HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

So who is bummed about the lockout?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 12:20 AM
  #751
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
Darren Dreger
Get ready for some likely post spam:


Here's effectively the same tweet as ftw posted -

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

According to NHL offer, at least 50 percent of revenue sharing pot will be raised by top 10 revenue grossing clubs...



Before people read that and come to the logical conclusion (where's the other 50%? The next 10 teams?) the other 50% comes from what already makes up revenue sharing. Any league-wide deals (think NBC broadcasting deal, merchandising, etc) currently make up the revenue sharing pot. Under the new league proposal, that would at most ever combine for 50% of total revenue sharing (instead of the like 95% or whatever ridiculous figure it currently comprises) with the remainder coming from the top 10 revenue generators.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:24 AM
  #752
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1.



Essentially, every team is cap compliant and even has some wiggle room for later in the year. This is the form of amnesty that will likely be in the ultimate deal. The PA shouldn't have any real concern about this method.

The Wild will not only have sufficient cap space, they won't need to use the bonus cushion (eating next year's cap room) and will still be able to make any necessary moves or injury reactions.

Using the 50/50 figure, this means the league estimates HRR at $3.114BN, approximately 10% down from the oft projected last season + 5% figure.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:29 AM
  #753
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

On trading of cap space/retaining salary, it would be limited to $3M for each contract year left or 50 per cent of AAV, whichever is less


Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Each club, in any given year, tho, would be subject to a 2 contract and/or $5M limit in terms of retaining salary.


These are the detail on the "retaining salary in trades" facet. Basically, Montreal could trade Gomez and retain $3MM of his salary on their books, with the trade partner only receiving a $4.357MM cap hit. I believe this would require Montreal to pay the same percentage of the salary, but that's not clear from what I've seen.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:32 AM
  #754
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Because NHL players buried in minors (Redden etc) would count against cap, re-entry waivers would no longer exist.


No re-entry waivers would be greatly approved by players, but they're likely to be opposed to AHL salaries counting against the cap (and therefore their share of HRR). This is the likeliest point of contention I'd imagine. The aforementioned retention of salary in trades might mitigate the frequency of "hiding" salary in the minors as these players become worth something on the trade market since you can artificially lower their effective cap hit.

The removal of re-entry (50%) waivers is possible because their entire purpose was to prevent cap circumvention by hiding players in the minors. With those players counting against the cap wherever they play, this is no longer necessary.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:43 AM
  #755
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Here's the biggie:


Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.


Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

In other words, the benefit clubs thought they were getting by reducing AAV with back-diving deals/bogus end yrs would be reduced/negated.


Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit


The "lie" was about being done tweeting for the night. Basically, the "35+ rule" would apply to all existing contracts over 5 years in length. Retirement of the player would not eliminate the cap hit for these contracts. They will be run out to the end of term.

As a point of speculation, I wonder if there's changes to the buyout options on these. Judging from the limited cap savings I think they'd leave it as is.

Back on to the tweets: McKenzie notes that the cap hit for a retiring player would apply to the club that signed the deal. This is so you don't have a NYI type situation where a 39 year old Luongo is traded to a cap floor team for him to retire. If not for this clause, he could be traded, retire, and the new team would take on his $5.3MM cap hit without paying him a cent, allowing them to evade the cap floor. By assigning the cap hit to the team responsible for the deal, the people who benefited from the reduced cap hit are responsible for every year of the deal. I imagine NJD and VAN are desperately hoping the next CBA in 6-7 years time gives them an out. I don't see Parise/Suter as being an issue in that regard as they're likely to still be at least moderately productive, and hopefully the cap will have risen at that point to make that a reasonable salary.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:14 AM
  #756
Victorious Secret
Dr. Chuck Evil
 
Victorious Secret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Arkansas
Country: Ireland
Posts: 10,757
vCash: 16145
Well, that could be crippling.

