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 VI: The "What Comes Before Square One?" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 01:58 PM
  #726
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Limit length, and you limit the small market in retaining their talent. It works both ways. The last cba was a result of that concept. And for the record, 27/7 was a league idea to flood the fa market to drive down price.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:02 PM
  #727
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Limit length, and you limit the small market in retaining their talent. It works both ways. The last cba was a result of that concept. And for the record, 27/7 was a league idea to flood the fa market to drive down price.
yep but then everyone signed long term deals before that and never hit the market...hence the reason this time they want to limit 2nd contracts.

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:03 PM
  #728
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Am I missing something on contract length here?

Seems to me that if a guy got a new contract every 5 years, he could make a killing (if he plays well). With the revenue increases both sides love talking about he would get more pie even if it's still within the 50%.

Now if he stinks it up after signing a big 5 year deal I could see that not going well for him on his next contract, but one thing's for sure... it's fair since he'll get what he deserves. No more Redden/Gomez contracts where the player is earning based off something he's no longer capable of doing.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:08 PM
  #729
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Am I missing something on contract length here?

Seems to me that if a guy got a new contract every 5 years, he could make a killing (if he plays well). With the revenue increases both sides love talking about he would get more pie even if it's still within the 50%.

Now if he stinks it up after signing a big 5 year deal I could see that not going well for him on his next contract, but one thing's for sure... it's fair since he'll get what he deserves. No more Redden/Gomez contracts where the player is earning based off something he's no longer capable of doing.
if you are giving out the first 5 year deal at 27-28 years old, very few guys would make a killing on the 2nd 5 year deal. there are exceptions but for the most part players want long term deals so then teams are overpaying them when they are 35, 36, 37 in order to have them at 29, 30, 31 in their prime

if brad richards contract ended after 5 years, the rangers wouldn't be giving him a $7 mil/year extension at age 36. they would instead turn to whatever 27-28 ufa is available and give the $$ to that guy.

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:13 PM
  #730
gravey9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 315
vCash: 500
The issue with the 5 year contract limit is how it plays in combination with the other contracting rules the Owners are asking for. Entry Level is a 2 year contract. And UFA status starts after 8 years. So, if the second contract limit is 5 years, a player needs to sign 3 contracts before UFA status. Not 2. Furthermore, if you assume most really good players will sign max 5 year deals after their ELC, then you're looking at many situations down the line where star players and their teams have a show down after year 7. Players who want to field offers as UFA in year 8 will only want to sign 1 year deals. Teams wanting to keep their players will not want to sign their players to 1 year deals, thus taking away years of UFA status (and leverage for players). So, the rubber will hit the road at year 7. There could be more holdouts, more trade demands from players who will have less leverage. And even deeper, you may end up with situations where a player asks to be traded, and the agent will force trades to teams that player wants to go to. Why would a team trade for a guy for one year unless they know he wants to stay. So, it's essentially like creating a no trade clause for all 5 year second contracts. In a nutshell, more Shea Weber and Rick Nash situations. So, 5 year limit is probably the easiest thing for the owners to move on if they are adament about UFA status after 8 years.

gravey9 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:20 PM
  #731
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
SFehr: 3 issues-$, players contracting rights, who pays for what if season shortened
https://twitter.com/kevin_mcgran/sta...68004816904192

Quote:
At Primetime Sports Management Trade Show in Toronto. Interesting quote from Steve Fehr: "One thing Bill Daly and I agree on...
Quote:
When the moment is right...deal will be done very quickly."
https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...69371144990721

Sounds like one of the Cialis commercials. When the moment is right.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:31 PM
  #732
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,666
vCash: 420
https://twitter.com/andystrickland/s...70346039635970

Quote:
Only if #NHL owners had the ability to control themselves they wouldn't need to fight for most of the contract rights they're going after
I always find it shocking when analysts have to confidence to comment on such things when they clearly don't have even a basic understanding of economics.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:37 PM
  #733
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
At Primetime Sports Management Trade Show in Toronto. Interesting quote from Steve Fehr: "One thing Bill Daly and I agree on...
Expand

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
When the moment is right...deal will be done very quickly."
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
the moment was right 58 days ago you idiots...

Quote:
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
S. Fehr on contract issues in CBA negotiations: "It's hard to believe you're going to drive an industry's bus over the cliff for that."
Expand
it works both ways steve...right or wrong, fair or unfair the players and owners are both driving the league off a cliff over this stuff

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:48 PM
  #734
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
So the owners get absolved for bad contracts.
Who is absolving them?

I'm saying the only way to prevent them is to set a limit in the rules. You know, like two of the other responsible leagues in this country do, the NFL and NBA.

Baseball doesn't, and it has a wonderful system in place so that half the team have 0% chance of competing. Sign me up. That's what the NHL should be like.

Quote:
If this is the direction the league wants to take and reduce player rights
What rights? They have a contract with the league that governs how they are treated and that contract is enforceable by law. Right now the contract is expired and they are negotiating a new one. Everything is on the table.

Anything that is "off the table" is only off the table based on the will of the owners to not take it off the table.

