HFBoards

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

Around the League 2012-12 I: Gary and Donald sitting in a tree

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2012, 09:04 PM
  #351
Avs_19
Peter the Great
 
Avs_19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,886
vCash: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickAHL View Post
I'm hoping that the Avs players continue to stay away from this crap. This is embarrassing.

Agreed. Mitchell said something about Bettman the other day on twitter but for the most part the Avs players have stayed out it.

Bettman and Fehr are both in the same boat here, they're both killing the game. The players who are *****ing to the media and wearing "Puck Bettman" hats are just as bad.

Avs_19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:18 AM
  #352
Nzap
Insert clever phrase
 
Nzap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Middle of Noux
Country: Finland
Posts: 4,020
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avs_19 View Post
Agreed. Mitchell said something about Bettman the other day on twitter but for the most part the Avs players have stayed out it.
Giguere said something about how he doesn't understand why Bettman does what he does, but nothing more serious.

Nzap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:19 PM
  #353
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockLobster View Post
But my feeling is, that Hamrlik isn't the only person, out of 700 members of the PA, that feels this way, he was just the first to speak up. And how the hell are we supposed to know if he's been on any conference calls or attended any meetings?

As someone pointed out in the thread on the Main Board, isn't part of the jobs for the Team Reps to be filling others in on what's going on, because something may prevent them from going to a meeting or being on a call?

Hamrlik just has had enough, I don't think it's selfish that he DOESN'T want this lockout, the 3rd one he's been involved in, to rip away what little time he has left. Yes, how selfish of he to know that either way he and everyone in the PA are going to continue making millions over their careers playing a game.

And Neuvirth stepping up shows that it's not just one player. I won't be surprised to see more continue to echo these similar sentiments
Because his own teammate, Troy Brouwer said so.

Quote:
"Those are two guys that have never been on a conference call, never been to a meeting, never paid attention,"
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410109

Sure there are a few guys out there that probably feel the same way as Hamrlik, to varrying degrees. The point is you don't go to the media and throw the whole union under the bus, because you're old and only have a couple years left to win a cup, when you haven't even taken part in the process and tried to push the union in your direction internally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I agree with everything you're saying HOWEVER, what they just aren't getting is, IT DOESN'T matter who is right and who is wrong. I've suspected the owners make much more $$$$ than they declare in HRR for years but in the end, it doesn't matter. I don't care if the owners are making 100x what they declare and I'm not even saying it's 'fair' that the owners do this to the players, all I'm saying is that the players need to realize that the owners are driving the boat.

The players are going to end up LOSING at the end of this dispute and it will it STILL end up favourably for them over time.

Think about it. What are the so-called contractual issues separating the two sides right now? 5 Year term limits? Am I retarded or can they still re-sign for ANOTHER 5 years after that 5 year deal is done? (Probably at a HIGHER WAGE)
  • What is the % of the 700 players that actually signs contracts longer than 5 years?
  • What is the % of the 700 players that actually HAVE backdiving contracts?
  • What is the % of the 700 players that actually have contracts that have more than 5% different in each year? (there are probably more here but this won't drive DOWN salaries)

Most or all of these factors affect 10% or less of the players in the NHLPA and the overall affect on the global contracts of the league is negligible.

This is not about any of that horse crap. This is about Gary Bettman having warned all 30 GMs and said to them, don't be signing your players to 'cap-circumventing' contracts because when the CBA is up, I'll make you pay.

And conversely, it's about the NHLPA trying to 'protect' these players with cap-circumventing contracts. Protect them from what? An eventual buyout? That player would CASH-IN on that buyout AND sign another contract with another team and probably make even MORE money. (like Tucker did...he's STILL getting paid by the Leafs)
This is the most rational version of why the players should cave in, but I disagree agree slightly. There has to be some principle involved. Limiting contract lengths and limiting the backdiving contracts aren't small deals. This removes a lot of financial and destination security, and will also drive down contracts across the board. It won't just affect the guys that would get the big long term deals with smaller cap hits. Those guys will get paid less, and lesser paid guys will be paid less as well based on relative value.

These two things have never been restrictions in the NHL, and the NHL is insisting on a fairly strict version of it, so they're basically going from 0-90 in one deal. If the league has the upper hand like we both agree on, and Bettman will dig in for the most he can get every time, than what are they going to insist on after the next CBA? This has always been the PA's mindset from the beginning of negotiations, and they made no secret about it.

It's about what's fair, as well as principle, and setting precedence and the bar for next time.

