HFBoards

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

2012-2013 Offseason Thread III (Now with Bonus Offseason!)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 01:12 AM
  #751
Alistar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Azores
Posts: 9,003
vCash: 500
yeah so I'd say the league is starting to panic.

Offer will be pulled off the table you say? like the last 7 "best" offers that were pulled off the table, each one more in the PA's favor than the last..

Alistar is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:39 AM
  #752
FrailSwan
A-B-We Stole Your C
 
FrailSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,149
vCash: 500
Yea he was pissed, as he should have been, because this lockout interfered with family stuff.

Quote:
My 4-year-old kid going to Disneyworld today without her daddy. #endthisstupidlockout
and then the tweet with that column, as im sure you saw:
Quote:
My column tonight from New York, and maybe I was a little angry when I wrote it
Screw the owners and the players. I really feel for the media people who have to keep traveling for extended periods of time over this stupidity.

FrailSwan is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 03:33 AM
  #753
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,477
vCash: 500
Part of me hopes the season gets cancelled so Fehr gets ****ed over hard, but most of me wants hockey ASAP.

LatvianTwist is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 03:59 AM
  #754
FrailSwan
A-B-We Stole Your C
 
FrailSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Part of me hopes the season gets cancelled so Fehr gets ****ed over hard, but most of me wants hockey ASAP.
The PA had it coming the day they got paranoid and fired Kelly.

FrailSwan is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:11 AM
  #755
Stars99Lobo37
Moderator
Away Games - 13
 
Stars99Lobo37's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sec 314 - Richardson
Country: United States
Posts: 50,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
Part of me hopes the season gets cancelled so Fehr gets ****ed over hard, but most of me wants hockey ASAP.
Am over it at this point. And have been for a while.

Best thing I'm hoping for is a #1 or top 3 pick come June.

__________________
"Now when people ask me where I'm from, I tell them Texas. Dallas, Texas." - Mike Modano, March 8th, 2014

Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs - 1997 to 2011 - WPHL Champions 1998, 1999, 2000 - CHL Champions 2011
Stars99Lobo37 is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:52 AM
  #756
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
I don't understand how any fan is still picking sides. Early on I fell for that crap, but if you think there's a bad guy in this situation, I think you're wrong. For there to be a bad guy, a good guy needs to exist, and that's not true of this situation.

Each side has done their best to poison this situation at some point or another, and I really don't care that it appears the league has given more. They had to do that or did we all forget about how absolutely ridiculous their first proposal was? Of course they've moved the most.

Here's another media member losing patience with this mess.

It seems to be painfully obvious to everyone at this point the only reason the CBA is not done is because of egos. It's going to get done still IMO, but not before Bettman and Fehr get to cause a bit more damage to the game. Two guys that aren't even hockey guys dragging this **** out.

In the end, the only positive is they both failed. Neither one of them accomplished anything. Bettman though may just be the biggest loser IMO. Not because I don't like him, but because I truly believe the owners expected him to steamroll the PA just like last time and he failed miserably.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:56 AM
  #757
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars99Lobo37 View Post
Best thing I'm hoping for is a #1 or top 3 pick come June.
I agree with LeBrun, there's no logical reason that the season won't be starting in 2 weeks, but he finished with:

Quote:
But logic has been benched for long periods of this sordid game.
Still, I refuse to accept that 7 or 8 issues, all of which multiple reports have indicated sides are extremely close on, stop the season. I can't support that kind of lunacy.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:27 PM
  #758
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I don't understand how any fan is still picking sides. Early on I fell for that crap, but if you think there's a bad guy in this situation, I think you're wrong. For there to be a bad guy, a good guy needs to exist, and that's not true of this situation.

Each side has done their best to poison this situation at some point or another, and I really don't care that it appears the league has given more. They had to do that or did we all forget about how absolutely ridiculous their first proposal was? Of course they've moved the most.

Here's another media member losing patience with this mess.

It seems to be painfully obvious to everyone at this point the only reason the CBA is not done is because of egos. It's going to get done still IMO, but not before Bettman and Fehr get to cause a bit more damage to the game. Two guys that aren't even hockey guys dragging this **** out.

In the end, the only positive is they both failed. Neither one of them accomplished anything. Bettman though may just be the biggest loser IMO. Not because I don't like him, but because I truly believe the owners expected him to steamroll the PA just like last time and he failed miserably.
I guess I would consider myself on the owners side but not because I think they are good. I generally feel that owners should have more input into how their league is run than their employees. Now I am not saying they should be able to push them around at will and its pretty difficult to figure out a way to strike a balance. Id also consider myself an owners supporter because I don't believe the PAs vision for the CBA is very good for the long term health of hockey. Their goal is obviously to squeeze every last cent they can out of the league and the less money the league makes the more unstable the league gets. I want to see a league where less teams are in financial trouble and if that means some owners rake in lots of cash so be it.

