HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 01:03 PM
  #51
Basso
Registered User
 
Basso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
alot of good discussion around here. I think they will bend a bit on each of the proposed changes. If the owners want more revenue, they need to retract 2 teams that are dragging their butts with attendance. Relocation to Canadian cities is a must, Quebec, Saskatchawan, Hamilton all need to be considered. Having 30 teams has always been too much.

Basso is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:20 PM
  #52
aandbreatheme
Registered User
 
aandbreatheme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Well this is going to suck. Hopefully the whole season doesn't go to waste. Minnesota and their ridiculous contracts must have pushed them over the edge.

aandbreatheme is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:31 PM
  #53
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basso View Post
It's already predicted by many experts that there will be a strike, but only a half a season strike. Not a full blown one.

Hurray for NHL, the league that strikes every chance they get!
& they wonder why they can't compete with the NFL & NBA in viewership, popularity...etc

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:43 PM
  #54
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Somebody that is educated in this stuff, can you give me an estimated percentage on the chance of a lock-out next year?

keslerburrows is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:46 PM
  #55
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,597
vCash: 500
I think the season probably will start in November/December. Maybe Kesler won't miss any hockey after all

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:01 PM
  #56
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I think the season probably will start in November/December. Maybe Kesler won't miss any hockey after all
Honestly, that's a great scenario for our cup chances. No Kesler missing during the regular season, less wear and tear on our older guys, and, without an exhibition season, everybody will be as badly-prepared as we tend to be at the start of the year.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:12 PM
  #57
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,726
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
somebody that is educated in this stuff, can you give me an estimated percentage on the chance of a lock-out next year?
63.2743%

Tim Calhoun is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:01 PM
  #58
kootenayfan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
kootenayfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southeastern BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
Somebody that is educated in this stuff, can you give me an estimated percentage on the chance of a lock-out next year?
0% next year, probably 90% this year..sorry couldn't resist

kootenayfan is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:03 PM
  #59
aandbreatheme
Registered User
 
aandbreatheme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Ugh, this team can't afford a lockout.

aandbreatheme is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:08 PM
  #60
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,660
vCash: 500
The league's willingness to cannibalize successful teams to benefit the crappy ones is astounding. It's as if they want to create a greater incentive for tanking, because under their proposed system that's going to be about the only way to get good players.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:44 PM
  #61
Basso
Registered User
 
Basso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The league's willingness to cannibalize successful teams to benefit the crappy ones is astounding. It's as if they want to create a greater incentive for tanking, because under their proposed system that's going to be about the only way to get good players.
hahah exactly, when there is 14 teams who don't make the playoffs, that's half the owners who want tanking to lead them to the promise land of the playoffs.

Basso is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 04:35 PM
  #62
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Are you a fan of another team? The Canucks benefit more than a lot of teams with the current CBA rules. They do not lose their own free agents very often and seem to have an occasional advantage in attracting players. The current CBA rules and cap is largely responsible for this clubs current competitiveness.
I look at it from two perspectives, as a Canuck fan and an NHL fan. Sure Vancouver has prospered under the current CBA, but mostly due an unrelated factor: the CDN dollar trading at par with the USD. I also remember the pre-cap days when only the Rangers and Red Wings could afford to sign free agents. Who knows what the future economic landscape will look like and whether Vancouver will benefit from it?

A leveler playing field is also good for the league as a whole. What is the point in having teams that never have a legitimate shot at success? I also believe that growing the game in non-traditional hockey markets is a good thing. Increased popularity and exposure attracts more talent to hockey and the game will be better for it.

As for free agency, I've always thought of it as a negative for fans. I'd rather cheer for players that are part of an organization and community for their entire careers than guys who act like mercenaries or hired guns. I don't want to simply cheer for laundry. And look what is happening in Nashville this year. That organization has done everything right. Losing Suter and Weber this year could turn off a large section of their burgeoning fanbase for life. That's terrible for the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
# 5 is absolutely moronic. What player is going to vote on a mandatory five year entry level clause? What team wants to give out a five year contract to EVERY prospect they want to sign? Think about it for a moment: Imagine having to wait 5 years for Gendur or Ellington's contracts to expire so you can open up a spot on the 50 man limit. #5 only makes sense if you have a blue chip prospect to sign. Otherwise it puts the team in a risky position.
I assumed that shorter ELCs could be offered by teams if they so chose. As you pointed out, teams wouldn't want the 5 year ELC to be mandatory, so why would they propose it? As for the players, I could see them signing off on it. Many a union has sold future members down the river for the benefit of their current membership. Perhaps if they gave in on this one they could get a larger share of the revenue pie in exchange.