I'd like to add as well that Bettman's warning to the 30 teams on contracts means nothing. He's on the side of the owners. He's not going to do something to hurt them. He's going to give them a way out of the bad contracts, just like he proposed earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nzap View Post
Bolded part:
He is pissed cause possibly his last year and last chance to win a SC is destroyed by idiots.
Italic part:
Neuvirth is 24y old.
If that's not young then your perception of age is a bit different than mine.
Not sure what you mean here. You're picking one guy who hasn't been involved or informed on what's going on, and is sticking up for his vet teammate, along with the hosts of other young players who have been at the forefront of this. The same thing happened last time, the vets were the ones that wanted to cave because they were only going to be part of the CBA for another year or two, or be forced to retire. The young guys wanted to dig in and set the bar for the next CBA that they would have to negotiate as well.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:49 PM
  #354
RockLobster
Moderator
Beatles Guru
 
RockLobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,997
vCash: 905
II saw Brouwer's comments, and I guess my point was more or less why should I believe Troy Brouwer on the subject of which members of a 700 member union have been on conference calls. Meetings are different because you can see them.

And again, we're hearing so many players speak out saying the same things, I for one welcome a player who's basically saying what most fans are thinking.

****EDIT****

And if you looked at Cole's own words carefully, you'd see that Hamrlik has apparently been trying to talk with other players and even a Team Rep (Gorges) and his words fell on deaf ears.

So it's not as if Hamrlik decided to get up one day and just "throw the union under the bus" as some have said. It sounds like he was trying to get his point across and because it didn't fit in with what Fehr is trying to push as a whole no one listened (could these be the "few superstars" that Neuvirth talked of?).


Last edited by RockLobster: 11-24-2012 at 05:01 PM.
RockLobster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 05:36 PM
  #355
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockLobster View Post
II saw Brouwer's comments, and I guess my point was more or less why should I believe Troy Brouwer on the subject of which members of a 700 member union have been on conference calls. Meetings are different because you can see them.

And again, we're hearing so many players speak out saying the same things, I for one welcome a player who's basically saying what most fans are thinking.

****EDIT****

And if you looked at Cole's own words carefully, you'd see that Hamrlik has apparently been trying to talk with other players and even a Team Rep (Gorges) and his words fell on deaf ears.

So it's not as if Hamrlik decided to get up one day and just "throw the union under the bus" as some have said. It sounds like he was trying to get his point across and because it didn't fit in with what Fehr is trying to push as a whole no one listened (could these be the "few superstars" that Neuvirth talked of?).
Right, it's falling on deaf ears because they don't agree with him, so he goes to the media putting his self interest ahead of everyone.

I would imagine Brouwer didn't completely make up the idea that they haven't been involved with the PA because he's their teammate, and is the team rep for the Caps. There's no reason not to believe him.

Hamrlik may have had some talks with guys, but my guess is they weren't taken very well like Cole said, and he decided to take over for Fehr and play to the media with what he alone thought 700 other guys should do.

Just out of curiosity, and maybe I missed it, but has anyone else said similar things to Hamrlik, besides Neuvrith?

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 06:01 PM
  #356
RockLobster
Moderator
Beatles Guru
 
RockLobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,997
vCash: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
Right, it's falling on deaf ears because they don't agree with him, so he goes to the media putting his self interest ahead of everyone.

I would imagine Brouwer didn't completely make up the idea that they haven't been involved with the PA because he's their teammate, and is the team rep for the Caps. There's no reason not to believe him.

Hamrlik may have had some talks with guys, but my guess is they weren't taken very well like Cole said, and he decided to take over for Fehr and play to the media with what he alone thought 700 other guys should do.

Just out of curiosity, and maybe I missed it, but has anyone else said similar things to Hamrlik, besides Neuvrith?
Only past players have echoed similar sentiments to what Hamrlik and Neuvirth said.

But regardless of what side you're on, Hamrlik has now gone through 3 lockouts, he has lost time, and yes, wages, that he will never see again. He has lost opportunities to play for a Stanley Cup. I don't think it's selfish if he's been through this before and believes that eventually the players are going to sign a similar deal to what's on the table, and all the while they have lost wages and lost playing time.

And if Hamrlik's concerns were eased by his own people, then he wouldn't have had a reason to speak to the media. However you get the sense, from his comments and from Cole's own, that any concerns he's raised, has just been laughed off. That's not very "brotherhood" like at all. The NHLPA is being ran very laughably in my opinion (and it's only my opinion, not meant to downgrade the opinions of others).

But if you set up these Conference Calls, were you have one man (Fehr) or a group of men (Fehr and the main Negotiating Committee) and all they're doing is in essence just telling you what's happened and what the next course of action is, and then ask if "anyone has a problem with that"? That doesn't sound like a good "brotherhood" that sounds almost draconian.

But the bottom line is, whatever Hamrlik's reasons for speaking out, whether it's truly "for the fans" (doubtful) or more money driven (most likely), it doesn't make his comments any less right, especially when talking about Cole (who did get a nice signing bonus and hasn't really "sacrificed" like other players have during this lockout).

