I'm not getting my hopes up. Lengthy discussions do not mean a deal is anywhere close to being done.
What I would look for is the two sides trying to avoid missing a potential major deadline. That's when I can expect more serious discussions to be held. The full season is done with, and the winter classic is cancelled. What's the deadline for the entire season being cancelled?
I'm not getting my hopes up. Lengthy discussions do not mean a deal is anywhere close to being done.
I gotta admit, I'm up and down like a toilet seat. I was really optimistic about yesterday... then I heard they didn't even tackle that "making whole" provision until today.
I didn't think at the start they would blow a hole season and I still don't. This thing is going to come together before it's too late. Too much at stake for both sides. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I gotta admit, I'm up and down like a toilet seat. I was really optimistic about yesterday... then I heard they didn't even tackle that "making whole" provision until today.
I didn't think at the start they would blow a hole season and I still don't. This thing is going to come together before it's too late. Too much at stake for both sides. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I agree (about being up and down)...I have to take the long meetings as a positive sign, though.
There was a report from Renaud Lavoie (RDS) that Fehr has issued a "gag order" to the PA. This could be significant because apparently the last time he did this (whilst with the baseball union), it was because they were close to a deal and he didn't want any public statements/insults/etc. to influence the proceedings.
I'd rather have less more intense, better quality games.
Just keep the same kind of schedule in terms of average games per week as a normal schedule. There will still be lots of hockey to watch if they start before the new year.
I doubt 4 games is going to change much at all, but by that same thinking not having 4 games on top of 66 is not that big of a deal.
I doubt 4 games is going to change much at all, but by that same thinking not having 4 games on top of 66 is not that big of a deal.
The shorter the schedule the better for us. Less chance that there'll be a bunch of awkwardly-scheduled trips to the Central time zone if they're not trying to shoehorn games in. And hopefully no eastern travel at all, we can live without seeing those teams for a season if it means better-rested Canucks come playoff time.
The shorter the schedule the better for us. Less chance that there'll be a bunch of awkwardly-scheduled trips to the Central time zone if they're not trying to shoehorn games in. And hopefully no eastern travel at all, we can live without seeing those teams for a season if it means better-rested Canucks come playoff time.
Good point. Unfortunately no conference games means teams in the east never leaving their timezone while we'll still have to go east.
The shorter the schedule the better for us. Less chance that there'll be a bunch of awkwardly-scheduled trips to the Central time zone if they're not trying to shoehorn games in. And hopefully no eastern travel at all, we can live without seeing those teams for a season if it means better-rested Canucks come playoff time.
It would still be less than a regular schedule, albeit with a few games shoehorned in. The idea of being well rested is a nice one, but hoping for less games because of an idea of being well rested seems wrong, this affects every team in the league, maybe more so us than other teams because of our location, but that's the way it's always going to be.
For those asking about what yesterday's meetings were about, apparently revenue sharing (the method of the rich times subsidizing the poor ones) was a big talking point.
Apparently contract length/backdiving contracts are on the table now. The NHL may be less concerned with cutting down length as they are with avoiding having the salary go down in later years to effectively circumvent the cap.
Apparently they're also talking about amnesty buyouts again.
I'm guessing the Canucks might use it on Ballard if they had an amnesty buyout? Cant really see them using it on Luongo, unless there is absolutely no interest in him from other teams (which I dont see happening).
Apparently they're also talking about amnesty buyouts again.
I'm guessing the Canucks might use it on Ballard if they had an amnesty buyout? Cant really see them using it on Luongo, unless there is absolutely no interest in him from other teams (which I dont see happening).
I don't know if Ballard (definitely not Luongo) would be an extreme enough case to warrant it. Would depend on how amensty buyouts would be structured and what ramifications they would have, and what benefits there would be (if any) to the players.
I don't know if Ballard (definitely not Luongo) would be an extreme enough case to warrant it. Would depend on how amensty buyouts would be structured and what ramifications they would have, and what benefits there would be (if any) to the players.