Chubros is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 05:06 PM
  #63
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayfan View Post
0% next year, probably 90% this year..sorry couldn't resist
Seriously though, 90%?!

keslerburrows is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 05:15 PM
  #64
mrbitterguy
Registered User
 
mrbitterguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: san francisco
Country: Canada
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
Seriously though, 90%?!
seriously. i don't think 90% chance that games are lost due to lockout this year is an unreasonable expectation. chance of losing the whole season is much lower imo.

mrbitterguy is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 05:59 PM
  #65
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,907
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
I see points 1) and 3) as the ones the owners really want, while the other three is to used as bones to the players, the owners probably have no hope of ever getting rid of salary arbitration, but they say they want too, so that when they give it up during negotiations the NHLPA feels like they have accomplished something and will be more reluctant to go the owners way on the points they really want.
See now this is what I think is utterly stupid. So if the NHLPA counters that they want only 1 year on ELC then immediate UFA status does that mean the owners will feel they've accomplished something when they talk them down to 3 year ELC then 3 years until UFA status?

If this is just a standard part of these types of negotiations then the people in that business have simply created a way to create more work for themselves. It serves no other logical purpose, bartering with someone in that manner only works if they're an idiot and don't have a clue what the actual value of the thing they're negotiating for is.

RandV is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 05:59 PM
  #66
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbitterguy View Post
seriously. i don't think 90% chance that games are lost due to lockout this year is an unreasonable expectation. chance of losing the whole season is much lower imo.
I don't think that hurts us to bad then.. If Kesler doesn't miss any time then that that is obviously beneficial. Also gives us longer to explore options with Luongo, wait for teams to become more and more desperate. And if the Canucks can skip there whole "Don't show up until a couple months into the season" theme, then hey, I'm all for it.

keslerburrows is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 06:01 PM
  #67
aandbreatheme
Registered User
 
aandbreatheme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keslerburrows View Post
I don't think that hurts us to bad then.. If Kesler doesn't miss any time then that that is obviously beneficial. Also gives us longer to explore options with Luongo, wait for teams to become more and more desperate. And if the Canucks can skip there whole "Don't show up until a couple months into the season" theme, then hey, I'm all for it. ;)
Well if they don't, we could be in danger of missing the playoffs (if the season starts in late Dec/Jan).

aandbreatheme is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 03:16 PM
  #68
rebel diamond
Registered User
 
rebel diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 5,045
vCash: 500
To be honest, I don't think the owners care all that much about ELC length or UFA age, they're just bargaining chips. The HRR split is the big one obviously, and the second issue is contract structure.

In the end the revenue split will end up being within a couple percentage points of 52%, along with a redefinition that favours the owners. I doubt we see a complete end to creative contract structures, but a max length and an end to signing bonuses are certainly on the table.

rebel diamond is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 05:02 PM
  #69
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,535
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
It is pretty funny seeing probably 1/4 of the league offer Suter and Parise 10+ year massively front loaded contracts including some personal pitches from owners (Mike Ilitch flew to Madison to court Suter) and then a week later have the same guys propose these limits. They really are their own worst enemies.
They offer big contracts they get called morons. They don't offer big contracts and they get accused of running their teams into the ground by penny pinching.

That ambit claim for all those changes is stupid, I'll bet it ends up just being tweaked a bit when all is said and done.


