HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So who is bummed about the lockout? II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 03:41 PM
  #426
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
The more I read about the NHL's proposed changes to contracting, the more I am left with a WTF thought bubble over my head...

They are asking A LOT of contracting concessions... I gotta side with the PA on these.
I really don't think there's as much there as people try to make out. The changes are:

2 year ELC - Not really something the players can see as a negative. In fact, it's probably a positive for most of them.

5 year contract limit - Minor concession for the players. It really only affects a few players at the extreme upper end of the spectrum. There aren't really that many contracts beyond that length, and considering the circumstances the players can likely negotiate this out to 7 years (where you cut the impact to a few dozen players max) if they really care to.

Maximum salary deviation - This one is a little more important to players as it can affect contracts for players approaching the end of their careers. Ultimately though, it's not really a huge factor as it just changes the timing of salary for players, not the amount (ignoring time-value of money).

28/8 UFA timer - This is the big one. Pushing UFA back a year is the major sticking point on contract issues right now.

Arbitration timing - This is a complete non-issue as it's just a point to keep the same number of eligible years. This keeps the players where they were, and does not take anything away.

League arbitration rights - This is a bit of an issue as players can feel that teams use this to prevent the use of offer sheets in RFA negotiation. However, this is still a drastically overblown issue as the use of team-elected arbitration is extremely limited. In fact, off the top of my head I think it has only been used 3 times in the past two years. Even if such a change doubled the frequency, we're talking about only 18 total cases over the length of the proposed CBA.



Outside of moving UFA age a year, the league really isn't asking for much in terms of contracting changes. Sure, there's several bullet points, but just because my grocery list has quite a few things on it doesn't mean it's going to be an expensive trip.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 05:15 PM
  #427
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
With Bozak's FRB article out there now, I think something incredibly important is being taken for granted when it shouldn't be. Much ado has been made about "player signing 2 year ELC + 5 year contract + 5 year contract."

Players would never actually do this.

The issue is solved that easily. In the oft bandied about scenario of 2 year ELC + 5 year contract (which isn't going to happen much, second contract are almost always 1-4 years currently) the player would never even consider signing another 5 year contract unless they're paid extravagantly for those 4 UFA years. If the team won't offer that, and isn't giving up another more reasonable contract, the player will opt for arbitration. Bam, automatic 1 year deal and the player is a UFA after it. Issue solved.

Even ignoring the arbitration factor, you still have offer sheets. If there's ever a scenario of teams offering a player "less than what they're worth" other teams will likely submit an offer sheet for closer or even over fair market value for the player. Either the player signs the offer sheet and finds a new team/their team matches or the player utilizes the offer sheet as leverage in contract negotiations.

The entire premise of anything changing here is silly in and of itself. Teams were already capable of strong-arming this behavior. But why don't we look at how this would have affected some real players?

Ryan Suter - Drafted 7th overall in 2003
1st contract - 3 year ELC
2nd contract - 4 year $14MM contract
3rd contract - 13 year $98MM contract

Under the NHL's proposed system:
1st contract - 2 year ELC
2nd contract - He has 71 NHL games under his belt as a 21 year old, he likely signs a 3 year contract with an AAV around $3MM
3rd contract - He's 3 years from UFA status and coming off a 7g 45pt season. Signs either 4 or 5 year contract around $6MM-$7MM AAV (see Doughty, Drew and Karlsson, Erik for why I pick that range)
4th contract - First UFA contract while still on the right side of 30, probably a 5-year $8MM AAV (very very low estimate based on his actual salary during those years on his real contract)

It's extremely difficult to argue that's a negative for him.

More importantly, let's look at a situation exactly as Bozak's complaint describes:

Shea Weber - Drafted 49th overall 2003
1st contract - 3 year ELC
2nd contract - 3 year, $13.5MM
3rd contract - Club elected arbitration - 1 year, $7.5MM
4th contract - 14 year, $110MM offer sheet - Team matched

This is actually an even worse situation than the one Bozak outlined due to Weber's August birthday. Yet, he's arguably better off than Suter was, even though Suter experienced the nearly perfectly optimal situation with his contracts.