The way I see it, Hamrlik is treating this like he should, that his career is on the line, and anyone of us in a similar situation would be chomping at the bit to get back to work to continue making money, especially if we've reached a point like the PA and the Owners have reached at this point. Because whether I like it or not, the PA doesn't really have any leverage here. It seems backwards, that the players, the ones that are largely responsible for the fans wanting to pay to see the NHL, don't have any leverage. But in my experience, the law of the land goes as follows: "He who holds the money, usually makes the rules". And the Owners just have too large of pockets, they can afford to sit out as long as it takes, but the players can't, and sooner or later they'll come to terms with it.

And I still don't care what Brouwer said, anyone who's ever been involved in any type of business at all that's used conference calls knows how easy it is to hop on/hop off of those. I'll believe him though when he says that Hamrlik hasn't been to regular sit-down meeting.

But does Hamrlik's own experience count for nothing? Now going through the 3rd lockout in his career, that should count for something.

RockLobster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 06:32 PM
  #357
RockLobster
Moderator
Beatles Guru
 
RockLobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,997
vCash: 905
and Foppa, please don't mistake my postings as an attack against you. They're not meant to be. I'm equally angry at both sides, but the PA has been especially grating because from the information that's been leaked, they keep attempting to propose a de-linkage of the HRR, which just isn't going to happen.

RockLobster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 08:04 PM
  #358
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockLobster View Post
and Foppa, please don't mistake my postings as an attack against you. They're not meant to be. I'm equally angry at both sides, but the PA has been especially grating because from the information that's been leaked, they keep attempting to propose a de-linkage of the HRR, which just isn't going to happen.
Oh, not at all. I don't have a vested interest in this, and it's not even like a debate about Avalanche players. I think everyone wants the same thing obviously, but it bothers me when people are easily duped into siding with billionaires and powers that be. That's how I view this, and I certainly understand many disagree that's what's happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockLobster View Post
Only past players have echoed similar sentiments to what Hamrlik and Neuvirth said.

But regardless of what side you're on, Hamrlik has now gone through 3 lockouts, he has lost time, and yes, wages, that he will never see again. He has lost opportunities to play for a Stanley Cup. I don't think it's selfish if he's been through this before and believes that eventually the players are going to sign a similar deal to what's on the table, and all the while they have lost wages and lost playing time.

And if Hamrlik's concerns were eased by his own people, then he wouldn't have had a reason to speak to the media. However you get the sense, from his comments and from Cole's own, that any concerns he's raised, has just been laughed off. That's not very "brotherhood" like at all. The NHLPA is being ran very laughably in my opinion (and it's only my opinion, not meant to downgrade the opinions of others).

But if you set up these Conference Calls, were you have one man (Fehr) or a group of men (Fehr and the main Negotiating Committee) and all they're doing is in essence just telling you what's happened and what the next course of action is, and then ask if "anyone has a problem with that"? That doesn't sound like a good "brotherhood" that sounds almost draconian.

But the bottom line is, whatever Hamrlik's reasons for speaking out, whether it's truly "for the fans" (doubtful) or more money driven (most likely), it doesn't make his comments any less right, especially when talking about Cole (who did get a nice signing bonus and hasn't really "sacrificed" like other players have during this lockout).

The way I see it, Hamrlik is treating this like he should, that his career is on the line, and anyone of us in a similar situation would be chomping at the bit to get back to work to continue making money, especially if we've reached a point like the PA and the Owners have reached at this point. Because whether I like it or not, the PA doesn't really have any leverage here. It seems backwards, that the players, the ones that are largely responsible for the fans wanting to pay to see the NHL, don't have any leverage. But in my experience, the law of the land goes as follows: "He who holds the money, usually makes the rules". And the Owners just have too large of pockets, they can afford to sit out as long as it takes, but the players can't, and sooner or later they'll come to terms with it.

And I still don't care what Brouwer said, anyone who's ever been involved in any type of business at all that's used conference calls knows how easy it is to hop on/hop off of those. I'll believe him though when he says that Hamrlik hasn't been to regular sit-down meeting.

But does Hamrlik's own experience count for nothing? Now going through the 3rd lockout in his career, that should count for something.
I don't think you're characterizing the process fairly though. Neither of us are obviously part of the process either, so it's fairly assumption based, but I don't think you can assume Fehr just tells them what he did, and then angrily asks, "does anyone have a problem with that?"

He was instrumental in tightening up the union, and regaining a sense of faith in the group. That's one of the main reasons he was brought in. I doubt very much that he isn't open with the players, and allows room for discussion and differing opinions. If he suppressed that type of thing, the union would never have strengthened, and players would have booted him out just as fast as other union bosses, rather than stood behind him.

I just don't know how anyone can stick up for Hamrlik, the same why I don't understand why people expect the PA to cave. If more people felt like Hamrlik, then the group would have pushed Fehr to sign the CBA much sooner. If more people felt like him, but needed some coaxing, he should have been more involved in the process and built a groundswell internally.