Victorious Secret is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:50 AM
  #757
Randy BoBandy
Cheeseburger Party
 
Randy BoBandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,161
vCash: 500
Wrong thread


Last edited by Randy BoBandy: 10-17-2012 at 02:00 AM.
Randy BoBandy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:51 AM
  #758
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 3,742
vCash: 2551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorious Secret View Post
Well, that could be crippling.
Would suck but I still like the Wild with Parise and Suter better than without.

Plus ours are 7+ years out, it can be fixed during the next lockout

EDIT: its also possible the NHLPA doesn't want that in the CBA since it could eventually mean 50+mil in contracts that the PA wont be able to receive from the teams that have the contracts.


Last edited by melinko: 10-17-2012 at 02:18 AM.
melinko is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:37 AM
  #759
Pinchy11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
I like this idea .


From Russo

Quote:
If you're an NHL player sent to the
minors on a one-way contract and make
over a certain amount of money, that
contract in the minors would be charged
against the NHL cap. It's the Wade Redden
rule, essentially, not allowing a team like
the Rangers to hide $6 million in the
minors and have it taken off their cap.

Pinchy11 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:57 AM
  #760
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Wow, that front loaded contract one could be a killer. I wonder how much they punish the current teams for doing so? That could cause problems in 5-10 years.

I'm also going to assume that isn't retroactive, otherwise Philly would be screwed

So there's pretty much no hope in hell for Luongo getting traded, huh?

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:03 AM
  #761
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Full proposal is now online

Quote:
NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.
What is it now, two? That's good IMO.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:06 AM
  #762
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.
So the players will be reimbursed for the first TWO years.

I think that kind of settles the issue then, escrow clawbacks shouldn't be a factor after that, unless something catastrophic happens.

Very good proposal IMO.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:22 AM
  #763
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,366
vCash: 500
The tide of people defending the players and NHLPA on twitter is amazing and embarrassing.

Edit: 'omg! They put the proposal online that's such a bad move!'

Yeah opposed to all those comments made on twitter/interviews/etc. made by players that were openly hostile? This is a great and transparent way to see that the offer is fair and at the same time allow ALL the players to see it for what it actually is (instead of hearing what it is from Fehr and player reps).

Dee Oh Cee is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:49 AM
  #764
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Did anyone read Fehr's letter that McKenzie posted?

/facepalm

So yeah, about this being a good step to resolve the issue. Fehr is ******** all over it.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:07 AM
  #765
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Seriously, does anyone realize this is a negotiation?

You don't take the offer on the table. You act shocked and appalled in front of the media. You meet behind closed doors and make a counter-proposal. You bring it out and proclaim it as the hardest sacrifice you could possibly make, lying through your teeth.

The only reason this is being played out in public is that BOTH sides need a third party, the fans, to make money. Both sides are clearly going to play the public and the media.

Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?

Have you ever heard the phrase "leaving money on the table?" Or "meet in the middle?" What it means is that, let's say there's a spectrum. On one end is the players' dream scenario. On the other end is the league's dream scenario. If you rush over to meet the other side, you are giving up a lot. Both sides have a "drop dead" point which literally is the last thing they will take. That is never on the table publicly. Both sides have built in cushion to their proposals.

That first June proposal by the league dropping to 40% with the reduced HRR, that was the league's dream scenario. The counter of the players to keep playing under the current CBA was their dream scenario.

When the league came back at 46-47% or whatever, they moved a couple inches closer. Then the players came back with their goofy proposal and that moved a couple inches closer.

The league offered that last 49% proposal. The fans said "hey it's close enough to 50/50, let's take it." Why? They had nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. Wait a month, play some shinny in Europe, and all of a sudden the league comes back with 50/50.

Again, the fans say "they should take it!" Why? Why not make a counter-proposal? That's exactly what they are doing. And now the fans are all throwing a fit.

This is a NEGOTIATION. GIVE AND TAKE. HAGGLING.

If the league proposed 43% and the players proposed 50%, then the league would assume that those were the grounds to meet in the middle at 46-47%. See how that works?

So the NHLPA postures a bit and will come back and attack the HRR definition, maybe push for salaries to get returned in the first two years instead of over the life of the contract, maybe push back on the 5-year max, etc.