The point is, players don't have to sign a 5 year contract if they don't want to. Even that is unnecessary as teams aren't fond of offering 5 year contracts at that age anyway (the pre-expiring CBA season excepted due to expected caps on long term contracts). Furthermore, if you look at scenarios where it does happen, players are generally "overpaid" from the neutral observer's perspective. Do you think that Hall and Eberle are upset with the deals they got? They'll both be 29 before their first UFA deal. Karlsson will be 29 and Doughty will be 30.

This might have affected Kane and Toews, but the list of players affected by this is extremely short, and there's no reason to believe that it actually would have left them worse off than the current system considering how RFA has worked since 2005.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:30 PM
  #428
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
I understand that players would never do this, but under these rules, the owners pretty much have them over the barrel. The players options would be to either agree to the negotiated contract with their owning club, accept an offer sheet, or hold out.

The teams could also, with the expanded arbitration rights, just keep up the arbitration cycle until the player is 28.

My WTF thought bubble is that for this to be a sticking point where the league (according to some) is saying "take it or leave it"... That just confounds me.

I mean, we are talking about owners that found loopholes in the last CBA to sign these massive, back diving deals.

It also confuses the hell out of me from a business perspective. What if I wanted to sign a player to a 10 year contract? Why not? 10 years at $6 million every year, no variance. That should be allowed.

If I were on the ownership committee, I'd just be pushing for all deals have to have a 5% variance from year to year. Screw term limits. Screw the arbitration demand. Screw the change in ELC/FA.

Just stop the back diving contracts...

To me, this reeks of a Wilson/Burke demand, since that is basically what their rule is anyway... To allow this to put a stop to the process... is just dumb.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:50 PM
  #429
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Further;

Don't get me wrong. I've been on the league's side ever since the NHLPA outright trashed the re-alignment plans a year before any negotiations were allowed (again, by the PA) to start.

Normally, everything that has been proposed by the NHL has made sense, but this one doesn't.

Why? How does this help them?

The only way that I can see that it helps them is that it does, in fact, screw over the players. Particularly, the forwards...

Forwards tend to start falling off after 30. Defensemen and goalies have shown time and again that after 30, they are just as good, if not better.

leaving the UFA age at 27, setting max contract length at 7 years with 5% variance, and leaving the ELC at 3 years, really puts the onus on the GMs and owners to police themselves.

If a player enters the league at 18 + 3 + 7, that puts them a year passed free agency as defined in the 05 CBA.

hell, like i posted earlier, i'd even drop the term limit entirely.

i just don't get the benefits of a COMPLETE overhaul, when they can't even agree on a definition of how to split HRR... /sigh

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:01 PM
  #430
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
I understand that players would never do this, but under these rules, the owners pretty much have them over the barrel. The players options would be to either agree to the negotiated contract with their owning club, accept an offer sheet, or hold out.

The teams could also, with the expanded arbitration rights, just keep up the arbitration cycle until the player is 28.
But it doesn't change much of anything is why I speak up. The players' current options are to agree to the negotiated contract, accept an offer sheet, or hold out. That's how RFA already works, and none of the changes (except the UFA age) really make much of a difference there.

I think you're misinterpreting the league's arbitration rights under this scenario. The league would be granted arbitration rights in any year the player has them. If I recall correctly, that's only in the final two years before UFA. Teams wouldn't be able to "just keep up the arbitration cycle." They would be able to opt for two years of arbitration, but that's hardly "taking away from the players' rights" in a meaningful way beyond the 2005 CBA. Team elected arbitration is almost never used for several reasons. It almost guarantees a player will not re-sign with the club (see Parise, Zach and Weber, Shea) and it does nothing more than protect the team from offer sheets. The player still ends up with a "fair market salary" as determined by the arbiter. Ultimately, it's a tool of the last resort, and wouldn't be wielded nearly so heavy-handedly as people keep trying to make out.