Quote:
You want to share/minimize risk, make the pa a true partner and give them a vote. I doubt the owners would have any interest in that. They hate asking for re-alignment.
Why should the owners do that?

How about this... the players accept contract limits like the rest of the civilized sports world in this country and stop being spoiled brats.

And the best part is.... contract limits only help the majority of players. Way to stick up for the 1%, Hannity.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:50 PM
  #735
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Steve Fehr says sides are "fairly close" on revenue sharing.
https://twitter.com/cotsonika/status/268077406110220289

Quote:
SFehr: rev sharing is single modt important component for baseball's labour peace.
https://twitter.com/kevin_mcgran/sta...77230918365184

Quote:
Steve Fehr says the two sides are “fairly close” on revenue sharing. But “probably not as sizable an impact as the union would prefer”.
https://twitter.com/kcarrera/status/268078036107284480

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:51 PM
  #736
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
if you are giving out the first 5 year deal at 27-28 years old, very few guys would make a killing on the 2nd 5 year deal. there are exceptions but for the most part players want long term deals so then teams are overpaying them when they are 35, 36, 37 in order to have them at 29, 30, 31 in their prime

if brad richards contract ended after 5 years, the rangers wouldn't be giving him a $7 mil/year extension at age 36. they would instead turn to whatever 27-28 ufa is available and give the $$ to that guy.
And.... isn't that both good for the sport in general and for all the 27 year olds who would get that money instead of Brad Richards?

The status quo is only good for Brad Richards. Changing it is good for everyone else.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:53 PM
  #737
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...69371144990721

Sounds like one of the Cialis commercials. When the moment is right.
I said this a long time back. This isn't a negotiation, it's a process to get both parties in the right mind frame to accept the inevitable.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 02:58 PM
  #738
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,887
vCash: 500
The PA proposed $240M in revenue sharing. NHL was at $2000M the last time a number was leaked. Did they split the difference?

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:10 PM
  #739
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The PA proposed $240M in revenue sharing. NHL was at $2000M the last time a number was leaked. Did they split the difference?
There was no number last week but wasn't the NHL supposedly over $200 million in their latest one?

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:14 PM
  #740
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronx,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post

Ih8theislanders is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:17 PM
  #741
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
And.... isn't that both good for the sport in general and for all the 27 year olds who would get that money instead of Brad Richards?

The status quo is only good for Brad Richards. Changing it is good for everyone else.
i agree. BUT if the rangers were only allowed to vary his contract 5% each year they wouldn't have added the fake years at the end and it would have been a 5 or 6 year contract. which is the same effect as limiting the contract length 5-6 years. both rules have the bottom line effect of shortening the players contract.

the thing that i don't like about the contract limits is that it doesn't factor in the age of the player at the time he signs. I 100% understand not wanting to add fake years to a 34 year olds contract past retirement age to lower his cap hit.

but a guy like steven stamkos who is 22 years old, why should tb be limited to only 5 years on him when they could sign him for 15 years without any 'fake' years? so under those rules tb would have to give him a huge raise at 27 and then another huge raise at 32...but then again i guess stamkos no longer benefits from the long term deal since its not front loaded so he won't want the longer deal and yet again the contract limit is restricted

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:18 PM
  #742
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
if you are giving out the first 5 year deal at 27-28 years old, very few guys would make a killing on the 2nd 5 year deal. there are exceptions but for the most part players want long term deals so then teams are overpaying them when they are 35, 36, 37 in order to have them at 29, 30, 31 in their prime

if brad richards contract ended after 5 years, the rangers wouldn't be giving him a $7 mil/year extension at age 36. they would instead turn to whatever 27-28 ufa is available and give the $$ to that guy.
Exactly. So instead of the Rangers having dead money tied up in Richards on the back end of a bloated contract, they would have cash to spend on a different UFA thus driving up his worth in the marketplace. Limiting contract length would create far more compeition for the new crop of UFA which would drive up their salary

The union is representing both of those players aren't they?
Should they really care who gets paid what so long as the dollars are spent?

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:19 PM
  #743
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,762
vCash: 500
Who cares how long player contracts are? Why don't they just tighten up the amount of variance from one year to the next. Right now it's at what, 50%? Why don't they limit the decrease to at most 20% from any one year to the next and call it a day?

The new "lifetime" contract would be something like 9/8/7.5/7/7/6.5/6.5/6/5/4/3.2/2.56. Obviously you can adjust the amounts depending on the player...but this hypothetical one is a 12 year deal worth 72.26M, and an annual cap hit of 6M. If the player calls it quits after 8 years, he's leaving nearly 15M on the table. That's a far cry from the ~1M or similar fake years at the end of the current deals. I guess teams could still try to keep reducing the amount by 20% for additional years, which would clearly become "fake" at some point. Perhaps the rule should state that contracts can't run beyond a certain age, say 40 years old?

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:23 PM
  #744
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post


***Tries to not picture Bettman and Fehr in bathtubs, outside, looking at setting sun***

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:39 PM
  #745
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Who is absolving them?

I'm saying the only way to prevent them is to set a limit in the rules. You know, like two of the other responsible leagues in this country do, the NFL and NBA.