I also dont agree that Bettman steamrolled the pa last time. It took a canceled season just for him to get linkage and it ended up being linkage at a high % in favor of the players. Lowering the UFA age for players was a massive win for them as well.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:43 PM
  #759
Stars99Lobo37
Moderator
Away Games - 13
 
Stars99Lobo37's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sec 314 - Richardson
Country: United States
Posts: 50,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I agree with LeBrun, there's no logical reason that the season won't be starting in 2 weeks
There's no logical reason for this crap to be going on to begin with. All of this should've been sorted out last year or during the spring or whenever.

Is doing nothing but killing the game. And the sad thing is that neither side gives a crap about it.

Stars99Lobo37 is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:57 PM
  #760
FrailSwan
A-B-We Stole Your C
 
FrailSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I guess I would consider myself on the owners side but not because I think they are good. I generally feel that owners should have more input into how their league is run than their employees. Now I am not saying they should be able to push them around at will and its pretty difficult to figure out a way to strike a balance. Id also consider myself an owners supporter because I don't believe the PAs vision for the CBA is very good for the long term health of hockey. Their goal is obviously to squeeze every last cent they can out of the league and the less money the league makes the more unstable the league gets. I want to see a league where less teams are in financial trouble and if that means some owners rake in lots of cash so be it.

I also dont agree that Bettman steamrolled the pa last time. It took a canceled season just for him to get linkage and it ended up being linkage at a high % in favor of the players. Lowering the UFA age for players was a massive win for them as well.
That's why the PA's history lessons and cry outs over 04-05 are no more than empty words. The players banked after that cba.

FrailSwan is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:09 PM
  #761
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I guess I would consider myself on the owners side but not because I think they are good. I generally feel that owners should have more input into how their league is run than their employees. Now I am not saying they should be able to push them around at will and its pretty difficult to figure out a way to strike a balance. Id also consider myself an owners supporter because I don't believe the PAs vision for the CBA is very good for the long term health of hockey. Their goal is obviously to squeeze every last cent they can out of the league and the less money the league makes the more unstable the league gets. I want to see a league where less teams are in financial trouble and if that means some owners rake in lots of cash so be it.

I also dont agree that Bettman steamrolled the pa last time. It took a canceled season just for him to get linkage and it ended up being linkage at a high % in favor of the players. Lowering the UFA age for players was a massive win for them as well.
I don't agree with the sentiment that the players are the party unconcerned about the health of the league. The players are the side that called for better revenue sharing. Of all the pro leagues in NA, the NHL's revenue sharing is the weakest and contributes the least to the teams that need it the most.

The owners weren't calling to fix that broken system, and improved revenue sharing is more important to the health of the league than anything the owners are doing.

I think the players never expected to get more than 50/50, and they came to that number pretty quickly. I really don't see a money grab from their POV. They've made many mistakes, but taking the contracts that GMs offer and owners approve is not their fault. That blame doesn't fall on them IMO.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:16 PM
  #762
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Players aren't the ones that crafted and developed these cap busting, front loaded contracts. Everything the league is fighting for right now is a problem they created.

I don't see why these multi-million dollar players deserve extra pension money. They should be able to handle their retirement just fine under the previous system of the old CBA. Outside of that issue, the ones remaining on the table that the two sides haven't agreed on are self-inflicted wounds created by the owners and GMs that they are trying to curb. Variance, contract term, salary cap, etc …. That’s owners trying to make up for their past mistakes.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:17 PM
  #763
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I don't agree with the sentiment that the players are the party unconcerned about the health of the league. The players are the side that called for better revenue sharing. Of all the pro leagues in NA, the NHL's revenue sharing is the weakest and contributes the least to the teams that need it the most.

The owners weren't calling to fix that broken system, and improved revenue sharing is more important to the health of the league than anything the owners are doing.

I think the players never expected to get more than 50/50, and they came to that number pretty quickly. I really don't see a money grab from their POV. They've made many mistakes, but taking the contracts that GMs offer and owners approve is not their fault. That blame doesn't fall on them IMO.
The players want more revenue sharing so they can have more money. Its impossible for the NHL to share as much as other leagues because they dont make nearly as much from tickets and dont have a good tv contract that pays for everything.

I think we need to separate players taking big contracts from the PA as a whole. The problem is the NHL is trying to fix problems that cannot be fixed in any way other than changing things in the CBA and I don't think the PA has been entirely reasonable about the situation.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:23 PM
  #764
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
Players aren't the ones that crafted and developed these cap busting, front loaded contracts. Everything the league is fighting for right now is a problem they created.