The realistic scenario with players is that teams will still attempt to "buy UFA years" in their final RFA contract. Arguably, the new design makes that more difficult. It used to be that players like Stamkos, Toews, or P. Kane would receive a 3 year ELC then a 5 year 2nd contract that "buys" their first UFA year. The 2 year ELC and 5 year contract limit would force teams into more awkward 2nd contracts to try retain that situation. In fact, they'd have to have a 2 year second contract to mimic the scenario, which would likely drive up the total salary those players received. Looking at some of those players just listed, how much more money does Toews get paid over the course of his first 8 or 9 years in the NHL under that scenario? The Blackhawks have him 2 years on ELC, re-sign him for 2 more years anticipating a 5 year contract to buy his first UFA year. That puts him signing that deal right after he wins the Conn Smythe and Stanley Cup instead of right before. Think he only makes $6.3MM with those on his resume? Same story with Stamkos, that behavior nets Stammer a new contract after his 60 goal season. Kane's contract would have come after just scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal and a 30 goal season.

Players are going to have a better resume to negotiate off of in their fourth year than in their third, so the league might "win" by signing them to a second contract a year earlier, but the cost is by significantly inflating the third contract. The only real change here is the 28/8 UFA age and the years under which they receive the money, not the total dollar amount. There is a caveat to this, players who peak on their first contract, then under-perform on their second will see a salary hit. However, that's a deserved hit based upon performance, and not some sort of systemic benefit or constraint imposed by the system.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:18 PM
  #431
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Further;

Don't get me wrong. I've been on the league's side ever since the NHLPA outright trashed the re-alignment plans a year before any negotiations were allowed (again, by the PA) to start.

Normally, everything that has been proposed by the NHL has made sense, but this one doesn't.

Why? How does this help them?

The only way that I can see that it helps them is that it does, in fact, screw over the players. Particularly, the forwards...

Forwards tend to start falling off after 30. Defensemen and goalies have shown time and again that after 30, they are just as good, if not better.

leaving the UFA age at 27, setting max contract length at 7 years with 5% variance, and leaving the ELC at 3 years, really puts the onus on the GMs and owners to police themselves.

If a player enters the league at 18 + 3 + 7, that puts them a year passed free agency as defined in the 05 CBA.

hell, like i posted earlier, i'd even drop the term limit entirely.

i just don't get the benefits of a COMPLETE overhaul, when they can't even agree on a definition of how to split HRR... /sigh
You posted this while I was replying so I missed it.

As for "why would the owners propose it," I think you're focusing too much on the League vs the NHLPA of these negotiations. Just as there should be a secondary motivation for the NHLPA of the top tier players versus the rank and file versus young versus old, the league has its own internal battles. This isn't about taking from the players and giving to the league, it's about protecting certain teams from certain other teams. It's give and take between the revenue sharers and revenue sharing recipients or any other such factions in the league.

You mentioned it sounding like a Burke type demand, and maybe it is. Maybe this is how the league gets the Leafs to be on board with the expanded revenue sharing that's going to come out of their pockets. As for the 5 year rule specifically, it's an easy way for the Rangers ownership to protect themselves from their GM (coughReddenGomezcough) without needing to get their hands dirty.

Allowing long term contracts forces every team to be willing to offer them or to be at a competitive disadvantage. With how the league's insurance works, allowing contracts over 7 years exposes owners to a significant liability they otherwise don't want to undertake. Setting a limit at 7 years then makes absolute sense without needing any sort of other motivation. As for making it 5 years instead, that could be protecting teams like the Rangers and Leafs from poor management, or it could be a calculated "give in" position (as llama pointed out, the owners have been "not going to budge" on quite a few things that have changed so far) to try make 7 years an easier fight.

Since I can find absolutely no way so far that reliably gives the owners a net advantage from those things taken together, I can't buy the argument that it's somehow an unreasonable demand from the league that harms the players. On the other hand, there are several (possibly minor, but perhaps fairly important) benefits the league reaps from this internally, without it actually directly affecting the players significantly. The PA has spewed a bit of vitriol about the proposal, but they've failed to articulate any reason as to how it harms them (outside of the 28/8 UFA change) and so I'd say it's hard to argue for the PA on this point, and quite premature to declare that the league is being ridiculously of line.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:30 AM
  #432
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Since I can find absolutely no way so far that reliably gives the owners a net advantage from those things taken together, I can't buy the argument that it's somehow an unreasonable demand from the league that harms the players. On the other hand, there are several (possibly minor, but perhaps fairly important) benefits the league reaps from this internally, without it actually directly affecting the players significantly. The PA has spewed a bit of vitriol about the proposal, but they've failed to articulate any reason as to how it harms them (outside of the 28/8 UFA change) and so I'd say it's hard to argue for the PA on this point, and quite premature to declare that the league is being ridiculously of line.
That is the core of my concern regarding the contracting changes.
1. I also cannot figure out how this gives the owners a net advantage.
2. The 28/8 UFA change does harm the players.
3. This is (evidently) a major sticking point for the owners and has essentially prevented negotiations from moving forward.