The important part is that they are negotiating in good faith. Yes, Fehr and the NHLPA will need to make a real counter-proposal. If they come back with a different revenue share scheme or reject it out of hand, I will fully agree to get out the pitchforks and torches. I don't think they are that dumb. They have to know if they lose 1-2 paychecks it essentially negates most of whatever they could have gained.

And the NHLPA has far more members than the elite Parises, Suters, Luongos, etc who signed huge contracts. A lot of guys making $500k to $1M (which seems like a lot, but take out 50-60% in taxes, 5-10% in agent fees, 10% in escrow, and spread that over the next 50 years if you live that long) don't have $10M bonuses sitting in their bank right now.

I do think both sides can come to an amicable agreement, but the key is this Nov 2nd start date the NHL wants. I think that's a big part of their proposal and something that can't be maneuvered around. It's artificial, but very useful.

Also, McKenzie has mentioned the NHLPA may vote to take the offer if there's no resolution in a week. Don't discount that as a possibility. Fehr is leading the players, but he cannot make decisions for them. At any point they can decide to take a pay cut and play.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:16 AM
  #766
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Russo gets it:

Quote:
The NHL is willing to negotiate as long a deal is struck by Oct. 25 and the season can begin Nov. 2. There's a good amount of stuff in this proposal that should justly concern the players and they should address (and have the right to) with the league.

But that's why this is a negotiation.

It is time for Fehr (part of six work stoppages in baseball), for the first time in this process, to actually negotiate. The league keeps making proposals off their own proposals. It's time for Fehr to start playing ball here -- for the good of the game, for the good of the fans, for the good of his constituency.
Until now there really has been no urgency to try and complete a deal. This is basically the last chance to save the full hockey season.

Until now I had no expectations for Fehr and the NHLPA to seriously negotiate. Now is the time.

Look, this isn't paying your cable bill...this is a completely different matter. The "due date" was not Sep 15th, it was the absolute last second that a season could be salvaged.

We have that date now...Oct 25th. They have eight days to hammer out a deal. I expect something today or tomorrow and then for the sides to meet and start hammering out the details. Expect a few 18-10 hour days next week as the sides convene in New York (likely). Just like the NFL did last year.

If Fehr balks and they don't, then I can see a mutiny in the NHLPA by the end of the year and that's going to be very bad for the players. They will have lost more money in salary than they would by accepting a lesser deal, and of course the fractured leadership. This did happen during the last lockout remember.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:24 AM
  #767
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
I get it, Jarick. I do.

My brain just hated the language that Fehr threw out there. It read (again, to me) as if he were just raising the middle finger at the league and that was it.

If I were negotiating something like this and the other party responded like that, frankly, I'd be hard pressed to not let my angry side come out. Simply put, I just don't like the language he used.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:30 AM
  #768
Sneaky Priest
See you Nov. 2
 
Sneaky Priest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lino Lakes
Country: United States
Posts: 1,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Also, McKenzie has mentioned the NHLPA may vote to take the offer if there's no resolution in a week. Don't discount that as a possibility. Fehr is leading the players, but he cannot make decisions for them. At any point they can decide to take a pay cut and play.
I like this.

Sneaky Priest is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:33 AM
  #769
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,614
vCash: 500
i wonder if players taking to twitter yesterday has done damage to their position of not liking this deal. if a majority of players view this as a favorable move forward its going to be hard for them to say this deal isn't good and we'll hold out.

it would have been much wiser if players didn't respond to this then saying its promising, what we don't know is how much of the players view this as a good starting point, if there is 70% or so this will get done soon.

forthewild is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:36 AM
  #770
Sneaky Priest
See you Nov. 2
 
Sneaky Priest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lino Lakes
Country: United States
Posts: 1,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
i wonder if players taking to twitter yesterday has done damage to their position of not liking this deal. if a majority of players view this as a favorable move forward its going to be hard for them to say this deal isn't good and we'll hold out.

it would have been much wiser if players didn't respond to this then saying its promising, what we don't know is how much of the players view this as a good starting point, if there is 70% or so this will get done soon.
I don't see how Fehr could convince them to totally abandon this proposal. The devil will be in the details.

