HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

And we are locked out again (No Progress ,, Talks collapse)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-25-2012, 12:10 PM
  #701
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
10 years ago the top players were getting I think it was 76% of revenue. Think about how absurd that.
Quote:
10 years ago, top players made about the same as they do now, think about that. Paul Kariya made 10M in 2002-03.
Yeah, it was crazy. I always had a soft spot for St.Louis. After his 2004 year, he was stuck signing a contract for 5 years worth only about 60% a year of what Bobby Holik was making.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:14 PM
  #702
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
What do we call this stoppage anyway?

Lockout Two?
Lockout Deux?
This Sucks-2012 edition?
The greed stoppage?


It's going to be tough calling it "the lockout" now that there will be 2 in recent memory. I think it needs a name to distinguish it from the last one.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:17 PM
  #703
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
For 6 years (length of Feb 2005 offer), adjusted for escrow subtraction, inflation, and total rollback losses, there is no metric that puts the players ahead in total adjusted earnings at the end of 2011 with the 2006 season offer compared to the Feb 2005 offer.

I'm talking about the PA as a whole. On the individual level, it's much much worse overall except for a handful of players that hit a big payday or signed a FA contract.

This is actually an argument that favors the players, but they dropped the ball selling that since signing the last CBA. The owners robbed them and the players sat on their hands instead of preparing for the next round, and those are major reasons both sides are to blame.



This is a true statement. It works for the PA and the individuals.


Factoring in escrow losses, inflation, existing salary rollback, and using more conservative average salary assumptions, I don't come up with numbers through 2011 that puts the players ahead on the 2006 offer compared to the Feb 2005 offer unless the partial 2005 season is ignored, which it can't be.

It's also far more likely more teams would have spent closer to the cap than I assumed because all existing sponsor contracts would have generated revenue, and future contracts would have risen much quicker from a higher bidding price. The more I look at individual contracts the worse it would have been for players through 2011.



For starters, almost every top 6/ top4 skater and goalie over 31 lost money. There are only a small handful of exceptions like a Selanne who really saw a benefit from the lockout (including full knee rehab).

Even Lidstrom ended up losing by the end of things for example. He lost 10 million plus for 05, lost 2.4 (rollback) for 06' and had to take a paycut to stay in Detroit when he signed his next 2 year deal. I think his next 2 year was close to what he would have had since it was signed in 08', and his next one year deals were appropriate regardless of the cap. Pronger was mauled because he had to sign a contract in his prime with a low cap in place. After time and inflation, even Holmgren can't get him all his money back. Roenick, Sakic, Yzerman, Belfour, Hasek, etc. all lost a fortune and never had a chance gain their money back. Recchi may have lost more than he made his last 5 seasons. Most veteran 3rd and 4th line players saw a monster hit too.

More than 200 players never signed another NHL contract again and most never suited up again.

Only young stars or highly rated young players in 2004 came out ahead through 2011. The list grows slightly through 2012.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/menu_e.htm

That site has a few errors I've seen over the last couple seasons but most of the info is reliable. It doesn't have the exact list you were looking for but you can look up salary history for individuals, and unlike capgeek, it has many more of the 90s and pre-lockout contracts listed.

Players like Richards, LeCavalier, Hossa, Havlat, Briere, and a number of other franchise-type players may have ended up ahead, mostly because of expanded FA rules (and associated negotiating leverage) more than because of any improved revenue split.
I suspected as much. Thank-you for the digging.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 12:36 PM
  #704
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,827
vCash: 500
What are you guys going on about.

Players were going to lose just as much money before they cancelled the last season, as they did after the new signed CBA. There was still going to be a ~24% rollback, and there was still going to be a cap. There was still going to be inflation, but there would of never been salary increases with no link to revenue.

I’m not talking about them having a better deal than they did in the previous CBA (1995-2004). I’m talking about them having a better deal in 2005-2006, than they would have had if they signed the deal they were offered on Feb 2005.

You can factor in salary losses for the season they missed, but then we would have to go back to what they were offered before the season even started, which was 31mil cap with no link to revenue. Or if you just go based off of the Feb 2005 offer, they would of only earned ľ of their salary anyway for that year.

