HFBoards

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

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 09:40 AM
  #476
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,123
vCash: 500
I know it's negotiating posturing. But if Fehr and the PA ACTUALLY hold to this argument through the 11/2 window, I will lose a ton of respect:

Quote:
Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
Seems like a ridiculously hard line to take, and an unrealistic one. Don what's 57% of 0?

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:40 AM
  #477
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Well, I'll tell you one thing: in the PR game, the owners publication of a contract that proposes many (but not all) fair points plays a WHOLE lot better than Fehr's letter.
It will all be decided by the numbers that soon will be reported by the PA.

I've written 20 posts on this now, but how much money from the AHL will be charged against the players share?

Right now, a player on a ELC who then is demoted does not count against a cap. Redden and the 1-way goons and co in the AHL making more than 105k don't count against the cap.

If this combined account for 30m (Redden alone is 1/5 of that), this is a not a 50/50 offer.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:43 AM
  #478
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I know it's negotiating posturing. But if Fehr and the PA ACTUALLY hold to this argument through the 11/2 window, I will lose a ton of respect:



Seems like a ridiculously hard line to take, and an unrealistic one. Don what's 57% of 0?
Yeah. And as I've been saying for weeks... where is it written that 57% is some sacred number, guys? That was one CBA. This is a new one.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:46 AM
  #479
silverfish
KEVIN!
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 18,414
vCash: 500
Am I reading this right? The NHL's offer gets rid of re-entry waivers?

Quote:
Due to our proposed change in the Cap treatment of minor league Players on NHL SPCs, we are proposing the elimination of the Re-Entry Waivers provision. The elimination of this provision, coupled with the ability to allocate Cap charges and salary in trades, should lend themselves to fewer NHL-caliber Players being relegated to minor league service for prolonged periods of time.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643572

silverfish is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:47 AM
  #480
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Am I reading this right? The NHL's offer gets rid of re-entry waivers?



http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643572
Yeah, its a natrual result of players contract counting against the cap in the AHL...

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:03 AM
  #481
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
It will all be decided by the numbers that soon will be reported by the PA.

I've written 20 posts on this now, but how much money from the AHL will be charged against the players share?

Right now, a player on a ELC who then is demoted does not count against a cap. Redden and the 1-way goons and co in the AHL making more than 105k don't count against the cap.

If this combined account for 30m (Redden alone is 1/5 of that), this is a not a 50/50 offer.
Agreed this is a big deal, but this seems to be one of the points open for negotiation.
Maybe that number winds up at $1.8M instead of $105k.
That would assure to players signing ELCs (the future Krieder's) of securing $1.79m salary while allowing teams flexibility.
It would lower ELC contract values on the hig end, but those would now only be two years instead of three.

I think the concept of counting AHL contracts against cap makes sense, but $105 k is too low a number.

Also, the ability of teams to eat salary, acquire cap space will mitigate the need to bury a high priced veteran in AHL anyway. Those guys should be easier to move.
That is also likely the reason there is not an amnesty buyout included.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:17 AM
  #482
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Has anyone seen any clarification or detail around this part of the proposal:

Finally, we propose that to facilitate more trades and create increased flexibility in managing Cap Room, Clubs be allowed to allocate portions of a contract's Cap charge (and related salary obligations) in the context of a Player Trade. This will facilitate additional Player movement and trades between teams as they manage their respective Caps and Payroll Range obligations

Without any guidelines this would allow Rangers to trade Redden to Islanders for instance.
They could pay 95% of his contract and the Islanders could absorb 95% of the cap hit. It helps the Isles get to the floor, obviously helps the Rangers and also helps Redden get back to the NHL.

On the down side, it opens door for sather to make all sorts of crazy deadline deals where he takes on overpaid players using same premise of absorbing money obligations but taking very little in terms of Cap.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:22 AM
  #483
MugatuNYR
so hot right now
 
MugatuNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 4,169
vCash: 983
I like how Fehr keeps referring to the record revenue. Revenue doesn't mean **** when costs are so high that 60% of teams are actually losing money. 50/50 is as fair as can be. They also need to increase revenue sharing, much like the NBA did. There is just way to big of a disparity between the profitable teams (Rangers, Leafs, Canadiens) and everyone else.