Sneaky Priest is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:55 AM
  #771
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
i wonder if players taking to twitter yesterday has done damage to their position of not liking this deal. if a majority of players view this as a favorable move forward its going to be hard for them to say this deal isn't good and we'll hold out.

it would have been much wiser if players didn't respond to this then saying its promising, what we don't know is how much of the players view this as a good starting point, if there is 70% or so this will get done soon.
How many players were in favor of it though? I didn't see many.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:58 AM
  #772
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Wow, that front loaded contract one could be a killer. I wonder how much they punish the current teams for doing so? That could cause problems in 5-10 years.

I'm also going to assume that isn't retroactive, otherwise Philly would be screwed

So there's pretty much no hope in hell for Luongo getting traded, huh?
It would only affect existing contracts. Under the proposed CBA, those contracts would not be allowed because they exceed the 5 year contract limit also in the proposal. It wouldn't actually have teeth though. I'm fairly certain the only deal it would actually affect would be the Chara deal, which he appears to not be retiring on. All the other applicable deals end after this CBA would expire, and it's not unlikely that such a clause gets dropped when the next CBA is negotiated.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:09 PM
  #773
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
This is a NEGOTIATION. GIVE AND TAKE. HAGGLING.

If the league proposed 43% and the players proposed 50%, then the league would assume that those were the grounds to meet in the middle at 46-47%. See how that works?

So the NHLPA postures a bit and will come back and attack the HRR definition, maybe push for salaries to get returned in the first two years instead of over the life of the contract, maybe push back on the 5-year max, etc.
Yes, this is a negotiation, but much of your specifics are too far from accurate to be taken seriously. If the players even think about attacking HRR right now, we can write off any chance of an 82 game season. They will not make the deadline to retain games if that's even mentioned. The league proposed a reduction to 43/57 and the PA responded by proposing a deal that increased player salaries, even under the absolutely ludicrous growth rates they tried to use to hide it.

The league negotiated with itself back to 50% and now the leadership of the PA is continuing upon their campaign of lies and deceit because they think they can "win" negotiations.

Quote:
Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

Pretty obvious why proposal was released: NHL wants players to read its version and not just NHLPA's take on it....
The NHLPA has insisted upon claiming that HRR is being changed by the league (it's not) as well as other 100% demonstrably false issues. The hardliners in the PA have been lying to its membership since this all began. But the hope today is because of the reaction of the rank and file members, not the "I'm still suffering from a concussion" members like Montador. The crazed minority that has been running the PA will no longer be able to stand. The new power shift comes with a lot of difficulties, and that reduces their ability to bargain. I don't expect the players to "take it" but I'd be astonished to see meaningful movement from this deal.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:12 PM
  #774
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,541
vCash: 500
I meant if the HRR was being changed, as it had originally been put back to standard definition in that last NHL proposal. Know what I mean? If the NHL proposal is same HRR definition as last CBA, then it's not an issue.

I can definitely see the NHL proposal really starting to get the lower-$$$ NHL'ers to start pressuring the NHLPA for a real counter and an end to the lockout.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:22 PM
  #775
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
I meant if the HRR was being changed, as it had originally been put back to standard definition in that last NHL proposal. Know what I mean? If the NHL proposal is same HRR definition as last CBA, then it's not an issue.

I can definitely see the NHL proposal really starting to get the lower-$$$ NHL'ers to start pressuring the NHLPA for a real counter and an end to the lockout.
The scary thing is the hardliners aren't actually the people who stand to lose the most. For Chicago the two who stand to lose the most would be Kane and Toews, but they've been silent (well Toews made some ill informed comments a few weeks ago). But the guy making all the noise and spreading all the lies is Steve Montador. He's likely on his last ever contract, and he doesn't actually stand to lose a cent as he's being paid (hasn't been medically cleared so he's on IR). Iginla and Tanguay have been nothing but supportive of the new proposal thus far while Krys Barch and Paul Bissonnette have been spouting off like zealots about their "give not an inch" positions.

squidz* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 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.