HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2012, 03:02 PM
  #151
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,728
vCash: 500
Until we get to 9/15, I won't worry about it. Look at the NFL negotiations: a month before they struck the deal it was still all doom and gloom. Once they get agreement on some things these deal tend to end up falling in place--it's that initial movement that tends to be the hardest part.

Granted Bettman/Fehr aren't exactly confidence inspiring when it comes to resolving labor negotiations...

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 03:02 PM
  #152
ManuelCalavera
La-La-La-Locked Out
 
ManuelCalavera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal System Ehrhoff View Post
Professional sports commissioner Gary Bettman manages 3 lockouts in less than 20 years.
Hey, the man knows what he likes: labor disputes, moronic owners, and starving Mike Modano's dog. The lockout will give us all more time to stream Quebec Remparts games though, and maybe even a Kelowna Rockets game here and there. Isnt that what's really important? Then we can win the draft lotto next year, draft McKinnon, and Ted Black's recreation of the Pittsburgh team will be a little bit furthered.

ManuelCalavera is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 03:05 PM
  #153
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Yet the owners don't mind (some of them at least) tossing around pretty large contracts.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 03:07 PM
  #154
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,180
vCash: 500
I agree. I don't know how the owners can try and cry about costs weeks after handing out tons of stupid contracts.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 05:24 PM
  #155
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters on Thursday that the NHL will lock out its players if there is no new collective bargaining agreement by the time the old agreement expires on Sept. 15.

"We reiterated to the union that the owners will not play another year under the current agreement," he told a scrum of reporters in New York after the latest talks.

"I re-confirmed something that the union has been told multiple times over the last nine to 12 months. Namely, that the time is getting short and the owners are not prepared to operate under this collective bargaining agreement for another season so we need to get to making a deal and doing it soon. And we believe there's ample time for the parties to get together and make a deal and that's what we're going to be working towards."

Reports indicate that NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr, who just returned from a player information session overseas, is expected to make a counter-proposal on Tuesday. He mentioned earlier this summer that the players were willing to keep working past Sept. 15 as long as solid progress was being made in the negotiations.

The owners' July 13 proposal reportedly asked for a decrease of hockey-related revenue the players currently receive to 46 percent - down from 57 percent.

League revenues reached $3.3 billion last season.

If there is another lockout next month, it would be the third since Bettman arrived as NHL commissioner in 1993. The 1994-95 lockout shortened the season to a 48-game schedule and the 2004-05 lockout cancelled the entire campaign.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=402741

Get ready for another round of acrimony and finger-pointing at each other to win public sentiment....


Sabretip is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 05:37 PM
  #156
Afino
The Juice
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,491
vCash: 500
Hat trick of lockouts......



.....still an "awesome" commish because he makes the league money.


WAY TO GO!

Afino is offline  
Old
08-09-2012, 05:46 PM
  #157
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afino View Post
Hat trick of lockouts......



.....still an "awesome" commish because he makes the league money.


WAY TO GO!
What amazes me is the sheer arrogance of the owners - they basically rammed the salary rollbacks down the players' throats to end the last lockout, which built up a lot of resentment by the NHLPA since then. Yet, here the league comes again, expecting the players to swallow an 11% reduction of revenue sharing?

And who exactly is setting the marketplace in terms of salaries? Certainly not the ones cashing the checks.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 10:09 AM
  #158
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Bettman: “We need to be paying out less in player costs”

Fehr: NHLPA counteroffer expected on Tuesday

It will be interesting to see how outside the box with regards to revenue sharing the NHLPA's counteroffer is.

I wouldn't be shocked if Fehr tries to go with a non-capped first offer with expanded revenue sharing that would widen spending so that the low revenue teams don't have to struggle to get to a cap floor and the big revenue clubs can spend as much as they want.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 10:37 AM
  #159
rkorchinski
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Tell the owners to stop offering the contracts. That is not a player issue.

"You are worth what someone is willing to pay".

rkorchinski is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 10:42 AM
  #160
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkorchinski View Post
Tell the owners to stop offering the contracts. That is not a player issue.

"You are worth what someone is willing to pay".
The problem is the revenue gap from the top end teams (Rangers, Flyers, etc.) and the low end teams (Yotes, Panthers, etc.).