It's obvious he's in the vast minority here among the players, so by default he's selfishly putting his own self interests ahead of the rest of them and trying to publicly drive the ship himself. He's not the Union leader. He shouldn't be making those comments, he should be trying to rally everyone behind him internally. Otherwise the majority rules. They shouldn't be signing a CBA to appease a handfull of aging vets that are about to be UFA's and are scared of what will happen if they don't showcase themselves this season.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:13 PM
  #359
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
Because his own teammate, Troy Brouwer said so.



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410109

Sure there are a few guys out there that probably feel the same way as Hamrlik, to varrying degrees. The point is you don't go to the media and throw the whole union under the bus, because you're old and only have a couple years left to win a cup, when you haven't even taken part in the process and tried to push the union in your direction internally.



This is the most rational version of why the players should cave in, but I disagree agree slightly. There has to be some principle involved. Limiting contract lengths and limiting the backdiving contracts aren't small deals. This removes a lot of financial and destination security, and will also drive down contracts across the board. It won't just affect the guys that would get the big long term deals with smaller cap hits. Those guys will get paid less, and lesser paid guys will be paid less as well based on relative value.

These two things have never been restrictions in the NHL, and the NHL is insisting on a fairly strict version of it, so they're basically going from 0-90 in one deal. If the league has the upper hand like we both agree on, and Bettman will dig in for the most he can get every time, than what are they going to insist on after the next CBA? This has always been the PA's mindset from the beginning of negotiations, and they made no secret about it.

It's about what's fair, as well as principle, and setting precedence and the bar for next time.

I'd like to add as well that Bettman's warning to the 30 teams on contracts means nothing. He's on the side of the owners. He's not going to do something to hurt them. He's going to give them a way out of the bad contracts, just like he proposed earlier.
I think you're right in theory but in practice I think that all goes out the window. If there were a 5 year term limit on player contracts, I truly don't believe that it would drive contracts down. The theory is RIGHT but doesn't take into consideration the general "MADNESS" that we've seen from certain GMs since even the 1995 lockout. The league thought they had put in the right 'restrictions' at that time too and the players didn't like it and thought it would be too limiting. Turns out that wasn't the case. Again in 2005, even more restrictions and the crazy GMs just keep competing with one another to the point of insanity in what they are willing to pay players, to gain an advantage over the other player.

I posted this message in another thread [business thread]:

Maybe I'm stupid but I just don't get how this would be BAD for players. In my mind, this would be worst for the owners than it would be for the players.

Example :

Let's say -

Ryan Getzlaf becomes a UFA and signs a 10 year - $70M contract ($7M/yr)

instead, with the proposed 'restrictions', he signs a 5 year - $35M contract ($7M/yr)

At the END of that 5 year deal, with the supposed 5-7% increase in HRR and consequent salary cap increase, combined with the fact that Getzlaf is still only around 32 years old, wouldn't he be potentially signing for MORE than $7M per year and somewhere near $8 or $8.5M if his value stays relatively the same???

Obviously, this is just an example with round figures but in theory it works with any player.

Now I'm no 'mathamagician' but I really don't get how players would be upset about this and why owners would actually WANT this (except to get rid of the backdiving deals, that part I get)...

Please, enlightened me...cuz I just don't get it.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1297043


As for the 2nd part, it's not so much about what he's ready to do for the owners that got themselves into a 'jam', it's more about the owners who listened to his warning and chose to do business within those confines. There is a reason why Bettman wants to make sure that those contracts are not just 'grandfathered-in'. It's about making a point. The Avs got screwed over pretty large, last lockout and we lost out more than any other team in the league. So if he warned owners about this and they didn't listen and now it's THEIR turn to 'eat-it' so-to-speak, if they don't and he lets them have the easy out, he kind of loses credibility with all the other owners of the league that didn't try to circumvent the cap. That's my take on it anyways...not saying that's what's going to happen though.

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 01:06 AM
  #360
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I think you're right in theory but in practice I think that all goes out the window. If there were a 5 year term limit on player contracts, I truly don't believe that it would drive contracts down. The theory is RIGHT but doesn't take into consideration the general "MADNESS" that we've seen from certain GMs since even the 1995 lockout. The league thought they had put in the right 'restrictions' at that time too and the players didn't like it and thought it would be too limiting. Turns out that wasn't the case. Again in 2005, even more restrictions and the crazy GMs just keep competing with one another to the point of insanity in what they are willing to pay players, to gain an advantage over the other player.

I posted this message in another thread [business thread]:

Maybe I'm stupid but I just don't get how this would be BAD for players. In my mind, this would be worst for the owners than it would be for the players.

Example :

Let's say -

Ryan Getzlaf becomes a UFA and signs a 10 year - $70M contract ($7M/yr)

instead, with the proposed 'restrictions', he signs a 5 year - $35M contract ($7M/yr)

At the END of that 5 year deal, with the supposed 5-7% increase in HRR and consequent salary cap increase, combined with the fact that Getzlaf is still only around 32 years old, wouldn't he be potentially signing for MORE than $7M per year and somewhere near $8 or $8.5M if his value stays relatively the same???

Obviously, this is just an example with round figures but in theory it works with any player.