Last edited by me2: 07-15-2012 at 05:07 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 05:06 PM
  #70
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,535
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I assumed that shorter ELCs could be offered by teams if they so chose. As you pointed out, teams wouldn't want the 5 year ELC to be mandatory, so why would they propose it? As for the players, I could see them signing off on it. Many a union has sold future members down the river for the benefit of their current membership. Perhaps if they gave in on this one they could get a larger share of the revenue pie in exchange.
no way the league really wants 5 year elcs. you'd never see a russian here again. add to that the first time a Canadian Crosby-level prospect got a $10/m year offer from a Russian club and opted for that instead of the the ELC................

me2 is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 05:12 PM
  #71
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
They offer big contracts they get called morons. They don't offer big contracts and they get accused of running their teams into the ground by penny pinching.

That ambit claim for all those changes is stupid, I'll bet it ends up just being tweaked a bit when all is said and done.
Wasn't there a GM that said that he doesn't like giving out long contracts, but it's become a necessity if you want to sign UFAs, or something like that. Or is my mind just playing tricks on me?

Jevo is online now  
Old
07-15-2012, 08:37 PM
  #72
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
Wasn't there a GM that said that he doesn't like giving out long contracts, but it's become a necessity if you want to sign UFAs, or something like that. Or is my mind just playing tricks on me?
Only as strong as your weakest link. So, if some team opts to front load a contract to bring the cap hit down, other players are going to ask for it too.

Each team operates in their own best interests, otherwise, there would be colusion claims from the PA.

Biggest issue for the owners IMO are the following:
1) What makes up HRR
2) % split with the players
3) Elmination of front loaded contracts

Everything else regarding UFA age, ELC, arbitration, etc. not their biggest worries. That's more GM stuff.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 10:22 PM
  #73
YouppiKiYay
Registered User
 
YouppiKiYay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Bellingham, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I assumed that shorter ELCs could be offered by teams if they so chose. As you pointed out, teams wouldn't want the 5 year ELC to be mandatory, so why would they propose it? As for the players, I could see them signing off on it. Many a union has sold future members down the river for the benefit of their current membership. Perhaps if they gave in on this one they could get a larger share of the revenue pie in exchange.
Wouldn't the five year ELC have to be mandatory to work? If it were a suggestion, I imagine individual players would hold out for shorter ELC's.

I find the proposal curious for the reason both of you have raised -- it would tie teams to their draft mistakes. If the owners truly want this, you'd think they'd also have to lift the limit on the number of players an organization can have under contract at a given time.

YouppiKiYay is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 12:01 AM
  #74
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
Wasn't there a GM that said that he doesn't like giving out long contracts, but it's become a necessity if you want to sign UFAs, or something like that. Or is my mind just playing tricks on me?
That's a cop out. Here are the 17 guys with 10+ year contracts in the NHL:

Kovalchuk
DiPietro
Ovechkin
Parise
Suter
Keith
Zetterberg
M. Richards
Luongo
Crosby
Hossa
Lecavalier
Carter
Franzen
Backstrom
Erhoff
Quick


How many of those guys couldn't have been signed on shorter term deals? Considering that nearly half were RFAs at the time of signing and 13 of the 17 re-signed with the team they were already on, I'd say almost none of them couldn't have been signed to shorter contracts; it just would've cost a little more against the cap than their longer deals.

Here's a good quote from Wild owner Craig Leipold in mid April that shows the hypocrisy of many NHL owners:

Quote:
We’re not making money, and that’s one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we’re spending right now. [The Wild's] revenues are fine. We’re down a little bit in attendance, but we’re up in sponsorships, we’re up in TV revenue. And so the revenue that we’re generating is not the issue as much as our expenses. And [the Wild's] biggest expense by far is player salaries.
2.5 months later he signed up for a couple of contracts that will cost him $9 million more in salary than cap hit over the next several seasons. Great way to cut expenses.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 12:08 AM
  #75
LiquidSnake*
Agent of Chaos...
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The league's willingness to cannibalize successful teams to benefit the crappy ones is astounding. It's as if they want to create a greater incentive for tanking, because under their proposed system that's going to be about the only way to get good players.
I agree with this. I have a problem with how they seem to be negotiating this. Seems like the biggest markets arent necessarily the best teams unlike the NBA and MLB. I understand the level playing field but there is also an excitement when certain cities have great teams that come to town.

If there is one thing we've learned, the best team doesnt always win the cup.

LiquidSnake* 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 07:01 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.