Yeah, but there's always been the option to get rid of Ballard if they really needed his space. If the Canucks managed to successfully get Weber I'm sure Ballard would've been on the first plane out of Vancouver. If Luongo retires at age 37-38 then the Canucks will be looking at 4-5 years of dead cap space with no chance of relief.
$5.3 million certainly isn't pocket change; it's probably the sum total of the Sedins, Kesler, Bieksa, and Burrows' home town discounts. I know I'll be choked if the Canucks lose the equivalent of that just because Bettman and a few owners don't like long term deals.
I don't think it is that big an issue.
1). Luongo won't retire until the $6.7m years are up (6 years 2017-18), and probably the $3.8m year (7 years, 2018-19). So it's closers to 7 years of play and 3 years of retirement. We have to survive 3 years at $5m below cap.
2) We have 7 years to plan for it. Losing $5m in cap now would be a killer, in the 8th year with a bunch of planning it won't be that bad.
3) Look at our team: H Sedin, D Sedins Burrows, Kesler (injury wear down), Hamhuis, Bieksa etc are all going to be burnt out or close to it by 7 years. We are going to suck outside of goal unless we find a whole bunch of talent from someone because there is no where near enough on the farm. Win while we can.
Exactly. Bettman is pissed and he's gonna try and get back at the teams that made him look bad.
I don't have a problem with it. If the player got the money the team should get the cap hit. The only change I would make, one I've been proposing for a while, is that the cap hit in the retired years be equal to contract cap hit - cash forfieted by retiring.
eg Luongo last 3 years he is paid $1.6m $1m $1m in cash so his cap hit would be 5.3m - $1.6m = $3.7m. 5.3m - $1m = $4.3m.
$3.7m, $4.3m, $4.3m seems fair considering he's been paid that amount already. He's had it earning interest for 10 years even.
The system also works for guys on flat contacts (ie $6m $6m $6m etc), if they retire their avg $6m - $6m cash forfieted = $0 adj cap hit.
I don't have a problem with it. If the player got the money the team should get the cap hit. The only change I would make, one I've been proposing for a while, is that the cap hit in the retired years be equal to contract cap hit - cash forfieted by retiring.
eg Luongo last 3 years he is paid $1.6m $1m $1m in cash so his cap hit would be 5.3m - $1.6m = $3.7m. 5.3m - $1m = $4.3m.
$3.7m, $4.3m, $4.3m seems fair considering he's been paid that amount already. He's had it earning interest for 10 years even.
The system also works for guys on flat contacts (ie $6m $6m $6m etc), if they retire their avg $6m - $6m cash forfieted = $0 adj cap hit.
You're rewarding teams for front loading those contracts. That's the opposite of what the NHL wants to happen. The point of the clause is to penalize teams later that are benefitting from cap savings now.
Edit - I reread this and understand it better now. While you're not rewarding those teams, I think the NHL wants to make sure those teams pay a steep penalty for cap circumvention, which is what those deals really are.
Bob McKenzie believes the deadline of Nov. 2nd set by the NHL isn't hard and they could very well have another week after the NHL's supposed deadline since they can reduce the ASG break which is around 5 days. Don't think they're caving yet, but both sides seem willing to talk, so someone has to say lets meet.
David Pagnotta @TheFourthPeriod
Just told from a high up NHL source that no CBA meetings are scheduled, and the source doubts any will take place this week. #ruhroh
I'm still baffled by the NHL's position on contract length, age of free agency, arbitration rights, extending the entry level period a year etc. Usually when you lose money you're able to gain some ground with employee rights. I hope people fully appreciate how much the NHL is asking the PA to give up.
I'm still baffled by the NHL's position on contract length, age of free agency, arbitration rights, extending the entry level period a year etc. Usually when you lose money you're able to gain some ground with employee rights. I hope people fully appreciate how much the NHL is asking the PA to give up.
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.
Besides which, apart from contract lenth (say 5 mean, 7 years anyone), I think the rest is stuff the NHL will yield on once the NHLPA bends on the $, they just aren't going to bend until then.
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.
Besides which, apart from contract lenth (say 5 mean, 7 years anyone), I think the rest is stuff the NHL will yield on once the NHLPA bends on the $, they just aren't going to bend until then.
It's their final, best offer and there is no point meeting unless the PA only wants to talk about "making the players whole", didn't you hear?
1). Luongo won't retire until the $6.7m years are up (6 years 2017-18), and probably the $3.8m year (7 years, 2018-19). So it's closers to 7 years of play and 3 years of retirement. We have to survive 3 years at $5m below cap.