Now I'm no 'mathamagician' but I really don't get how players would be upset about this and why owners would actually WANT this (except to get rid of the backdiving deals, that part I get)...

Please, enlightened me...cuz I just don't get it.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1297043


As for the 2nd part, it's not so much about what he's ready to do for the owners that got themselves into a 'jam', it's more about the owners who listened to his warning and chose to do business within those confines. There is a reason why Bettman wants to make sure that those contracts are not just 'grandfathered-in'. It's about making a point. The Avs got screwed over pretty large, last lockout and we lost out more than any other team in the league. So if he warned owners about this and they didn't listen and now it's THEIR turn to 'eat-it' so-to-speak, if they don't and he lets them have the easy out, he kind of loses credibility with all the other owners of the league that didn't try to circumvent the cap. That's my take on it anyways...not saying that's what's going to happen though.
I certainly don't disagree that the GM's finding loopholes is what caused the bad contracts. However, there are lots of ways to look at this. Yes they should be restricted. It was Bettman's fault for focusing solely on the need for a cap system last time, and not having the foresight to close loopholes the first time.

This isn't really a major issue with the supposed problems of the league though. The problem is that there are about five or so teams still struggling to be profitable. And again there are many ways to look at this. Firstly, these are teams either run poorly or in poor markets. Now, again this was Bettmans idea to put these teams in non traditional markets because he was trying to get a major network US TV deal that needed those markets in the south to bring in ratings across the country. He never got that deal. He ended up getting a deal with the upstart versus, and then turned that into the deal with NBC based on the downswing in poker and the success of the NHL and the versus network in general.

But still he has insisted on keeping teams in poor markets like Phoenix to the point where it even looks like he's waiting until after the new CBA to move Phoenix to Seattle or another destination. Same with other teams in the south that are only profitable if they go deep in the playoffs.

These handful of teams, and his decisions to keep them there, are what are driving his main argument for the NHL still having such big problems that they need to lockout the players and lose a season over it. In addition, it's because he has placed importance on these teams being GUARENTEED profit. Something that is non existent in any other business venture. Something that the majority of the other owners could care less about doing for those handful of struggling teams.

So because of all of this, and instead of dealing with the actual problem, he is INSTING on the players conceding on every contractual and monetary issue to deal with the problem. The other owners have refused to give more in HRR revenue to help these handful of clubs, so because of this cap system he insisted on that is better suited for more profitable major leagues that have a bigger revenue pool, he is now asking the players to fix the system that he wanted.

When you add that to the fact that he will very likely be adding two teams in Quebec and the best market available Toronto, and moving at least one of the handful of teams from a struggling to a strong market, his so called "problem" doesn't appear as bad.

Then factor in that the 30 owners will be splitting hundreds of millions in re location and expansion fees and this monetary issue appears even less of a problem.

Then realize that he is offering the players literally nothing in exchange for giving up contractual rights, and asking for paycuts and I don't see how anyone can suggest that the players are the ones that need to be reasonable. There is nothing reasonable coming from Bettman's side, and the more people see these situations for what they are, both here and in real life, and politicians convincing the little people their interests are aligned with the billionaires funding their campaigns, the less scum bags will be in a position to use their power for the self interests of people that could give two ***** about you or me.

This all boils down to the interest of about five people being guaranteed profit in their business. That is what the public is starting to get duped into siding with again. Their problems are what Bettman is asking 700 players to deal with alone, and millions of fans to go without hockey for. About five billionaires who know how to play the system, and pay market research firms to advise them how to get the public on their side.


Last edited by Foppa2118: 11-25-2012 at 01:23 AM.
Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 03:36 AM
  #361
Colorado Avalanche
Registered User
 
Colorado Avalanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lieto
Country: Finland
Posts: 15,539
vCash: 500
Shattenkirk just joined my favourite finnish hockey team!! Awesome!

Colorado Avalanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 12:28 PM
  #362
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I think you're right in theory but in practice I think that all goes out the window. If there were a 5 year term limit on player contracts, I truly don't believe that it would drive contracts down. The theory is RIGHT but doesn't take into consideration the general "MADNESS" that we've seen from certain GMs since even the 1995 lockout. The league thought they had put in the right 'restrictions' at that time too and the players didn't like it and thought it would be too limiting. Turns out that wasn't the case. Again in 2005, even more restrictions and the crazy GMs just keep competing with one another to the point of insanity in what they are willing to pay players, to gain an advantage over the other player.

I posted this message in another thread [business thread]:

Maybe I'm stupid but I just don't get how this would be BAD for players. In my mind, this would be worst for the owners than it would be for the players.

Example :

Let's say -

Ryan Getzlaf becomes a UFA and signs a 10 year - $70M contract ($7M/yr)

instead, with the proposed 'restrictions', he signs a 5 year - $35M contract ($7M/yr)

At the END of that 5 year deal, with the supposed 5-7% increase in HRR and consequent salary cap increase, combined with the fact that Getzlaf is still only around 32 years old, wouldn't he be potentially signing for MORE than $7M per year and somewhere near $8 or $8.5M if his value stays relatively the same???