Baseball doesn't, and it has a wonderful system in place so that half the team have 0% chance of competing. Sign me up. That's what the NHL should be like.



What rights? They have a contract with the league that governs how they are treated and that contract is enforceable by law. Right now the contract is expired and they are negotiating a new one. Everything is on the table.

Anything that is "off the table" is only off the table based on the will of the owners to not take it off the table.



Why should the owners do that?

How about this... the players accept contract limits like the rest of the civilized sports world in this country and stop being spoiled brats.

And the best part is.... contract limits only help the majority of players. Way to stick up for the 1%, Hannity.
Who is absolving? If you can't keep up with the last two pages, don't interrupt, Mahr.

The theme of this lockout is shared sacrifice and owners assuming all the risk. So doesn't it make sense that if they are trying to pass some of that burden to the players? Get how the owners are asking for the players to pay for the mistakes of the southern push, the last cba, over expansion. These were all unilaterally imposed moves by the league that, according to them, damaged the league.

It just seems to me that if you pass on a risk and burden, that party should get a say since their interests are more vested. How many players want a team in phoenix since it loses money and pays its employees less? The league throws "partnership" around when it comes to money.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:42 PM
  #746
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
yep but then everyone signed long term deals before that and never hit the market...hence the reason this time they want to limit 2nd contracts.
Oh I get the argument. It was a horrendous move by the league. Teams are afraid of losing talent after a few prime years despite numerous years of development. Trouble is the league sold that time away for the cap. Gotta bargain to get it back.

They are pushing for the NBA level contract. How is that working for parity?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:46 PM
  #747
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Who is absolving? If you can't keep up with the last two pages, don't interrupt, Mahr.
So I'm Bill Maher? Not sure how that makes sense, but ok.

Quote:
The theme of this lockout is shared sacrifice and owners assuming all the risk. So doesn't it make sense that if they are trying to pass some of that burden to the players? Get how the owners are asking for the players to pay for the mistakes of the southern push, the last cba, over expansion. These were all unilaterally imposed moves by the league that, according to them, damaged the league.
I wasn't aware there was an official theme.

I'm saying it's good for everyone if the league has contract limits. Well, except Brad Richards.

I'm not interested in apportioning this out as some kind of "win" for the league that needs to be "made up" to players with a concession.

The players should be eagerly accepting contract limits, IMO.

Quote:
It just seems to me that if you pass on a risk and burden, that party should get a say since their interests are more vested. How many players want a team in phoenix since it loses money and pays its employees less? The league throws "partnership" around when it comes to money.
I'm not following how the players are accepting risk other than the fact that their salaries are subject to new CBA negotiations every 7 or so years, which can obviously reduce their income if the league doesn't bring in profits.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:13 PM
  #748
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Oh I get the argument. It was a horrendous move by the league. Teams are afraid of losing talent after a few prime years despite numerous years of development. Trouble is the league sold that time away for the cap. Gotta bargain to get it back.

They are pushing for the NBA level contract. How is that working for parity?
well not to go back to the same old 'teams should learn to control themselves' argument but slats is proof that the rules will work the way they are intended IF teams use them that way.

slats kills his RFAs on 2nd contracts cause they have no leverage. he could easily just give mdz $4 mil/year but he doesn't have to. so he'll hardball mdz and get him for 1/2 that and then with that extra $$ he is able to add richards/gaborik/nash. he very easily could have overpaid on 2nd contracts and then not had enough for those 3.

in some cases (ie isles/tavares) it makes sense to overpay the guy on his 2nd deal cause you don't want to piss him off and want to make sure he stays long term. but those are the exceptions. the majority of the players don't warrent the big deals tossed out on 2nd deals.

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:18 PM
  #749
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,541
vCash: 500
Another interesting quote from the NYT article that RB first referenced this morning:

Quote:
But the union delegate also stressed the “very professional” tenor of the negotiations on both sides.

Reports emerged Friday of a shouting match between players and owners at the end of that day’s meeting. But the delegate said the exchange was “extremely brief” and stood out only because of its rarity.

The exchange was between the free-agent defenseman Chris Campoli and Winnipeg defenseman Ron Hainsey on one side, and the owners Murray Edwards of Calgary and Craig Leipold of Minnesota on the other.

The delegate called descriptions of the incident a “major exaggeration.”

“No one would have noticed it but for the fact that these meetings are very, very professional — no one even raises their voice,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/sp...ef=sports&_r=0

The current hiatus is all part of the process. 90% the angst and the furor is being driven by the tabloid writers on Twitter.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 04:20 PM
  #750
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
on fehr's '3 issues'

1) split of $$--ie we have accomplished nothing to this point and still are arguing over how to get to 50%. don't tell us you are close if you haven't agreed to how to split the pie cause thats the biggest thing

2)player contract rules--valid issue that needs to be resolved

3)who pays for the shortened season? you both do idiots. you get 50% whether its 50% of $3.4 bil or 50% of nothing. if the season is shorted by 30% then you lose 30% ****

CM PUNK is online now  
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 01:26 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.