I have no problem with the NHL owners trying to negotiate a system that works for more than just the high revenue owners and the players.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 10:50 AM
  #161
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem is the revenue gap from the top end teams (Rangers, Flyers, etc.) and the low end teams (Yotes, Panthers, etc.).

I have no problem with the NHL owners trying to negotiate a system that works for more than just the high revenue owners and the players.
Honestky that's not very feasible without hacking the salary cap WAY down, limit the valueand term of contracts, or make all FAs follow RFA rules. None of that would fly with the players.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 12:04 PM
  #162
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
Honestky that's not very feasible without hacking the salary cap WAY down, limit the valueand term of contracts, or make all FAs follow RFA rules. None of that would fly with the players.
The NHLPA could propose an MLB-type system with expanded revenue sharing and no cap. It will be interesting to see if the owners would go for something like that.

There are ways to address some of the issues with the current system without just lowering the cap big time and rolling back salaries. And not all of them will negatively affect competitive balance.

For instance, adding a "franchise tag" ala the NFL could help star player retention.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 01:32 PM
  #163
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The NHLPA could propose an MLB-type system with expanded revenue sharing and no cap. It will be interesting to see if the owners would go for something like that.

There are ways to address some of the issues with the current system without just lowering the cap big time and rolling back salaries. And not all of them will negatively affect competitive balance.

For instance, adding a "franchise tag" ala the NFL could help star player retention.
I don't know how well an MLB type system would "allow small market teams to remain competitive"

As for the franchise tag, that is a fairly good idea. Making the rules more like the NFL might be good for the league...

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 01:38 PM
  #164
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
I don't know how well an MLB type system would "allow small market teams to remain competitive"

As for the franchise tag, that is a fairly good idea. Making the rules more like the NFL might be good for the league...
MLB has had better competitive balance over the past decade than the NFL and NBA if you look at how many teams have made the post-season, gotten to the World Series, and won the World Series.

It all boils down to being able to draft well and make smart decisions with signing players.

I think contract length limits could hurt smaller market clubs as it won't allow them to lock up core guys and they would hit UFA earlier and more often.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 02:11 PM
  #165
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
MLB has had better competitive balance over the past decade than the NFL and NBA if you look at how many teams have made the post-season, gotten to the World Series, and won the World Series.

It all boils down to being able to draft well and make smart decisions with signing players.

I think contract length limits could hurt smaller market clubs as it won't allow them to lock up core guys and they would hit UFA earlier and more often.

Admittedly I don't know too much about MLB, but any league boils down to the ability to draft well and make smart decisions with signing players. In a perfect world that would keep the teams even.

As for contract length limits, the only reason I bring it up is that that is one of the things that the owners want to do (apparently). Limit contracts to 5 years.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 02:26 PM
  #166
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
Admittedly I don't know too much about MLB, but any league boils down to the ability to draft well and make smart decisions with signing players. In a perfect world that would keep the teams even.

As for contract length limits, the only reason I bring it up is that that is one of the things that the owners want to do (apparently). Limit contracts to 5 years.
The owners want to limit contract lengths just so that it reduces buyouts if they miss big time on a deal.

I don't have a problem with the long contracts. It just makes the need to make the right call on a player even more important. But, it gives teams the ability to lock in core guys, which is a good thing IMO.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 02:53 PM
  #167
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The owners want to limit contract lengths just so that it reduces buyouts if they miss big time on a deal.

I don't have a problem with the long contracts. It just makes the need to make the right call on a player even more important. But, it gives teams the ability to lock in core guys, which is a good thing IMO.
I agree 100%. In fact I would be disappointed if they did limit the terms. I'm just trying my best to see things from their point of view. All I'm getting is "I'm greedy and I want more money." =/

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:14 PM
  #168
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...ed-by-sept-15/

Quote:
Hainsey just spoke on behalf of NHLPA, said he “absolutely” thinks a new deal can be done by September 15.

NHL Deputy commissioner Bill Daly also “optimistic” a deal can get done but admits it will require a lot of “hard work.”

