HFBoards

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

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 02:40 PM
  #351
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Sounds like both sides are speaking the same language about penalizing existing long term deals so I think it's safe to assume the Canucks are going to have a whack of dead cap space when Luongo retires. So now it's just a question of whether the Canucks will have $4M or so in dead cap space (NHLPA's plan) or $5.33M (NHL's suggestion).
They really should have some sort of amnesty for deals made in the prior CBA, it doesn't make sense to penalize teams now. If the league didn't like those deals at the time they should have rejected them from the beginning.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:20 PM
  #352
Kickassguy
Registered User
 
Kickassguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,497
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Kickassguy Send a message via MSN to Kickassguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
They really should have some sort of amnesty for deals made in the prior CBA, it doesn't make sense to penalize teams now. If the league didn't like those deals at the time they should have rejected them from the beginning.
On the flip side, a penalizing clause for the team-on-signing would work in the Canucks' favor in the present as it would positively affect Luongo's value, since the team taking him on loses all the risk of the contract, which is the thing having the biggest negative effect on trading him right now.

Kickassguy is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:38 PM
  #353
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickassguy View Post
On the flip side, a penalizing clause for the team-on-signing would work in the Canucks' favor in the present as it would positively affect Luongo's value, since the team taking him on loses all the risk of the contract, which is the thing having the biggest negative effect on trading him right now.
As much as I would love to see Luongo's contract viewed as a benefit to the Canucks in a trade, I would much rather see a system that makes sense to me. Getting the loopholes out of a flawed system should be paramount over seeing to teams that used the loopholes being punished for it after the fact.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:42 PM
  #354
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
As much as I would love to see Luongo's contract viewed as a benefit to the Canucks in a trade, I would much rather see a system that makes sense to me. Getting the loopholes out of a flawed system should be paramount over seeing to teams that used the loopholes being punished for it after the fact.
This! The Canucks should be screaming about this. And if Parise, Suter or Weber gets injured and quits ...

It is just plain wrong to penalize someone after the fact. The league screwed up and didn't foresee how the CBA would get manipulated, and want to penalize the people who took advantage of their mistake. Bullcrappy.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 03:52 PM
  #355
Kickassguy
Registered User
 
Kickassguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,497
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Kickassguy Send a message via MSN to Kickassguy
Definitely agreed. It's silly to penalize teams for exposing a flaw in their own binding agreement. If you don't like the deals, don't approve them and that's the end of it.

Kickassguy is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:15 PM
  #356
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 500
Team1040:
Quote:
rt @realkyper: #cba meeting over. No progress. #nhl remains firm on "take it or leave it" last offer to #nhlpa.

Taelin is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:25 PM
  #357
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,592
vCash: 500
^Not really surprised at that. Next thing I'd like to see is a full NHLPA vote on that proposal - let's see where the majority really fall with respect to the offer.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:26 PM
  #358
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
^Not really surprised at that. Next thing I'd like to see is a full NHLPA vote on that proposal - let's see where the majority really fall with respect to the offer.
According to a tweet I read earlier today, the owners have lowered the Make Whole amount to around $200 million.

Taelin is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:30 PM
  #359
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,332
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
According to a tweet I read earlier today, the owners have lowered the Make Whole amount to around $200 million.
Really? I'd think that would be very important news, but none of the TSN (or even Sportsnet) guys have mentioned that.

Anywho, I think that if a deal isn't reached before the new year, then the whole season will be cancelled.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:34 PM
  #360
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
Really? I'd think that would be very important news, but none of the TSN (or even Sportsnet) guys have mentioned that.

Anywho, I think that if a deal isn't reached before the new year, then the whole season will be cancelled.
BuffNewsVogl:
Quote:
Just as I figured yesterday http://t.co/38WEIXGD MT @JKTHN Hearing owners reverted to $211M make whole offer as today's starting point.

Taelin is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:43 PM
  #361
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,332
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
BuffNewsVogl:
No major sources have mentioned this.

https://twitter.com/JonathanWillis/s...86217897472000
Quote:
An offer supposedly "off the table." MT @RealKyper: #CBA meeting over. #NHL remains firm on "take it or leave it" last offer to #NHLPA.
To me it sounds like the NHL decided to keep their offer from last week on the table, but they refuse to change anything in the offer.

Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:45 PM
  #362
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,988
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
BuffNewsVogl:
"Make Whole" (ludicrous phrase) has to come down as the lockout drags on - the players can't expect MW for pay packets that aren't being handed out. My rough maths puts it at $10-15m MW lost per fortnight. Dropping it to $200m seems to be a shot across the bow of the NHLPA, nothing more than a wake up call that it will come down and they will negotiate it back to 280-290m if they are quick. The only way it stays down at $200m is if they lost something tied to X number of games ($100m in sponsors right for a min 60 game season etc).

me2 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:51 PM
  #363
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
^Not really surprised at that. Next thing I'd like to see is a full NHLPA vote on that proposal - let's see where the majority really fall with respect to the offer.
Why the heck would union leadership agree to this? Make the owners vote on an NHLPA proposal then. It doesn't make sense.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 04:55 PM
  #364
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Why the heck would union leadership agree to this? Make the owners vote on an NHLPA proposal then. It doesn't make sense.
I agree. It does the union no good to vote on something that the leadership doesn't recommend.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:04 PM
  #365
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
If that punitive clause for front loaded deals goes through then the Luongo contract is going to have been a monumental cluster**** for Vancouver. The Canucks will have gotten 2 years of $1.5-2M cap savings in return for potentially 4-5 years of $4-$5.3M dead cap space.

We should just be thankful that the Sedins didn't get those deals as well. The Canucks would be looking at $10-15M in dead cap space 7-8 years from now. I can't believe some of these teams that are going to be screwed over with long tenured and powerful owners like Philadelphia, Detroit, New York, etc. are letting this find its way into the CBA.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:14 PM
  #366
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Sidebar
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Burger King bathroom
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,332
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuckles37 View Post
No major sources have mentioned this.

https://twitter.com/JonathanWillis/s...86217897472000


To me it sounds like the NHL decided to keep their offer from last week on the table, but they refuse to change anything in the offer.
Yep.

https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...99034390269952
Quote:
Brendan Morrison: players asked if they wanted to accept last week's proposal. You can guess the answer

Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:21 PM
  #367
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,959
vCash: 500
Why even waste the time of a mediator...

Tiranis is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:22 PM
  #368
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,988
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
If that punitive clause for front loaded deals goes through then the Luongo contract is going to have been a monumental cluster**** for Vancouver. The Canucks will have gotten 2 years of $1.5-2M cap savings in return for potentially 4-5 years of $4-$5.3M dead cap space.

We should just be thankful that the Sedins didn't get those deals as well. The Canucks would be looking at $10-15M in dead cap space 7-8 years from now. I can't believe some of these teams that are going to be screwed over with long tenured and powerful owners like Philadelphia, Detroit, New York, etc. are letting this find its way into the CBA.
They signed these contracts expecting their players to play them out. Honest they did, they said so when they signed them. Just be glad we only have 1 in Luongo. If Parise blows his knee out next year and becomes a 3rd liner for the next 10 years god forbid anything happens to Suter or the Wild are Doa for the next 10 years. At least Nashville could survive a Weber injury cap wise because they have space.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:26 PM
  #369
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Why the heck would union leadership agree to this? Make the owners vote on an NHLPA proposal then. It doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying they would - I'm just saying what I, as a fan, would like to see (even if it isn't realistic).

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 05:58 PM
  #370
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,207
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Why even waste the time of a mediator...
I don't know why they wouldn't meet face-to-face with the mediator, clearly meeting separately did nothing last time. Why the hell would it work again? Pretty sure that's what insanity is.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:00 PM
  #371
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,207
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taelin View Post
Team1040:
So stupid that they finally agree about HRR after it being such a central issue. It's like both sides are making excuses for this to drag out so long.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:04 PM
  #372
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Why the heck would union leadership agree to this? Make the owners vote on an NHLPA proposal then. It doesn't make sense.
Shouldn't the players decide what they deem fair? What is wrong with a democratic vote?

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:14 PM
  #373
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Shouldn't the players decide what they deem fair? What is wrong with a democratic vote?
Because there's an established protocol in place. The owners aren't going to vote on a proposal until Bettman, Jacobs, and Edwards have agreed to it and the players aren't going to vote on one until their negotiating team has agreed in principle.

You don't put half finished proposals (which is effectively what the NHL's is since it's just a rough outline meant for the NHLPA negotiators) to a membership vote. If the players really want to get back playing and take whatever's on the table then they need to put pressure on the negotiating committee to come to an agreement that they can vote on.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:17 PM
  #374
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Shouldn't the players decide what they deem fair? What is wrong with a democratic vote?
They'll put it to a vote when there is something to vote on.

The membership puts their faith in the negotiating team representing the union's best interests...I think we've seen enough players who have taken part in negotiations to get a good idea that they are fairly resolute about their position. The only people asking for a vote are a small group of ex-NHL'ers, a handful of current NHL'ers and a lot of whiney fans who just want their hockey back and don't have any vested interest in the outcome.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 06:58 PM
  #375
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,739
vCash: 500
@Mirtle:

"In conclusion: No one can agree on what's on the table - and even if it was on the table, the other side knows it doesn't want it. What fun."

ddawg1950 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 08:05 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.