How you guys can even begin to debate that the players (which does include future players) got a better deal by waiting is beyond me. Every media, analyst etc, has stated they got a better deal by waiting. Do you think Fehr is lying to the players saying they got a better deal by waiting? If Fehr thought they got a worse deal by waiting last time, they would of signed something by now.

Not only that, the players right now, are fighting for the future NHLers just as much as they are fighting for themselves. Just like they did in 2004-05.

They got a better deal by waiting.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:01 PM
  #705
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Not only that, the players right now, are fighting for the future NHLers just as much as they are fighting for themselves. Just like they did in 2004-05.
They're fighting because the owners want to take their money. The future is just a convenient point to justify their position, just like last time. We'll agree to disagree with our opinions here.

Quote:
They got a better deal by waiting.
Are you referring to "they" the 2005 players or "they" the future members of the PA, or both?

Of the players involved in the lockout, I can't find 10 players over the age of 31 who made out better after waiting to take the offer with the lower cap and reduced non-monetary compensation (player costs) and I can't find 10 who played less than 100 games after the lockout that made out better with the 2006 offer compared to the feb 2005 offer. That's more than half the league's players at the time. I would be interested in examples to the contrary.

Quote:
Iím not talking about them having a better deal than they did in the previous CBA (1995-2004). Iím talking about them having a better deal in 2005-2006, than they would have had if they signed the deal they were offered on Feb 2005.
And that's exactly what I was spelling out. The players took it in the shorts by not taking the Feb 2005 offer compared to what they agreed to. Maybe the future PA was to benefit, but they're on the verge of giving back a big part of the gains they made and maybe much more. Almost every veteran of the 2005 lockout won't see a gain from waiting.

Quote:
You can factor in salary losses for the season they missed, but then we would have to go back to what they were offered before the season even started, which was 31mil cap with no link to revenue. Or if you just go based off of the Feb 2005 offer, they would of only earned ľ of their salary anyway for that year.
The Feb 2005 offer (only one I was commenting on) had more money in it than you imply and it was more than 1/4 (28 games at the lowest at 24% reduced salary until 2006 but fewer compensation restrictions) the season and allowed for some other compensation not tied to the cap for the shortened year from what I recall. I believe it was a 6 year agreement after any extension clauses too. The players would have been heavily leveraged moving forward as well.

Quote:
How you guys can even begin to debate that the players (which does include future players) got a better deal by waiting is beyond me. Every media, analyst etc, has stated they got a better deal by waiting.
Give me articles to back your positions and I'll explain how they oversimplify to the point of inaccuracy. I have time today. The media has done a terrible job of oversimplifying the arguments. The players have a real beef as do the owners but they keep focusing on total revenue and % instead of breaking down what happened to get to this point with the actual dollars and which direction they went or vanished.

Worse yet for the argument that waiting was smart for individual players and/or the PA is that any non-adjusted gains for the players the last 2 or 3 years are about to be given back with the cancellation of only a small amount of games and the resulting reductions in the next CBA. In the context of everything going backwards and forwards, waiting for the 2006 offer after rejecting the 2005 offer seems to have been a mistake for the PA. The deal favored the owners heavily early and the players later, that's true but the idea the players are better off having waited is becoming increasingly difficult to argue.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 02:08 PM
  #706
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,827
vCash: 500
I don't have time to get into it, but if you think 42.5mil hard cap with no link to revenue is better than 39mil with link to revenue, then there is no point in debating it.

The majority of the players that played between 2005-2012 benefited far more from the offer they agreed to than what the owners proposed before the season was cancelled.

The money lost in that particular lockout doesn't really matter, considering 80% (or more) of the players that played between 2005-2012 never had a salary cut or lost salary. Those particular players would have never made as much money as they do know, like Toews and Kane. Sidney Crosby wouldn't be making 8.7+mil a year, nor Malkin, nor Ovechkin, etc.

I'm more inclined to believe Fehr, the guy representing the players, than some guy looking up numbers at home on the internet.


Last edited by Hawkaholic: 10-25-2012 at 02:28 PM.
Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:17 PM
  #707
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
I don't have time to get into it, but if you think 42.5mil hard cap with no link to revenue is better than 39mil with link to revenue, then there is no point in debating it.
Of course it's better NOW, it's not better for the players that waited or the PA (as it was comprised) in 2005. You're making a different point now that no one disagrees with to my knowledge.