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:16 PM
  #169
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
MLB has had better competitive balance over the past decade than the NFL and NBA if you look at how many teams have made the post-season, gotten to the World Series, and won the World Series.

It all boils down to being able to draft well and make smart decisions with signing players.
The MLB model would be a disaster for the NHL.

Quote:
I think contract length limits could hurt smaller market clubs as it won't allow them to lock up core guys and they would hit UFA earlier and more often
Actually its the opposite. Contract limits, along with the owners request of salary = cap hit for the length of the deal, would help smaller clubs since they operate on a set budget. The Preds, for example, can budget for Weber at 7.5mil if it was his salary and cap hit. Its how they structured Rinne's deal. What they can't handle are huge front loaded contracts. They are biting a huge financial bullet hanging on to Weber.


Last edited by joshjull: 08-10-2012 at 03:22 PM.
joshjull is online now  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:19 PM
  #170
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The owners want to limit contract lengths just so that it reduces buyouts if they miss big time on a deal.

I don't have a problem with the long contracts. It just makes the need to make the right call on a player even more important. But, it gives teams the ability to lock in core guys, which is a good thing IMO.
Its not about buyouts. They want to limit the length of contracts AND make the cap hit the same for all years to put a drag on actual salaries. Those two ideas need to be paired when debating this. In the last few years the actually salaries in these front loaded deals has skyrocketed. We have two of them (Ehrhoff and Myers). This puts enormous financial pressure on smaller markets that set their budgets based on actual salaries and not cap hits.


Last edited by joshjull: 08-10-2012 at 04:03 PM.
joshjull is online now  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:33 PM
  #171
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Its not about buyouts. They want to limit the length of contracts AND make the cap hit the same for all years to put a drag on actual salaries. Those two ideas need to be paired when debating this. In the last few years the actually salaries in these front loaded deals has skyrocketed. We have two of them (Ehrhoff and Myers). This puts enormous financial pessure on smaller markets that set their budgets based on actual salaries and not cap hits.
Why couldn't they have no limits on length and just make the salary flat every year of a deal like the cap hit is today?

You get the same "cost certainty" either way.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:40 PM
  #172
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The MLB model would be a disaster for the NHL.
How so?

If it included much larger revenue sharing like MLB has, it could make for a healthier financial situation for the teams that are having a hard time getting to the cap floor and getting anywhere near break even.

The NHLPA most likely will fight for a long time if the NHL tries to get a cap situation like they did last time around that works for the low revenue clubs.

Just look at the cap growth since the last lockout. The gap between the haves and have nots just keeps widening.

Revenue sharing being expanded is the only way to solve that issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Actually its the opposite. Contract limits, along with the owners request of salary = cap hit for the length of the deal, would help smaller clubs since they operate on a set budget. The Preds, for example, can budget for Weber at 7.5mil if it was his salary and cap hit. Its how they structured Rinne's deal. What they can't handle are huge front loaded contracts. They are biting a huge financial bullet hanging on to Weber.
I have no problem with making the cap hit and salaries flat over the length of a deal.

I just don't see contract limits being a good thing for smaller market clubs.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:45 PM
  #173
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
Why couldn't they have no limits on length and just make the salary flat every year of a deal like the cap hit is today?

You get the same "cost certainty" either way.
They certainly could do that. But the shorter length protects the smaller markets.

joshjull is online now  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:49 PM
  #174
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
How so?

If it included much larger revenue sharing like MLB has, it could make for a healthier financial situation for the teams that are having a hard time getting to the cap floor and getting anywhere near break even.

The NHLPA most likely will fight for a long time if the NHL tries to get a cap situation like they did last time around that works for the low revenue clubs.

Just look at the cap growth since the last lockout. The gap between the haves and have nots just keeps widening.

Revenue sharing being expanded is the only way to solve that issue.
I agree and that doesn't require the MLB model to make it happen.

joshjull is online now  
Old
08-10-2012, 03:51 PM
  #175
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
Just look at the cap growth since the last lockout. The gap between the haves and have nots just keeps widening.
Part of the cap growth has been the 5% escalator clause that the players exercised, smartly, only this year.

The owners should never have given 57% of revenues to the players PLUS an escalator under their cap rules.

SackTastic 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 01:43 PM.

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.