On one hand, you have the Leafs, who have internal restrictions on the types and length of contracts they give out. On the other, you have the Rangers, who are very well known for giving out toxic contracts. The other "rich" team that is well known for giving out toxic contracts is Philadelphia.

If Ed Snider were to tell Holmgren to stop the back diving contracts and if he were to put an internal restriction on the number of years, Holmgren would follow, or he'd be gone.

While I can see the players argument about how this (via perception) harms their rights, I disagree with these changes. Not due to the changes themselves, but due to the fact that these changes are holding up forward progress.

Who knows. This could be yet another case of the NHLPA putting their fingers in their ears and going NANANANANANANA at the table and refusing to negotiate on the finer points. If it were me, I would come back with 3 year ELC/27 UFA/7 Max/5% variance.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:23 PM
  #433
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,385
vCash: 500
Pierre LeBrun on the lockout as it stands today

I am guessing you guys would see him as a shill for the players but I think his compromises are pretty solid.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:29 PM
  #434
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Haven't read it yet, but I can't imagine anyone calling LeBrun a shill.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:14 PM
  #435
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBrun
My take: If I’m the NHL, to try to get a deal done, I step down on wanting to move UFA eligibility to eight years' service or 28 years old (from the current seven/27), I step down on wanting to change the entry-level system or salary arbitration, and I give up on trying to limit terms on contracts to five years. The key areas I stick to my guns on if I’m the league: the 5 percent rule introduced in the Oct. 16 proposal, in which salaries from year to year can’t go up or down more than 5 percent (this rule essentially makes the five-year term limit needless because it foils any attempt at front-loaded/back-diving deals); the Wade Redden/stashing-players-in-the-AHL rule; the Roberto Luongo back-diving rule (even if a team trades a player, if he retires before end of his deal, the original team that signed him to that contract gets nailed with his cap hit even in retirement). To me, those are the three rules that matter the most to the league because they deal with cap circumvention and, frankly, I’m not sure why the players would even care much about any of those three.
I wholeheartedly agree with those compromises.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:23 PM
  #436
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Glanced through the article. It seems LeBrun is taking every word from either side as absolute fact, and I think that's really the wrong way to think about things. I've said all along that the league will likely end up back at 27/7 (which as I've elaborated on earlier, makes the arbitration age a moot point) the issue is that they're trying to bargain and negotiate while the NHLPA continues to refuse to do so. Other than the UFA age, the other contracting disputes are complete non-issues, and are standing in the way of nothing. If 27/7 vs 28/8 were the only thing standing in the way of a deal, training camp would have started by now. The league's likely going to give in on that point, but not until they get the economic issues resolved. The second the players decide to start negotiating, the league will say "okay we'll give in on the contracting issues (other than the 5% variance and likely some cap on contract length) if you'll accept our economic split."

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:27 PM
  #437
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,385
vCash: 500
How do you know the NHLPA refuses to negotiate? I've heard 14/17 contract point agreements thrown around quite a bit and they're pretty close on core economics (including percentage share).

What I wouldn't buy is any notion that one side or the other won't budge or refuses to negotiate. Both sides have claimed that and both sides have disputed those claims.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:27 PM
  #438
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Something that has had quite a bit of freaking out made over it, but is actually almost completely a non-issue is the players' proposed "step down to 50/50." If the league were to implement a 2 year step down to their current proposal, the actual net result would be less money paid out via "make whole" and the exact same dollar amount of salary paid to the players. Unless the steps were something like 56-55-50, or something else completely unreasonable, the amount paid out via "make whole" would exceed the increased players' share, meaning the total dollars paid out would not see a change.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:30 PM
  #439
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
How do you know the NHLPA refuses to negotiate? I've heard 14/17 contract point agreements thrown around quite a bit and they're pretty close on core economics (including percentage share).