I don't see why these multi-million dollar players deserve extra pension money. They should be able to handle their retirement just fine under the previous system of the old CBA. Outside of that issue, the ones remaining on the table that the two sides haven't agreed on are self-inflicted wounds created by the owners and GMs that they are trying to curb. Variance, contract term, salary cap, etc Ö. Thatís owners trying to make up for their past mistakes.
Absolutely the league created the cap busting contracts. The problem is the league can't do a damn thing about them unless the PA lets them. The PA does not want the league to fix any of these problems.

I agree on pensions. It seems like alot of guys are extra worried because they make alot of money but spend alot of money. Well the thing is you dont have to buy a 2 million dollar house with 10 bedrooms and kids with 3 different moms. I guess its human nature to get want to live an exciting life full of expensive stuff, but I'd like to hear more about people being responsible with their money, especially people whos shelf life is pretty shaky.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:26 PM
  #765
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
The players want more revenue sharing so they can have more money. Its impossible for the NHL to share as much as other leagues because they dont make nearly as much from tickets and dont have a good tv contract that pays for everything.

I think we need to separate players taking big contracts from the PA as a whole. The problem is the NHL is trying to fix problems that cannot be fixed in any way other than changing things in the CBA and I don't think the PA has been entirely reasonable about the situation.
I think it's hard to make that argument when the league refuses to leave areas like Phoenix, and at the same time they don't offer them enough financial support for them to be a healthy organization.

It's the leagues responsibility to support every organization or move them to a place they can be successful. I donít think moving is the answer because I believe the richer teams donít contribute enough, and the money is there to get these organizations moving in the right direction.

Like I already said ... it's not that these problems can't be fixed. The league created them, and the teams at the top don't want them fixed. Improved revenue sharing and fair contract practices create competitive balance. That's good for everybody, and a few selfish teams aren't interested in that IMO.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:29 PM
  #766
FrailSwan
A-B-We Stole Your C
 
FrailSwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Absolutely the league created the cap busting contracts. The problem is the league can't do a damn thing about them unless the PA lets them. The PA does not want the league to fix any of these problems.

I agree on pensions. It seems like alot of guys are extra worried because they make alot of money but spend alot of money. Well the thing is you dont have to buy a 2 million dollar house with 10 bedrooms and kids with 3 different moms. I guess its human nature to get want to live an exciting life full of expensive stuff, but I'd like to hear more about people being responsible with their money, especially people whos shelf life is pretty shaky.
Bingo. They know they've exploited this in the owners system, and they don't want to lose it.

FrailSwan is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:33 PM
  #767
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I think it's hard to make that argument when the league refuses to leave areas like Phoenix, and at the same time they don't offer them enough financial support for them to be a healthy organization.

It's the leagues responsibility to support every organization or move them to a place they can be successful. I donít think moving is the answer because I believe the richer teams donít contribute enough, and the money is there to get these organizations moving in the right direction.

Like I already said ... it's not that these problems can't be fixed. The league created them, and the teams at the top don't want them fixed. Improved revenue sharing and fair contract practices create competitive balance. That's good for everybody, and a few selfish teams aren't interested in that IMO.
I don't think theres enough revenue to share right now to really make a healthy league. Id love to see Phoenix move somewhere more hockey friendly. What do you mean by fair contract practices? The league is fighting hard to get the rules they need in place for what I'd consider fair contract practices.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:34 PM
  #768
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Absolutely the league created the cap busting contracts. The problem is the league can't do a damn thing about them unless the PA lets them. The PA does not want the league to fix any of these problems.
I guess I don't see how that is true. Could you provide an example?

I don't agree that 5 year contract limits are the answer, and there's not a huge difference between 6 and 8 years. To me, the only reason this hasn't been agreed upon is Fehr and Bettman are children that aren't done throwing their tantrums.

There's been no indication the PA is opposed to the variance issue.

Here's the thing, I get the impression you think players are OK with these cap buster contracts, but they hurt an overwhelming percentage of the PA. They are the reason escrow is so high right now. Brad Richards' $10 or $12 million salary counts to the players share this season, but his cap hit is much smaller. That allows significantly more money to count against the players' share when cap hits are artificially lowered.

Front loaded contracts are only good for the teams as a way for allowing them to legally circumvent the cap.

I honestly think this is one of the issues that the PA and owners have both done a good job of finding common ground on. I truly believe this is a non issue, and the only reason this has NOT been checked off as done is neither Fehr or Bettman's ego's will allow them to give in too soon.

As for the the men behind them trying to get this done, getting to the point to where they are right now is a major accomplishment IMO.


