HFBoards

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

2012 CBA & Re-alignment: Lockout in Effect. Thanks Gary/Donald! PART II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 06:28 PM
  #226
Mordax
It don't Maatta
 
Mordax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sivek View Post
Man, if NHLPA doesn't take a 50/50 split then I don't know what.
And this is why the NHL has played this PR game perfectly. This deal has put everyone on the NHL's side with the expectation that the NHLPA should accept. 50/50 was what the NHL was aiming for all along. Pressure is on NHLPA now

This article explains it pretty well:
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/stor...-hockey-strike

Well played Gary...

Mordax is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
  #227
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,614
vCash: 500
Not sure where some of these numbers are coming from but today was a good day.

50/50 - no complaints here at all. Fair offer from owners.
No salary loss - ditto
3 year ELC according to TSN - ditto
5 year max deal - player concession and not a big one IMO, in light of the rest.

Quote:
According to a source, the only one that remained in Tuesday's proposal was a maximum contract length of five years. The new league offer also called for unrestricted free agency to come into effect at age 28 or after eight years of service - one year later than the last CBA - and kept entry-level deals at three years.
We don't know the full details but this is a real offer and should form the basis of a good agreement hopefully.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:38 PM
  #228
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,614
vCash: 500
Changing FB Page Name to be more reflective of new owner attitude, which is decidedly less greedy.

https://www.facebook.com/StandUpToNHLOwners

Still need to let them know we are more than happy to boycott their products if they deprive us of a season, but this is more reflective of the approach people should take in light of today's offer. I think the players will hopefully be receptive to this deal, assuming the owners didn't pad it with a bunch of "fuzzy math" on HRR, etc.


Last edited by Darth Vitale: 10-16-2012 at 06:52 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:56 PM
  #229
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonjmc View Post
While I agree with you that the players will argue about UFA being raised, in the end it really doesn't matter. 50% of HRR is 50% of HRR. ELC length, UFA age, contract length.... it's all about how that 50% gets divided among the players. Without a cap linked to revenue, UFA age is HUGE, now not so much.

I would like to see more details because nothing I have seen so far would address the asinine second contracts that we have seen since this cap was implemented. This is also why UFA matters less now because teams are locking up players with that second contract and very few "name players" are making it to UFA.
From what I've learned today...

They are trying to bump the ELC to two years. This way players are less likely to cash in on their second deals.

After seeing more details, I'm 100% sure the players will dig in their heels on length of contracts and push for 7 to 8 years.

Also heard this proposal will allow cap space to be moved in trades, up to 4 or 5 million.

This may get dicey for a week, but I have to try and go back to my original belief that common sense will prevail and then we all can get back to arguing about Tangradi and Martin.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:01 PM
  #230
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,729
vCash: 500
The PA won't like some of the details, but several players have said they know they have to take 50/50. Well, here it is and work around that. I do like the way the NHL went about this, just yesterday their focus group leaked and now all that PR thrown into the faces of the PA. Still not positive anything will happen (Parros just linked a site where you can buy lockout shirts that say "Let Them Play" ) but maybe this will get the ball moving.


Dreger says the PA conference call has ended and nothing is certain but a counter proposal is expected in the next 24-48 hours. He also included:
As we discussed on TSN's Sportscentre, NHL proposal includes the potential for retaining salary in trades.


Hmm, wonder how that works out

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:13 PM
  #231
Jonjmc
Registered User
 
Jonjmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
From what I've learned today...

They are trying to bump the ELC to two years. This way players are less likely to cash in on their second deals.

After seeing more details, I'm 100% sure the players will dig in their heels on length of contracts and push for 7 to 8 years.

Also heard this proposal will allow cap space to be moved in trades, up to 4 or 5 million.

This may get dicey for a week, but I have to try and go back to my original belief that common sense will prevail and then we all can get back to arguing about Tangradi and Martin.
Thanks Jiggy, you are always informed on these matters. I just saw the 2 year ELC idea and I like it. Anything to put a drag on those second contracts is fine by me.

I also agree about contract length and suspect it was set so low as to allow it to be a bargaining point.

Jonjmc is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:23 PM
  #232
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,989
vCash: 500
I didnt have a problem with the previous length of contracts, I just had a problem with the fact they can sign them before they're 35 and then retire after 35 and the cap hit disappears off the books. If they were to eliminate that loophole then we wouldnt be seeing those 15 year cap circumventing contracts as no team wants to have a 41 year old player occupying a 6 mill cap hit with no ability to shove in the AHL to avoid it.

Gooch is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:30 PM
  #233
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonjmc View Post
Thanks Jiggy, you are always informed on these matters. I just saw the 2 year ELC idea and I like it. Anything to put a drag on those second contracts is fine by me.

I also agree about contract length and suspect it was set so low as to allow it to be a bargaining point.
Well we both know the players could give two left balls about ELC. So it won't be a huge point of contention.

For contract length, you have to think GMs want them longer so they can play with the cap and reduce the hit. Eight years is reasonable, but I hope it doesn't go beyond that.

Just heard on "That's Hockey" that Dreger said the players he talked to don't like the mechanism to protect their salaries. Said it is still a rollback/escrow. I'm assuming they are saying that because it is attached to growth? Dreger didn't clarify of course...

If they miss seven or eight games, it will cost them more than a rollback, which has no protection. Salary is gone forever. Gotta be smart fellas...

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:36 PM
  #234
Superstar Shane
Registered User
 
Superstar Shane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
If they miss seven or eight games, it will cost them more than a rollback, which has no protection. Salary is gone forever. Gotta be smart fellas...
At this point, a lot of it comes down to whether the players' advisers are honestly looking out for their clients' best interests or if they're more interested in winning a dick-measuring contest against the owners.