Obviously, this is just an example with round figures but in theory it works with any player.

Now I'm no 'mathamagician' but I really don't get how players would be upset about this and why owners would actually WANT this (except to get rid of the backdiving deals, that part I get)...

Please, enlightened me...cuz I just don't get it.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1297043.
I just realized I didn't really address what you were asking, haha.

I think you're underestimating the security of a long term deal. If signing the shorter team deals, and then trying to get top dollar on the next deal were preferable to players, than you would see them do that now, instead of signing long term deals.

They have to worry about getting nagging injuries that limit their production. New coaches or linemates that they don't mesh with and their production drops. Multiple injuries that will make them unwanted by a new team, when they could still be making comebacks and getting paid under a long term deal. There's a million things that could turn a players career south, and this isn't even acknowledging the sheer security of knowing what you will be making for the next ten years and being able to plan, and invest, and that you also have the hopes of staying in the same city for the length of that contract.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
As for the 2nd part, it's not so much about what he's ready to do for the owners that got themselves into a 'jam', it's more about the owners who listened to his warning and chose to do business within those confines. There is a reason why Bettman wants to make sure that those contracts are not just 'grandfathered-in'. It's about making a point. The Avs got screwed over pretty large, last lockout and we lost out more than any other team in the league. So if he warned owners about this and they didn't listen and now it's THEIR turn to 'eat-it' so-to-speak, if they don't and he lets them have the easy out, he kind of loses credibility with all the other owners of the league that didn't try to circumvent the cap. That's my take on it anyways...not saying that's what's going to happen though.
He's not really screwing any teams over though. They'll be fine. The Avs were, and always will be the only team to really get screwed over by his instance on cap rules.

He's allowing the past backdiving contracts to stay as is, and letting teams spend over the cap by $10M for one year if they want, and they'll have the ability to retain salary when trading players.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:43 AM
  #363
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 11,297
vCash: 239
I wonder if Erik Johnson sucks and we're all just being homers. What with Johnathon Ericcson, Ladislav Smid, Jeff Petry all being better just off the tip of the iceberg.


Lonewolfe2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:19 AM
  #364
Hennessy
Blank Space
 
Hennessy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Östersund, Sweden
Country: United States
Posts: 6,787
vCash: 1100
Forsberg will be inducted into the IIHF HoF next year, along with Sundin.

And Paul Henderson. That should make some Canadians happy, but probably won't keep some of them from claiming he belongs in the HHoF.

Hennessy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:08 AM
  #365
Avs71
Registered User
 
Avs71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolfe2015 View Post
I wonder if Erik Johnson sucks and we're all just being homers. What with Johnathon Ericcson, Ladislav Smid, Jeff Petry all being better just off the tip of the iceberg.

We just need the NHL to come back already. EJ will come back a beast and finally get some recognition. Ericcson will struggle with the rest of Detroit, Petry's points will go down due to Schultz playing more with the good players, and Smid will continue to be strong which will lead to him leaving Edmonton in July. Then once he is not an Oiler he will considered be a 2nd pairing shutdown guy by Oiler Fans. This should lead to EJ being considered a top 60 defenceman by the end of next year.

Avs71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:21 AM
  #366
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avs71 View Post
We just need the NHL to come back already. EJ will come back a beast and finally get some recognition. Ericcson will struggle with the rest of Detroit, Petry's points will go down due to Schultz playing more with the good players, and Smid will continue to be strong which will lead to him leaving Edmonton in July. Then once he is not an Oiler he will considered be a 2nd pairing shutdown guy by Oiler Fans. This should lead to EJ being considered a top 60 defenceman by the end of next year.
True they'll lose no1 dman Jeff Petry but by then they'll have no1 dman Marincin and no1 dman Jeff Plante and no2 Colton Teubert

Damn lockout has made me too lazy to do anything present hockey related. Can't be bothered anymore to follow the CBA stuff, it all blends in now and got tired of trying to follow other leagues pretty quickly. Just stuck to hockey history now.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:29 AM
  #367
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
I just realized I didn't really address what you were asking, haha.

I think you're underestimating the security of a long term deal. If signing the shorter team deals, and then trying to get top dollar on the next deal were preferable to players, than you would see them do that now, instead of signing long term deals.

They have to worry about getting nagging injuries that limit their production. New coaches or linemates that they don't mesh with and their production drops. Multiple injuries that will make them unwanted by a new team, when they could still be making comebacks and getting paid under a long term deal. There's a million things that could turn a players career south, and this isn't even acknowledging the sheer security of knowing what you will be making for the next ten years and being able to plan, and invest, and that you also have the hopes of staying in the same city for the length of that contract.

He's not really screwing any teams over though. They'll be fine. The Avs were, and always will be the only team to really get screwed over by his instance on cap rules.