MugatuNYR is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:25 AM
  #484
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,365
vCash: 500
IDK, it seems that the salary + cap are linked, no?

So if I acquire a $7M player and I take 50% of his cap hit, I'll also take 50% of his salary. Maybe I'm just reading it differently.

WhipNash27 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:43 AM
  #485
NYRKindms
Registered User
 
NYRKindms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I know it's negotiating posturing. But if Fehr and the PA ACTUALLY hold to this argument through the 11/2 window, I will lose a ton of respect:



Seems like a ridiculously hard line to take, and an unrealistic one. Don what's 57% of 0?
I think what he is saying is the players are willing to negotiate the percentage but not actual dollars. Their (NHLPA) proposal showed a reduction to percentage. They want to save actual dollars.

The owners want the percentage and appear to be looking to reduce actual dollars paid out.

NYRKindms is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:45 AM
  #486
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,485
vCash: 500
$105,000 is the threshold for re-entry waivers. So the NHL proposes no re-entry waivers and all of those players making more than $105,000 count against the cap. It puts a cap on minor league salaries. Teams will be reluctant to pay Kris Newbury's of the world $300,000 AHL when he will count against the NHL cap. $600,000 NHL for Newbury.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:51 AM
  #487
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
It's interesting to note that, under the owner's proposal and assumed growth, the Cap and Floor are actually going to be higher in 13-14 than they were in 11-12.

$3.3B plus 5% is $3.465B.
50% of $3.465B is $1.7325B
$1.7325B divided by 30 teams gives a $57.75m midpoint.
$57.75m plus $8m for the ceiling is a $65.75m cap.

It was $64.3m last year.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:54 AM
  #488
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Fehr's letter was never meant to get out. Leaked to McKenzie by one of the players, I assume.

The owners were already steering the PR battle in their favor, and this letter from Fehr going public doesnt help.
How do you know Fehr didn't leak it to McKenzie?

Steering is illegal in real estate for a reason. Steering? If you look at the NHL proposal,it still has holes. The players are giving back in areas they gained last time. Lose a year in arbitration and free agency. NHL needs to improve their proposal. They have room. The players have to get something back for their concessions. Keeping what you already have isn't a concession. The players aren't keeping anything they had looking at the NHL proposal. How nice of the NHL to allow only 1 transition year? They agree with the PA on how to deal with long term deals and two years later the NHL is looking once again to punish those teams. The NHL changes the rules of the game. Look at the details,the offer isn't good enough. Players should keep free agency and arbitration where it is.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:57 AM
  #489
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,262
vCash: 500
The leaking of this letter makes it all but impossible for the NHLPA to make a proposal tomorrow that wins back any public support by the fans. They may not care about that, but once the attitude is known the damage it creates may surprise everyone involved.

When you read language like:

"Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive."

It makes it impossible to look any any couter-proposal as anything but greedy.

This could get ugly.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:57 AM
  #490
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
How do you know Fehr didn't leak it to McKenzie?

Steering is illegal in real estate for a reason. Steering? If you look at the NHL proposal,it still has holes. The players are giving back in areas they gained last time. Lose a year in arbitration and free agency. NHL needs to improve their proposal. They have room. The players have to get something back for their concessions. Keeping what you already have isn't a concession. The players aren't keeping anything they had looking at the NHL proposal. How nice of the NHL to allow only 1 transition year? They agree with the PA on how to deal with long term deals and two years later the NHL is looking once again to punish those teams. Look at the details,the offer isn't good enough. Players should keep free agency and arbitration where it is.
I understand what you're saying, BUT no one (including the league) expected them to take it as-is. This is a deal that should be negotiated off of. It is a very good step in the right direction and should be built upon by the PA.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:58 AM
  #491
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,696
vCash: 500
@JLupul: Wait I thought negotiating publicly is unfair to the process? Why should I be surprised..