Superstar Shane is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:45 PM
  #235
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanMoranFanclub View Post
At this point, a lot of it comes down to whether the players' advisers are honestly looking out for their clients' best interests or if they're more interested in winning a dick-measuring contest against the owners.
The problem with this may be convincing some of them that losing a season is bad when last time the NHL lost a season, many came out better. This is from an article I posted from the Star Tribune talking about the MN Wild and the NBA lockout last season. Older guys like Guerin, Andreychuk, and Modano questioned it, but...:


For every Guerin who lost $9 million that season, there were other, younger players who saw their salaries rolled back 24 percent as well but believe, seven years later, that they ultimately benefitted from that hard-fought deal.

Wild defenseman Nick Schultz is one of those guys.

"Now that it has passed, I don't even think about the money I lost," said Schultz, who had just signed a new three-year contract before the lockout. "It changed a lot of the rules. Now you see younger players coming out of their entry-level contract getting big deals. Before, you had to be 31 and work your way up before you earned your money.

"In that sense, it affected me: I became a free agent a lot younger than I would have, so I got more money sooner than I would have."

In 2008, Schultz signed a six-year, $21 million contract extension at age 25.



Here is the link again if you wan to read it all. But if they don't realize the consequences that they could be the Guerins and Modanos this time around...



Serious question, does anyone know how the NHLPA votes? Secret ballot or what?

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 08:35 PM
  #236
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,614
vCash: 500
Owners NOT trying to change ELC length according to TSN. 3 Years stipulated in their proposal. Same as now. They ARE trying to change maximum contract length (5 years... probably a "start low" so they end up at 6 or 7 when the players say "8"), and UFA status (adding 1 year to current requirement).

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:15 PM
  #237
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Serious question, does anyone know how the NHLPA votes? Secret ballot or what?
It's a secret ballot. It can be done online or in person, from what I recall.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:59 PM
  #238
stefanh
Registered User
 
stefanh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 1,303
vCash: 500
Another good part of the NHL proposal:

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.

stefanh is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:10 AM
  #239
stefanh
Registered User
 
stefanh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 1,303
vCash: 500
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...agues-proposal

stefanh is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:02 AM
  #240
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
It's a secret ballot. It can be done online or in person, from what I recall.
And do they vote on the NHL's proposals each time? I'm just wondering, as I'd be interested to know what the vote is around this time, even though Fehr may push them one way or another.

KaylaJ is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:50 AM
  #241
bambamcam4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanh View Post
Another good part of the NHL proposal:

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.
I agree, but Crosby's contract is also frontloaded.

bambamcam4ever is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:49 AM
  #242
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamcam4ever View Post
I agree, but Crosby's contract is also frontloaded.
The frontloading doesn't matter in this instance. It's just that the cap hit would not disappear.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:05 AM
  #243
OnMyOwn
Extremist
 
OnMyOwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: State College
Country: United States
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Yea its basically the 35+ contract, but for anyone whose contract is currently over 5 years long, regardless of age. How the cba used to be, if someone signed a huge deal at 34 years old or younger they could retire whenever and the hit went away. Now it counts no matter what, or they want it to I should say.

At least that's how I understand it.

OnMyOwn is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:10 AM
  #244
AZPenguins
Registered User
 
AZPenguins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Country: Zimbabwe
Posts: 997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnMyOwn View Post
Yea its basically the 35+ contract, but for anyone whose contract is currently over 5 years long, regardless of age. How the cba used to be, if someone signed a huge deal at 34 years old or younger they could retire whenever and the hit went away. Now it counts no matter what, or they want it to I should say.

At least that's how I understand it.
That is how I took it too. I wonder if that includes injury retirements?

AZPenguins is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:17 AM
  #245
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
Owners NOT trying to change ELC length according to TSN. 3 Years stipulated in their proposal. Same as now. They ARE trying to change maximum contract length (5 years... probably a "start low" so they end up at 6 or 7 when the players say "8"), and UFA status (adding 1 year to current requirement).
The ELC length is still up for discussion as there is conflicting reports. Some saying 3 years and others 2 (Dreger mentioned as much last night). I honestly think 2 years is a great idea.

Shady Machine is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:30 AM
  #246
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZPenguins View Post
That is how I took it too. I wonder if that includes injury retirements?
As long as said player is still on the team that originally signed him, they will just put him on LTIR until his contract ends. If said player is on another team, that team doesn't care about that or even worse, would want to hurt the other team by not putting him on LTIR. Now if the player still wants to get paid and not retire, then he can just say "I have a headache" and no one could prove otherwise. They should find a solution for this.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:32 AM
  #247
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
The ELC length is still up for discussion as there is conflicting reports. Some saying 3 years and others 2 (Dreger mentioned as much last night). I honestly think 2 years is a great idea.
I think 2 has been confirmed now.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:47 AM
  #248
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
And do they vote on the NHL's proposals each time? I'm just wondering, as I'd be interested to know what the vote is around this time, even though Fehr may push them one way or another.
I believe Fehr has to endorse a proposal before a vote can take place.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:02 AM
  #249
stefanh
Registered User
 
stefanh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 1,303
vCash: 500
NHL actually posted their proposal on nhl.com:


stefanh is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:09 AM
  #250
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,273
vCash: 500
Another thing the players should understand is, this was a last ditch effort by the league to save the full season. If the PA flubs this up things won't get better in terms of the owners being "fair".

I don't think many players have a problem with the 50/50. Cuz all the other major sports have that. The problem is the cash they expect from their contracts right now. They want that money and if they don't like the mechanism in which they get it back, this will go no where.

SidTheKid8787 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 12:52 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.