[QUOTE]The majority of the players that played between 2005-2012 benefited far more from the offer they agreed to than what the owners proposed before the season was cancelled.

The money lost in that particular lockout doesn't really matter, considering 80% (or more) of the players that played between 2005-2012 never had a salary cut or lost salary. Those particular players would have never made as much money as they do know, like Toews and Kane. Sidney Crosby wouldn't be making 8.7+mil a year, nor Malkin, nor Ovechkin, etc.[QUOTE]

Now you're talking about players that had nothing to do with those that waited for an offer since they didn't have an NHL contract. Of the players that had an NHL contract going into the lockout, almost none of them came out ahead. Those aren't the same "they" you mentioned before. Nobody argued that the new players aren't better off.
Quote:
I'm more inclined to believe Fehr, the guy representing the players, than some guy looking up numbers at home on the internet.
I wouldn't trust posters much either. I can't fault anyone for trusting Fehr more (or his pal Gary)than myself, I just hope they don't trust them much. Fehr and Gary haven't given us much of anything in terms of a number in full context of the proposed agreements. I hope we agree there.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:36 PM
  #708
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,827
vCash: 500
The players that got a better deal by waiting FAR outweighs the players that missed that season of pay + salary rollback.

7 seasons have been played since the last lockout, every lockout is about the FUTURE, not next year, not the previous year.

They got a better deal for the majority of the players by waiting.
I'm done.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:15 PM
  #709
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
The players that got a better deal by waiting FAR outweighs the players that missed that season of pay + salary rollback.
This is the part I strongly disagree with. When you say the players, which ones, or do you mean the PA as an organization? Almost every veteran and fringe player lost significantly last lockout, only the young studs and a rare vet walked out ahead. The PA turned into a soup sandwich and couldn't do much of anything for their union until about 2 years ago because of all the damage to themselves. The PA lost most of the leveraging ability as well after accepting the current agreement and extending it. Give me specific examples so I can see what I'm missing.

Quote:
7 seasons have been played since the last lockout, every lockout is about the FUTURE, not next year, not the previous year.
I'm not sure what this means as it applies to the negotiations. I don't see how the future is a primary concern (seems like a low priority) in this negotiation or in the previous 2. Goodenow and Bettman seem to have had a history of not caring too much about 3 or 4 years down the road. It seems like "right now" is far more important to both sides than 5 years from now, just like the last 2 agreements.

The owners aren't willing to work in a frame work of a decline to 50/50 and the players aren't willing to accept a framework with a long term "make whole" provision. The primary focus seems to be on existing contracts, right now more so than later. Maybe you are correct about the future, but I think that's more rhetoric than a primary concern.

Quote:
They got a better deal for the majority of the players by waiting.
Who exactly is/are "they" (2005 locked out players, the young players, the PA itself, etc.)?

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:15 PM
  #710
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
Assuming nothing gets done today, a quote from Daly:

"This proposal no longer works because it was a proposal to save 82 games," Daly said. "We have to re-think where we are, and what type of season we're looking at, and we have to formulate and construct a proposal that makes sense for the reality of where we are."
----------------------
Things won't be so simple going forward. The hole deepens and the players get poorer.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:17 PM
  #711
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
I really didn't think they would both be so willing to give up games.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:27 PM
  #712
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I really didn't think they would both be so willing to give up games.
Yeah, not much different from 2004 so far.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:39 PM
  #713
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
Yeah, not much different from 2004 so far.
It seems very similar and seems to have a similar pace. In 2004 I was expecting a long lockout after the owners took a bad rushed agreement in 1995. This time I really thought they wouldn't have such a huge gap around Novemeber 1st. I was wrong.

I thought enough of the Jacob's mentality had disappeared from the group of owners to the point that there might be a more pragmatic approach to things with an eye on closing the gap between them and Nascar and the NBA in the states. I was worried Fehr wouldn't have enough time with the players to glue the PA together a little bit more, that seems to be the case. Both seemed to be focused on grabbing every penny they can, I doubt the agreement will have focus on growth of the league and individual franchise brands at this point.