He's allowing the past backdiving contracts to stay as is, and letting teams spend over the cap by $10M for one year if they want, and they'll have the ability to retain salary when trading players.
(BTW - I'm really enjoying this discussion and getting a different point of view.)

I understand what you're saying about nagging injuries and limiting players' production. However, I wrote this in the other thread regarding this:
Well, firstly, you need to look at WHO exactly is signing deals of over 6 years in length and I challenge you to find even ONE that wasn't considered a 'star' player when it happened. Nobody's signing no Cody McLeod to no 10 year contract, I can assure you of that.

I get what you're saying about when the player becomes a UFA at 33 but you ALSO need to take into consideration that it's five years later and the economics can change greatly as they have the past 5 years.

Shane Doan just got a RAISE at age 36.

Based on THAT and a whole lot more MADNESS that we've witnessed the past 5-6 years, can you honestly say that you think a 33 year old, STAR player is going to take a pay cut??? The theory of what you're saying is accurate but generally when it comes to practice, some insane GM goes out and throws logic out the window and overpays greatly for any kind of perceived advantage. Even if that means overpaying for a veteran star player with hopes that he can recapture former glory.

I mean, isn't Tim Connolly a perfect example of this? He actually got a RAISE from the Leafs after his worse NHL season in 4 years with the Sabres. Do you think Burke really wanted to pay him $4.75M per season? I'm pretty sure the answer is no but because of competition, that's what was needed for him to become a Maple Leaf.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=36
Recent history has shown us that, if a star player has been able to produce in the past, regardless of minor injuries or slight decline in production, there is always someone that is willing to take a chance on him.

Again, I'm not saying I'm FOR or AGAINST 5 year contract limits, I really don't care but if I actually have to think about it, I'm against a measure to protect someone from their own stupidity. (GMs)

What I am interested in, is the fact that I think this is one of those things that would just come back to bite owners in the ass if it were to go through.

For the 2nd part, I've never seen where the NHL has actually agreed to let current backdiving contracts to stay 'as is'. Did I miss it in the current negotiations? Because I know that Fehr proposed his formula to impact NEW future backdiving deals but that would mean the current ones are being 'grandfathered-in' and as far as I know, the NHL has not agreed to that at all.

Allowing teams to spend over the cap in year 1, doesn't help the canucks when Luongo's contract would STILL count $5.33M against the cap in 2021 (instead of $1M where he could be bought out for $500K over 2 years).

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:31 AM
  #368
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hennessy View Post
Forsberg will be inducted into the IIHF HoF next year, along with Sundin.

And Paul Henderson. That should make some Canadians happy, but probably won't keep some of them from claiming he belongs in the HHoF.
In the history of the world, I'm not sure there is anyone 'milking' his 15 minutes of fame more than this guy.

No, he does not belong there.

I actually have a real problem with the way that 'Summit Series' was 'won' by Canada and I'm a pretty hardcore Canadian. I remain objective though...how much glory can you really take from that Series when the only reason we won, was because we broke their best players' ankle? (Kharlamov)

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 12:16 PM
  #369
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
This interview uploaded this month is the one and only interview I've ever found with Valeri Kamensky....and of course it isn't in English


Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 12:48 PM
  #370
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
This interview uploaded this month is the one and only interview I've ever found with Valeri Kamensky....and of course it isn't in English

o-kay?

It's also subtitled in another language.

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 04:14 PM
  #371
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
(BTW - I'm really enjoying this discussion and getting a different point of view.)

I understand what you're saying about nagging injuries and limiting players' production. However, I wrote this in the other thread regarding this:
Well, firstly, you need to look at WHO exactly is signing deals of over 6 years in length and I challenge you to find even ONE that wasn't considered a 'star' player when it happened. Nobody's signing no Cody McLeod to no 10 year contract, I can assure you of that.

I get what you're saying about when the player becomes a UFA at 33 but you ALSO need to take into consideration that it's five years later and the economics can change greatly as they have the past 5 years.

Shane Doan just got a RAISE at age 36.

Based on THAT and a whole lot more MADNESS that we've witnessed the past 5-6 years, can you honestly say that you think a 33 year old, STAR player is going to take a pay cut??? The theory of what you're saying is accurate but generally when it comes to practice, some insane GM goes out and throws logic out the window and overpays greatly for any kind of perceived advantage. Even if that means overpaying for a veteran star player with hopes that he can recapture former glory.

I mean, isn't Tim Connolly a perfect example of this? He actually got a RAISE from the Leafs after his worse NHL season in 4 years with the Sabres. Do you think Burke really wanted to pay him $4.75M per season? I'm pretty sure the answer is no but because of competition, that's what was needed for him to become a Maple Leaf.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=36
Recent history has shown us that, if a star player has been able to produce in the past, regardless of minor injuries or slight decline in production, there is always someone that is willing to take a chance on him.