If there was a buyout that allowed us to remove a cap hit without any penalty, I'd definitely consider it for Ballard. Using $4.2 mil for the next 2 seasons (3 if you include this season) on someone playing ~15 mins per game is a waste of cap space.
Of course this would also probably mean that Ballard signs elsewhere after being bought-out, so he can play somewhere he'll get more ice-time/trust from the coaching staff. But if he's willing to sign here for much less (~$2 mil), I'd be fine with it.
If there was a buyout that allowed us to remove a cap hit without any penalty, I'd definitely consider it for Ballard. Using $4.2 mil for the next 2 seasons (3 if you include this season) on someone playing ~15 mins per game is a waste of cap space.
Of course this would also probably mean that Ballard signs elsewhere after being bought-out, so he can play somewhere he'll get more ice-time/trust from the coaching staff. But if he's willing to sign here for much less (~$2 mil), I'd be fine with it.
Who would replace his hit? It's only worth it if there is a plan in mind.
Apparently they're also talking about amnesty buyouts again.
I'm guessing the Canucks might use it on Ballard if they had an amnesty buyout? Cant really see them using it on Luongo, unless there is absolutely no interest in him from other teams (which I dont see happening).
I can't even see them using the buyout on Ballard, let alone Luongo. Ballard is overpaid. No doubt about it. But is he so overpaid so as to be a detriment to the team? Hardly.
Another long meeting in the books today. Promising sign - Bill Daly was scheduled to go to Ottawa tomorrow, but he has cancelled that trip to continue meeting with the NHLPA group.
If that's not a hopeful indicator, I don't know what is.
Who would replace his hit? It's only worth it if there is a plan in mind.
Does it matter? He's got 3 more years left on that contract. It's a lock that we'll find a superior replacement for him at less than what he's making now. It doesn't even take into consideration how bad he's been, because quite frankly, based on his play alone, I would find any way to get out of his contract even without a replacement in place. That's how bad he's been during his tenure as a Canuck. The guy makes 4.2 million and he does not stabilize the 3rd pairing one bit. Think about that for a minute.
Who would replace his hit? It's only worth it if there is a plan in mind.
Well, there would obviously only be a short period of time allowed to use the buyout, and the Canucks should take advantage of it since a few of our UFAs (Edler, Burrows, Higgins, Lapierre, Alberts )* will be getting significant raises next season, and the cap space has to come from somewhere.
Also, as of right now, there is a very good crop of upcoming UFAs which a lot of teams are going to compete hard to get in the off-season. http://capgeek.com/free-agents/?year...1&fa_type_id=2
And with the extra cap space this season, it would allow us to acquire a player or two with high cap hits at the trade deadline. Upcoming UFAs on potential non-playoff teams like Alfredsson, Visnovsky, Streit, Gonchar, maybe Elias, maybe Semin, Hainsey, Antropov, Morrow, Zubrus, Lydman, etc...
*although unlikely in my opinion, if Raymond has a good season (and isn't traded), he could would get a raise too.
Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger both offering suitably cryptic (and two-sided) comments:
Bob:
Quote:
Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie 4h
BTW, just to clarify, I don't think a deal is imminent. But either getting on track towards one or getting derailed, that's imminent, IMO.
View details ·
Dreger:
Quote:
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger 4h
One source says - way too early to think\say a deal is close to being done, however, others hint if today goes well agreement won't be far.
View details ·
Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger both offering suitably cryptic (and two-sided) comments:
Bob:
Dreger:
Basic summary is dont get your hopes up. They hadnt talked in about 2 or 3 weeks, so they're bound to talk eventually, but it doesnt neccessarily mean fences are being mended as we speak.
I think the breaking point is that the PA expects growth over the next 5 years, while NHL thinks it will plateau at $3.3 billion. It's going to go down if you keep not playing.
)* will be getting significant raises next season, and the cap space has to come from somewhere.