I'm still a little surprised. Maybe I'll take out my frustration on my liver.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 06:00 PM
  #714
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,062
vCash: 500
The most astounding aspect this time around was/is the lack of preparation by Fehr. After stalling the talks until mid summer, I was expecting much more than the few lame proposals he has tabled.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 06:59 PM
  #715
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
Yeah, not much different from 2004 so far.

Fehr shouldve been there in 2004 instead of now.

AceintheSpace* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 07:00 PM
  #716
Tone King
Atomic Punk
 
Tone King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uranus
Country: United States
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyJet View Post
The most astounding aspect this time around was/is the lack of preparation by Fehr. After stalling the talks until mid summer, I was expecting much more than the few lame proposals he has tabled.
Wait...you were expecting more from Fehr?! This is Donald Fehr we are talking about here.....

Tone King is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 07:14 PM
  #717
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
I can't bring myself to blame the Fehr-ball too much. The players could have elected him 6mos or more ahead of time. He was the clear front-runner a long time before he was finally elected. I think he could have done much more with even a few more months. The PA is huge with all sorts of divergent interests and diverse players and agents to deal with.

I don't like him, I would love to blame him but I really can't because he hasn't really had enough time with the PA to get them out of the bronze age as a group. I agree that it's too bad he wasn't there in 2004.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:05 PM
  #718
needle
Registered User
 
needle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Sad times for this sport.

needle is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 09:13 PM
  #719
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 21,341
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
The revenue lost isn't taking into account any money the players made in Europe.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 10:10 PM
  #720
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
The revenue lost isn't taking into account any money the players made in Europe.
True, but the players aren't netting much of anything. Most will probably spend more than they make over there.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 02:44 AM
  #721
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
You can't compare this to the 2004 lockout as they are different in many aspects. How the cap is determined has been decided so that is no longer an issue.

The players where too busy trying to get as rich as possible and are too busy thinking of their pride and their wallets now and in doing so are screwing themselves over in a major way. They should have done this deal almost 2 years ago when the owners first asked and the players would have been much better off for it.

Firstly when the owners first discussed the new CBA and wanting to work for it salary roll backs weren't on the table. The only think mentioned in about salary roll backs in the first discussion of the owners was that is was something that might have to be used at a later date if the NHLPA stalled on the negotiations, as they did.

Secondly, salaries are tied to HRR now and that won't or hasn't changed. So the players first priority should be to get and maintain the HRR at the highest they can possibly get it. Well getting the league into a 2nd lockout in a decade and 1 that seems destined to go at least a year. Especially coming off the strongest years the NHL has ever seen. After the year the NHLPA should have had week long sessions and come to an agreement to get the CBA done asap and not have any lockout whatsoever. Now they will lose at least 1 billion off HRR and possibly more and therefore lose millions of what their salaries could have been.

Simply though the players wanted to live off the fat of the 57% share for as long as possible then wanted to play the head and media games in the beginning of the negotiations and wanted to throw around what happened in 2004 instead of solving it and in doing so are costing themselves millions of dollars, no one else is taking it from them they are taking in from themselves with their actions and tactics.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 05:47 AM
  #722
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 23,872
vCash: 500
please guys, stop defending one side. Both are to blame. Both don't look at others. Both only look for their wallets. Both don't care about the Sports or the Fans

Bubba88 is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:13 AM
  #723
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
You can't compare this to the 2004 lockout as they are different in many aspects.
I agree, I think it was more of a comparison to the pace and tenor of the negotiation through October rather than the circumstances and actual gap between the sides.

hockeydoug is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:20 AM
  #724
MagicSlap*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeydoug View Post
I can't bring myself to blame the Fehr-ball too much. The players could have elected him 6mos or more ahead of time. He was the clear front-runner a long time before he was finally elected. I think he could have done much more with even a few more months. The PA is huge with all sorts of divergent interests and diverse players and agents to deal with.

I don't like him, I would love to blame him but I really can't because he hasn't really had enough time with the PA to get them out of the bronze age as a group. I agree that it's too bad he wasn't there in 2004.
It it takes you too long to get ready for your job then that's on you.

Fehr is a cancer.

MagicSlap* is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:09 AM
  #725
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,827
vCash: 500
Funny how Fehr is a cancer, yet Bettman has the most amount of games lost out of every major sport due to a lockout.

Hawkaholic 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 10:55 AM.

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.