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:59 AM
  #492
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
The leaking of this letter makes it all but impossible for the NHLPA to make a proposal tomorrow that wins back any public support by the fans. They may not care about that, but once the attitude is known the damage it creates may surprise everyone involved.

When you read language like:

"Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive."

It makes it impossible to look any any couter-proposal as anything but greedy.

This could get ugly.
Please. It's rhetoric. What goes on in the room has nothing to do with what is said to the media.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:02 AM
  #493
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
I'm concerned that the Rangers won't be able to re-sign their core if the cap drops.

Someone re-assure me.

PS.... I blame the NHLPA. If they don't move down on their "why should the players give up anything" I hope everyone will realize the greed of the players here (maybe just Don Fehr) is the real problem here.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:05 AM
  #494
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
$105,000 is the threshold for re-entry waivers. So the NHL proposes no re-entry waivers and all of those players making more than $105,000 count against the cap. It puts a cap on minor league salaries. Teams will be reluctant to pay Kris Newbury's of the world $300,000 AHL when he will count against the NHL cap. $600,000 NHL for Newbury.
Those 105k were introduced as a fixed number in 2005. It should be raised to reflect the increased salaries. Or even better: it should be a percentage of the average NHL salary.

jniklast is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:06 AM
  #495
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I'm concerned that the Rangers won't be able to re-sign their core if the cap drops.

Someone re-assure me.

PS.... I blame the NHLPA. If they don't move down on their "why should the players give up anything" I hope everyone will realize the greed of the players here (maybe just Don Fehr) is the real problem here.
Nah, Rangers should be fine in that regard. The cap doesn't seem to be dropping too much. Worst case scenario, Gaborik becomes a casualty.

Although, I am curious how the Redden thing turns out.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:07 AM
  #496
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
RB, you might say that a one-year transition isn't enough. However, if the Cap does get up to $65m in year two of this proposed deal, there isn't a single team that's over that number in committed current salary for 2013-14. The closest team to that number in current cap calculations in $6m away with 16 players under contract. With the ability to trade Cap dollars, there really should be no problem.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:10 AM
  #497
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,535
vCash: 500
If the Rangers have to account for Redden in the coming (2) years + take on Brad Richards real cap hit (actual money paid) they will be in a very bad position.

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:10 AM
  #498
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,473
vCash: 500
Also, a simple 52% in year one and 50% in year two transition should reduce the escrow and player's made whole scenarios to the point where it might be acceptable to the players.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:12 AM
  #499
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
How do you know Fehr didn't leak it to McKenzie?

Steering is illegal in real estate for a reason. Steering? If you look at the NHL proposal,it still has holes. The players are giving back in areas they gained last time. Lose a year in arbitration and free agency. NHL needs to improve their proposal. They have room. The players have to get something back for their concessions. Keeping what you already have isn't a concession. The players aren't keeping anything they had looking at the NHL proposal. How nice of the NHL to allow only 1 transition year? They agree with the PA on how to deal with long term deals and two years later the NHL is looking once again to punish those teams. The NHL changes the rules of the game. Look at the details,the offer isn't good enough. Players should keep free agency and arbitration where it is.
Ive looked at all the details, and as you said its quite clear that it still consists of across the board cuts for the players - although not as severe as the first proposal. What percentage of hockey fans do you think are willing to comb through all of these details and discern them? Ten percent? Twenty at most? Im talking strictly about the PR perception here - and the reaction of the general public is going to be "Oh, 50/50 revenue split? That seems fair - the players should sign it so I can see some hockey!"

Maybe Fehr did leak it. Although I have zero idea why he would negotiate through the media. The perception to the general public is going to be that hes making things difficult, even though hes just doing his job. I'd like to think that hes more cognizant of how this is being perceived by the fans, but then again both sides usually fail mightily when it comes to this subject.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
  #500
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
If the Rangers have to account for Redden in the coming (2) years + take on Brad Richards real cap hit (actual money paid) they will be in a very bad position.
Haven't seen anything about the Richards issue out there at all. But yes if that came to pass the Rangers would be in a real bind.

HatTrick Swayze 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 04:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.