Again, I'm not saying I'm FOR or AGAINST 5 year contract limits, I really don't care but if I actually have to think about it, I'm against a measure to protect someone from their own stupidity. (GMs)

What I am interested in, is the fact that I think this is one of those things that would just come back to bite owners in the ass if it were to go through.
I think this is a different discussion though. You make a valid point in reference to whether or not a player will make more money signing shorter term deals, but this doesn't mean it's in every players best interest to do so. If it were, they would always sign shorter term deals.

It's a trade off. Security versus max value. Some players prefer the security, and the point I'm making is that it's a pretty big deal for the NHL to take this away from them. Going from no limit, straight to a five year limit instead of eight or ten is pretty substantial, and my main point was that the NHL is asking the players to move in their direction on every issue, and this isn't the kind of give and take needed to resolve a CBA negotiation. Hence a likely lost season for the second time under Bettman's direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
For the 2nd part, I've never seen where the NHL has actually agreed to let current backdiving contracts to stay 'as is'. Did I miss it in the current negotiations? Because I know that Fehr proposed his formula to impact NEW future backdiving deals but that would mean the current ones are being 'grandfathered-in' and as far as I know, the NHL has not agreed to that at all.
This was from the offer that Bettman released the details of in October. The deals will have the same AAV that they do now.

Quote:
- All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but
only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the
contract for the balance of its term.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407541

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
Allowing teams to spend over the cap in year 1, doesn't help the canucks when Luongo's contract would STILL count $5.33M against the cap in 2021 (instead of $1M where he could be bought out for $500K over 2 years).
It remains to be seen how much this will benefit teams, and how the cap will change year to year under the new deal, but that first year will give teams time to plan, and let other contracts expire, and there's a decent chance the cap will go up next year like it did every year in the last deal. It's not an immediate change that will hurt teams the way it hurt the Avs last time.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:16 PM
  #372
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,949
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
This was from the offer that Bettman released the details of in October. The deals will have the same AAV that they do now.



http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407541



It remains to be seen how much this will benefit teams, and how the cap will change year to year under the new deal, but that first year will give teams time to plan, and let other contracts expire, and there's a decent chance the cap will go up next year like it did every year in the last deal. It's not an immediate change that will hurt teams the way it hurt the Avs last time.
I'm not sure how you're interpreting this but that is a significant CHANGE to how contracts are being handled at this time. The way I'm interpreting is that for existing contracts of terms over 5 years, the full cap hit of the contract will now count against the team's cap for the duration. So if Luongo's cap hit is currently $1M in the last year of his deal, NOW under these new conditions, it would actually be the AVV that is going to count against the cap, so $5.33M or whatever.

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:16 AM
  #373
electricjib
Registered User
 
electricjib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,849
vCash: 50
I don't care about either side anymore. I just cancelled my season tickets and am putting it towards the NCAA next year.

The whole decertification thing might get the game back but it will destroy the season because everyone involved is selfish. I know hockey players are good people, as are owners but it's ridiculous. They should all get day jobs and learn how the real world works. I don't think the NHL can really fully bounce back a 2nd time around.

electricjib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:43 PM
  #374
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,801
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I'm not sure how you're interpreting this but that is a significant CHANGE to how contracts are being handled at this time. The way I'm interpreting is that for existing contracts of terms over 5 years, the full cap hit of the contract will now count against the team's cap for the duration. So if Luongo's cap hit is currently $1M in the last year of his deal, NOW under these new conditions, it would actually be the AVV that is going to count against the cap, so $5.33M or whatever.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, but when was the AAV not the cap number? That's the way it is now, and will be under Bettman's proposal from what I can see. That's what spawned the backdiving contracts, to drive down the cap hit in the short term while risking a potential large one in relative value at the end unless they retire.

Luongo's salary is $1M in his final year, but his cap hit ($5.33M) is the same this year, as it will be in the final year under both the old system and the proposed new one.

The only change I can see, is that if a player is traded and retires, or ends his career in some fashion, the cap hit will revert back to the original team that signed it. This could be a fairly substantial change, but not in the immediate sense of impacting teams upon transitioning to the new CBA like we're talking about.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 05:25 AM
  #375
Soedy
Registered User
 
Soedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricjib View Post
I don't care about either side anymore. I just cancelled my season tickets and am putting it towards the NCAA next year.

The whole decertification thing might get the game back but it will destroy the season because everyone involved is selfish. I know hockey players are good people, as are owners but it's ridiculous. They should all get day jobs and learn how the real world works. I don't think the NHL can really fully bounce back a 2nd time around.
This. Yeah they want the players to step down a lot but really. It's not like they are going to bed hungry. It's about "another car or not". We all have to live with pay cuts but at another stage.

It might wouldn't be that much of the problem if they were saying at it is - it's a business. But if they love the game soooo much and want to play soooo badly, then do it. Take a pay cut and play.

I know it sounds pretty easy from me and I can't disagree that the principles aren't reached that way.

Soedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:23 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.