new CBA (or at least that's what they've basically said). Calgary, who needs a new CBA, makes money, as do the Canucks. I think Bettman positioned himself improperly from the get-go as I believe the problem is not the losses (and hence not about the Rangers), but it's about the Edmonton's not being able to afford its own players once they become good - a direct result of the Rangers' overpaying, but Bettman talks more about losses than anything else.
I agree completely. As i've said before, I'm not pro-owner or pro-betteman. I think betteman has improperly identified and presented the problems of the league. The problem is, as you said, that teams cannot afford to keep they're own players.

I also beleive, as do many here, that the losses of many of the larger teams, the ranger's included, have been improperly reported. This is not to say that they're havn't been some stupid decisions made and that some of the larger teams arn't doing as well as they could be becouse of it, there certianly have been, but if that was the only issue here then they're wouildn't be a need for all this fuss. Those teams signing players to higher contracts, and I don't think that they're really hurting that much, toronto certainly wouldn't have gone on the spending spree they did this summer if they where, makes it harder for other teams to A. sign they're own players and B. Make a profit.

Unfourtunatly, whether the problems of the league are as stated by betteman or those stated by you and me, the solutions is the same either way: prevent larger teams from signing other team's players to higher contracts than their original teams can afford. The best way, in my opinion, to do this is through a soft cap or highly punitive luxery tax system.


Last edited by xander: 12-11-2004 at 05:53 PM.
xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:41 PM
  #23
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Hey, it's their league too. Without it, their franchises don't exist. It's in an owner's best interest to help control the market value of a player, isn't it? I'm not talking about collusive aggreements that ensure no players gets more then $XMil, but just to exorcise some common sense and operate within a practical budget when negotiating with a player to ensure that the economics of the game don't threaten to ruin it.....again.
yeah but it only takes one owner to screw it up again, I just don't ahve the faith to beleive that a system based on that principle should work.

xander is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:53 PM
  #24
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,466
vCash: 500
Dedalus, I know that we went around in circles on this debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
This is my point. The NHLPA's concessions have not addressed the bare minimum needed to begin negotiation.

That may be decided by the NLRB, but there's apparently plenty of good will for the idea of replacement players.
so I do not want to rehash it. I just want to know something. You say that the NHLPA's proposal does not address the real problems of the league. Well, how has any of Bettman's? How have they addressed lack of revenues? How has Bettman addressed what really ails the league?

And as for the "goodwill" towards replacement players, it is as Kodiak said. You cannot confuse fans coming back to baseball with what will happen in hockey. The NFL is not even worth brining up becuase it is in another galaxy in terms of popularity. Yes, hockey can take time off and come back with replacement players. And fans WILL come back. In Canada. In the U.S., hockey is just a little above arena football in popularity. If Bettman cancels the season, it will be reduced to the level of the soccer league. IF he actually has replacement players playing, the level of interest will be about that of oragnized lacrosse.
The effort was made in San Jose. If failed misereably. If Bettman announced replacement players, there would be multiple threads on these boards announcing with great aplomb the return of hockey. Many would beat their chests and renew loyalty ties. Than these people would go to the Garden and find that 3/4 of it is empty. People are not going to pay NHL prices to see a greatly inferior product and no stars. Play a full season with no NHL players, after taking an entire year off, and you might as well kiss the NHL as you know it good-bye.

True Blue is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:15 PM
  #25
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,511
vCash: 500
I think that with the restraint shown by the league recently

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
We'll simply have to disagree on this. I contend that the NHLPA continues to offer solutions that really don't address the long term problems of the league, and thus that they're avoiding the central point of this whole lockout:
1. The key component of their proposal (the massive salary rollback) helps only with current contracts (which as I've pointed out ceases to help at all in a few years when the vast majority of current contracts have expired). It doesn't even help teams THIS year as they attempt to sign guys like Zhamnov. This is a short term fix and no fix at all where current UFAs are concerned.
The league will now have the responsibility to make sure that they negotiate fiscally from here on out, It will be their obligation to make sure that future contracts don't jump ahead 24% to make up for this current roll-back. In fact, all future negotiations and comparisons will use the rolle dback numbers to make it easier for the League to be alot more fiscally responsible when they negotiate their contracts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
2. The luxury tax is laughable. Goodenow has already stated that he willa ceept no tax that acts as a cap. Put simply he will have no tax that puts any real dent in the free market. This is the Mike Dunham of the deal. Goodenow claims to be offering something, but it's of no real value. (Sorry if you're reading this, Mr. Dunham.)
The Luxury tax offered was low, and that was done on purpose. Of all the components in the NHLPA's offer, the initial tax amount is the item that both sides know will be negotiated over. In a sport where the overall revenues are not alot, 1 million for every 5 spent over the threshold og 45 million is alot of money. Personally, I'd like to see that tax be closer to 50 cents on the dollar, but it will act as a deterrent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
3. Revenue sharing still doesn't prevent player salaries from eating up a greater and greater proportion of total revenue. That's what needs to happen.
Revenue sharing, along with the tax distribution will help teams that may be hurting somewhat. Is it unpredictable? Yes, but the in the end, it achieves the wanted result, teams unwilling to exceed a certain amount keeping the financial playing field level.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
On the replacement player issue, I think what you have is a simple time issue. Replacement games will go pretty well in Canada as you state. Here in the US there will be initial interest, then a dropoff, and then a return as more NHLers break ranks, more AHL prospects make the jump (and while people might not pay to see Ken Gernander at the Garden, things will be different if the team has a number of Tyutins, Balejs, Lundquists, and Moores there), and more draftees who are not yet part of the association jump into the league.

There WILL come a time, if the owners are patient enough (and if the NHLPA can actually hold out that long) when the NHL will be reconstituted. Part of this will come at the urging of agents, a group that has been pretty quiet, but will become progressively noisier as their own paychecks suffer.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the mechanics of the replacement world. My point was merely to say that your attack on my analogy was not so definitive as you say it is. There are differences between the trade scenario and the CBA wars of course. If there weren't, it would no longer be an analogy, we'd be talking about the actual thing, but a meaningful comparison can be made.
As for replacement players, forget them. With this offer, the league's hope of declaring a labor impasse is all but shot. This was a very SIGNIFICANT offer, regardless of what the league thinks. They will have to take their case to the NLRB and show proof that the NHLPA has not negotiated in good fiath, this offer blows that out of the water, additionally, I do believe that Canada's Law does not allow for replacement players. The NHLPA came up with an offer that the League was not expecting and this really hurts their bargaining position.

pld459666 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 01:15 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.