Last edited by BigG44: 01-04-2013 at 01:40 PM. Reason: Added NOT
BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:37 PM
  #769
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I don't think theres enough revenue to share right now to really make a healthy league. Id love to see Phoenix move somewhere more hockey friendly. What do you mean by fair contract practices? The league is fighting hard to get the rules they need in place for what I'd consider fair contract practices.
That's my point.

Fair contract practices would make the league healthy. I don't know how you could look at the information available and not say both the owners and PA have made excellent strides to fix this.

This is only the last thing I'd point to as an example of the PA or the owners making a mistake on.

They're both virtually asking for the same thing. How you could say one is better than the other on this issues actually is pretty surprising to me.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:44 PM
  #770
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
That's my point.

Fair contract practices would make the league healthy. I don't know how you could look at the information available and not say both the owners and PA have made excellent strides to fix this.

This is only the last thing I'd point to as an example of the PA or the owners making a mistake on.

They're both virtually asking for the same thing. How you could say one is better than the other on this issues actually is pretty surprising to me.
Theyve certainly made strides but I think the PA has been pretty resistant to it along the way because they don't really want fair contract practices. Allowing the owners to set up rules to prevent bad contracts is considered a concession by them, which the NHL likely has to give up elsewhere to get.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:45 PM
  #771
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Just to go back to the health of the league .... the PA saying both sides should allow the lower limit to stay at $44 million and raise the upper limit to $65 million is also another example of the PA having the leagues best interest in mind. Pushing for extra compliance buyouts and allowing that to count against the players' share is as well.

Dismantling the NY Rangers and Vancouver Canucks is not good for the league. Yes I want to see more competitive balance, but destroying good teams isn't the way you do it.

The PA has come up with a solution to accomplish Bettman's goal and still ease the burden on teams dealing with a reduced upper limit.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:52 PM
  #772
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Theyve certainly made strides but I think the PA has been pretty resistant to it along the way because they don't really want fair contract practices. Allowing the owners to set up rules to prevent bad contracts is considered a concession by them, which the NHL likely has to give up elsewhere to get.
That's our disconnect then. I don't think we should congratulate the league for fixing a problem they created, and I don't see any examples of the PA being resistant to the necessary changes to the contract rules.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:57 PM
  #773
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
That's our disconnect then. I don't think we should congratulate the league for fixing a problem they created, and I don't see any examples of the PA being resistant to the necessary changes to the contract rules.
I am not trying to congratulate the league at all. The more I think about it the more I think saying the league created the problem isnt exactly fair. Its a problem that was always going to arise given the contract rules agreement between the league and the players. Competition being what it is it only takes one to start the snowball of cap circumventing deals.

txomisc is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:07 PM
  #774
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I am not trying to congratulate the league at all. The more I think about it the more I think saying the league created the problem isnt exactly fair. Its a problem that was always going to arise given the contract rules agreement between the league and the players. Competition being what it is it only takes one to start the snowball of cap circumventing deals.
Then we won't agree on this part which is fine. Front loaded contracts were crafted by GMs to pay their best players fair salaries with lower cap hits. The players didn't ask for their extra years worth $1 million and $550K. That's money they never expect to see. It's purely a cap move by a GM and owner which IMO by definition is a problem created by the league. The snowball effect was created by additional GMs realizing it was a perfect situation for them as well ... again ... the GM and the owners choosing to take advantage of the loophole to circumvent the cap.

I still say this is a non issue though. Do you not agree the league and PA have essentially agreed on this issue. We're talking a razor thin difference between what the two are asking for. I think it's important to say again I can't see how you could say either side is better on this issue than the other. We've arrived at the compromise. Two morons out front not saying it's finished is a different argument.

There are significantly more important issues that aren't close with a major one being pension. Like I already said, I don't agree with the players trying to change the system. It wasn't broke, and salaries are just going up and up. They should be able to handle this as individual players.

I just think you're giving credit to the league when none is due. Both sides are at the finish line on this issue or at least that seems to be what most of the information I posted last night indicated. They're separated by 1/2 years on term, and the variance is pretty much ironed out. Seems to be they are just trying to settle on an exact percentage.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:18 PM
  #775
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,962
vCash: 500
Honestly .... with what we know they haven't made an agreement on, the only issue that doesn't seem close is pension. I wish the players would drop it, but it'snot shocking they are sticking to their guns considering the issue was done and agreed upon and later pulled off the table.

I truly believe we're stuck in a pissing contest between Fehr and Bettman. None of this is too far apart that a deal already shouldn't be done. That just brings me back to the point that I don't see how you could blame one over the other. Everyone is a loser in this race.

BigG44 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 10:17 PM.

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.