2) We have 7 years to plan for it. Losing $5m in cap now would be a killer, in the 8th year with a bunch of planning it won't be that bad.
3) Look at our team: H Sedin, D Sedins Burrows, Kesler (injury wear down), Hamhuis, Bieksa etc are all going to be burnt out or close to it by 7 years. We are going to suck outside of goal unless we find a whole bunch of talent from someone because there is no where near enough on the farm. Win while we can.
Losing $5+ million in cap space is always a big deal and it completely undoes the work of getting players to sign cap friendly contracts.
Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.
I thought they were shortening ELC by a year from 3 to 2.
The speculation was that the shorter ELC, combined with the raising of the UFA age, was intended to shift the average player's "big" contract from the second one to the third. So not really a concession, more of a tactical shuffling of contract mechanics.
What I don't get is that ****** rule is gonna punish the team, particularly the owners. The NHL side is the owners, Bettman is making these demands on the owners part. Why do the owners want to punish themselves
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Losing $5+ million in cap space is always a big deal and it completely undoes the work of getting players to sign cap friendly contracts.
Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.
Yeah the Canucks will probably be rebuilding by then, but it'd be a damn shame if Gary Bettman's politics and ego ruined the Canucks' chances. There is no reason for that clause in the CBA other than vengeance. All those contracts were completely legal within the old CBA but the NHL didn't like that they were too stupid to predict those kinds of deals and now they want to punish teams that had the cash to do them.
And it's baffling how Bettman and the owners' negotiating committee are getting away with screwing so many big-revenue teams this way. I can't believe that guys like Aquilini, Rocky Wirtz, Mike Ilitch, and James Dolan are happy to take one in the teeth so Jeremy Jacobs and the poor half of the league can squeeze a few million more a year out of the players.
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.
How does that clause provide one iota of economic relief to teams?
Despite what the players want everyone to believe this isn't really about punishing the players or being draconian etc. it is and has always been about readjusting the economics so that every properly run team has a CHANCE to make a profit and idiot proofing the CBA. You call it punishing but it's the idiot proofing part of things.
But wouldnt being stuck with a players contract after you have traded them and they then retire self inflicted punishment
Thats easily the worst stipulation in the new contract from the NHL that will directly affect the owner and not the player, there will be safe guards in the new length of contract so that these things don't happen unless for example we signed Doan to a 5 year contract and he retired 2 years in.
But wouldnt being stuck with a players contract after you have traded them and they then retire self inflicted punishment
Thats easily the worst stipulation in the new contract from the NHL that will directly affect the owner and not the player, there will be safe guards in the new length of contract so that these things don't happen unless for example we signed Doan to a 5 year contract and he retired 2 years in.
and then no one near the cap would ever sign doan. there is no way the "rich" teams will allow themselves to be punished on existing contracts. the battle is between the owners and the players right now ... even though I have said repeatedly there is a battle between the owners in the background ... the rich owners are not going to get screwed by betman ... he's the puppet answering to the rich few.
Well, if the league is unwilling to meet it just burned any good will it gained from the last round
The NHL is willing to meet, but like Daly was quoted, no point in doing so if the NHLPA is not bringing anything new to the table.
The NHLPA haven't made any concessions. Getting to 50/50 and reaching the status quo that every other league has met, should have been a given. Common sense. The NHLPA didn't even address anything in their new proposals, save for the bit where their players would get the biggest chunk of revenue from any major sporting league.
The NHL, after their offer last week, is winning the PR war and the players are fumbling this. NHL has no reason to meet with the NHLPA unless they are going to bend. Good on them.
The NHL is willing to meet, but like Daly was quoted, no point in doing so if the NHLPA is not bringing anything new to the table.
The NHLPA haven't made any concessions. Getting to 50/50 and reaching the status quo that every other league has met, should have been a given. Common sense. The NHLPA didn't even address anything in their new proposals, save for the bit where their players would get the biggest chunk of revenue from any major sporting league.
The NHL, after their offer last week, is winning the PR war and the players are fumbling this. NHL has no reason to meet with the NHLPA unless they are going to bend. Good on them.
Not meeting is not negotiating. If the NHL were to meet with the PA, make it look like they're trying to negotiate they'd be further ahead in the PR battle. Then they could leave the bargaining table and said they offer up negiating points (the make-whole provision being a rumoured one) and the PA isn't will to negotiate.
I do agree that Fehr has turned this into some martyr-like cause that seems to have turned into something more than money (or at least it appears that way). This is business and those stupid macho emotions should be checked at the door. Seems that Fehr has encouraged the opposite.