What I wouldn't buy is any notion that one side or the other won't budge or refuses to negotiate. Both sides have claimed that and both sides have disputed those claims.
Look at the article you posted. The NHLPA is still pushing Fehr's $1.9BN in players' share line. Either Fehr's lying to LeBrun, or the players still are not negotiating in good faith. We've demonstrated several dozen times the players' continued refusal to negotiate. We don't need to do it yet again.

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:44 PM
  #440
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,385
vCash: 500
I find it hard to believe the NHLPA stonewalled the NHL for seven days this week.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:47 PM
  #441
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,385
vCash: 500
Mark Recchi tells NHL'ers to sign the CBA and get back to work

Hope the players are listening. The clock is ticking off seconds they won't get back.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:50 PM
  #442
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
I find it hard to believe the NHLPA stonewalled the NHL for seven days this week.
Non-confrontational question; Do you also find it hard to believe that Donald Fehr is playing games with the NHL's negotiating committee?

Multiple sources stated that D.Fehr and S.Fehr were supposed to be there for a meeting at 10am, and didn't show up until 4pm... And that D.Fehr took 20 minutes out of the 90 that they were there to "get a glass of water"...

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:52 PM
  #443
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,370
vCash: 50
it's frustration tactics. the same thing he does when he makes the NHL reps wait four hours past the scheduled meeting time.

rynryn is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:23 PM
  #444
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,385
vCash: 500
From all accounts, Fehr has done all of that. Doesn't mean the players are refusing to negotiate. Is stalling and frustrating the league the best method to negotiate? Probably not. It's frustrating to the fans too. Yet it still doesn't mean they aren't negotiating.

I just find it funny that there's virtually zero criticism of Bettman or the league from Squidz (and to a lesser extent you as well Bozak) while nearly every move made by Fehr or the NHLPA is condemned.

Jarick is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:36 PM
  #445
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
What has the league done that should be criticized?

squidz* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 04:22 PM
  #446
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,370
vCash: 50
they started with a ridiculous offer, but ever since...what?

rynryn is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:06 PM
  #447
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
they started with a ridiculous offer, but ever since...what?
which was a still a better offer than the original offers by both the NBA and NFL...

i'm not saying that the original offer wasn't bad, however, they had to start somewhere. considering that the PA nixed a pretty simple and straightforward re-alignment plan without even reviewing it...

bozak911 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 07:35 PM
  #448
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 22,370
vCash: 50
yeah, really love that move when the entire Western conference had to be for re-alignment.

rynryn is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 08:17 PM
  #449
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
which was a still a better offer than the original offers by both the NBA and NFL...

i'm not saying that the original offer wasn't bad, however, they had to start somewhere. considering that the PA nixed a pretty simple and straightforward re-alignment plan without even reviewing it...
what if

GB: "we need players to take a lower share due to rising expense of operating teams due to increased cost of travel"

DF "but you re-aligned so you saved some money "

GB "err uh... ummm... oh yeah massage therapists cost more too

DF "nice try"

forthewild is offline  
Old
11-14-2012, 06:56 AM
  #450
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
So Lebrun wrote an article yesterday going over what he though were the key issues and his takes.

one of the things he said was that PA is wanting to have their full value of contracts honored (even tho some game have been lost, players want to be paid for full seasons work)

this actually is an interesting dynamic, i don't see NHL wanting to do this, but I can also see the PA fight it like crazy to the point one side will have to cave to get a deal done.

One thing that struck me from this is, with owners recently saying they are willing to foot a "make whole" bill, is the timing. players would already have lost $ due to not playing 82 games.

So NHL did get their reduction in not paying players they wanted, tho its a bid different since they also didn't make money from tickets either.

so to boil it down, we could be in for some rough sailing, someone is going to give in and get the deal done soon, as long as this drags out the worse for the game it will be.

forthewild 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 12:07 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.