HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

View Poll Results: OWNERS OR PLAYERS, who do you support
owners 75 62.50%
players 45 37.50%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 02:42 PM
  #351
MapleLeafGardens*
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
Mark Spector Sports‏@SportsnetSpec

Quote:
NHL counsel B.Batterman at mediator's NJ offices, as is Fehr this aft. No Daly, Bettman.

MapleLeafGardens* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:52 PM
  #352
shakes
Ancient Astronaut
 
shakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,205
vCash: 500
Anyone who believes that the owners are doing this for the "betterment of the game", I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. As well, this week only, a great deal on the CN Tower.

The owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. Who the hell told the teams that they should sign players to 10 year 100 million contracts? The PA? If they were so concerned about them, why did they offer them in the first place? Apparently Burke (and probably the Leafs) didn't believe in them and Burke didn't offer them. Kinda hard for me to be on the side of a bunch of greedy owners who have been taking and taking for years. Then again, I didn't play hockey at a high level so I'm not jealous of NHL players so I can't be so pro-owner as some of you.

This is the player's livelyhood. It's easy for all of you on HFBoards to say "take it, take it. I want hockey!" when it's not your paycheque... no matter how much that paycheque is. If you were highly skilled, you would make a lot of money too. It's not the point about how much they make. It's not even the point of "that they are playing a game for a living". I never understood what that had to do with anything. Is it an awsome job? Absolutely but why should they give up rights because their job is awesome?

shakes is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 02:56 PM
  #353
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KuleminFan41 View Post
Why should the PA take this deal?lol If Bettman truly believes Its the best deal they've offered then why should Fehr accept if Bettman will come back with another"best deal ever" lol
The only reason the PA should take the deal is if they truly believe this is the best offer from the NHL. The NHL has made it abundantly clear that the best offer is on the table so the PA has to make the call as to risk losing the entire season or not. If they just want to play, I think the answer is now obvious.

It's crunch time now, the League has gone all-in. Personally I think the mediators are a good move from the PA perspective as they allow them to save face if they cave in and accept the deal as it stands.

The PA and NHL in direct talks won't work any more and everyone knows why, so keep them separate via mediation and allow both sides to come to an understanding from afar, to me it's the only way given the personalities involved.

There's no more room for counter offers or PR moves. It's take the deal or cancel the season. I don't think the players are prepared to lose the season and the owners clearly are. The "hill we will die on" quote from Daly tells me all that I need to know.

Rinzler is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:00 PM
  #354
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes View Post
Anyone who believes that the owners are doing this for the "betterment of the game", I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. As well, this week only, a great deal on the CN Tower.

The owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. Who the hell told the teams that they should sign players to 10 year 100 million contracts? The PA? If they were so concerned about them, why did they offer them in the first place? Apparently Burke (and probably the Leafs) didn't believe in them and Burke didn't offer them. Kinda hard for me to be on the side of a bunch of greedy owners who have been taking and taking for years. Then again, I didn't play hockey at a high level so I'm not jealous of NHL players so I can't be so pro-owner as some of you.

This is the player's livelyhood. It's easy for all of you on HFBoards to say "take it, take it. I want hockey!" when it's not your paycheque... no matter how much that paycheque is. If you were highly skilled, you would make a lot of money too. It's not the point about how much they make. It's not even the point of "that they are playing a game for a living". I never understood what that had to do with anything. Is it an awsome job? Absolutely but why should they give up rights because their job is awesome?
Agreed. I was originally pro-owners but it's hard to ask anyone to give up 12% of their income for faults done by another party.

I think this comic about the recent issues at Hostess sums up the current state of affairs quite nicely:


anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:02 PM
  #355
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes View Post
Anyone who believes that the owners are doing this for the "betterment of the game", I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. As well, this week only, a great deal on the CN Tower.

The owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. Who the hell told the teams that they should sign players to 10 year 100 million contracts? The PA? If they were so concerned about them, why did they offer them in the first place? Apparently Burke (and probably the Leafs) didn't believe in them and Burke didn't offer them. Kinda hard for me to be on the side of a bunch of greedy owners who have been taking and taking for years. Then again, I didn't play hockey at a high level so I'm not jealous of NHL players so I can't be so pro-owner as some of you.
Way to generalize. A few owners exploit loopholes that weren't considered at the time the last CBA was accepted, and you lump all the owners into the same category. Burke, as well as many other GMs (and/or their employers) had the integrity to resists the win at all cost greedy mentality you speak of.

People make mistakes all the time, that includes business men. The question is, what do you do once you realize that mistake? Eliminating the currently known loopholes is absolutely in the best interest of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes View Post
This is the player's livelyhood. It's easy for all of you on HFBoards to say "take it, take it. I want hockey!" when it's not your paycheque... no matter how much that paycheque is. If you were highly skilled, you would make a lot of money too. It's not the point about how much they make. It's not even the point of "that they are playing a game for a living". I never understood what that had to do with anything. Is it an awsome job? Absolutely but why should they give up rights because their job is awesome?
Player's livelihood? $100M contracts? Seriously? Speaking of a swamp lands that needs purchasing...

It is about how much they make. It's the main reason for this lockout.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:05 PM
  #356
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Way to generalize. A few owners exploit loopholes that weren't considered at the time the last CBA was accepted, and you lump all the owners into the same category. Burke, as well as many other GMs (and/or their employers) had the integrity to resists the win at all cost greedy mentality you speak of.

People make mistakes all the time, that includes business men. The question is, what do you do once you realize that mistake? Eliminating the currently known loopholes is absolutely in the best interest of the game.



Player's livelihood? $100M contracts? Seriously? Speaking of a swamp lands that needs purchasing...

It is about how much they make. It's the main reason for this lockout.
They aren't trying to just eliminate loopholes, their trying to take other things away as well. Those "loopholes" also presented mutual benefit for both parties, like lower cap hit to help teams stack their talent at the cost of longevity.

anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:06 PM
  #357
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakes View Post
Anyone who believes that the owners are doing this for the "betterment of the game", I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. As well, this week only, a great deal on the CN Tower.

The owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. Who the hell told the teams that they should sign players to 10 year 100 million contracts? The PA? If they were so concerned about them, why did they offer them in the first place? Apparently Burke (and probably the Leafs) didn't believe in them and Burke didn't offer them. Kinda hard for me to be on the side of a bunch of greedy owners who have been taking and taking for years. Then again, I didn't play hockey at a high level so I'm not jealous of NHL players so I can't be so pro-owner as some of you.

This is the player's livelyhood. It's easy for all of you on HFBoards to say "take it, take it. I want hockey!" when it's not your paycheque... no matter how much that paycheque is. If you were highly skilled, you would make a lot of money too. It's not the point about how much they make. It's not even the point of "that they are playing a game for a living". I never understood what that had to do with anything. Is it an awsome job? Absolutely but why should they give up rights because their job is awesome?
You're right, the owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. But guess what? It's their league and their business, they can run it as they please. It's pointless to take sides in this because both share the blame.

Players taking those massive deals knew exactly what the consequences would be. The owners knew that the contracts would destabilize the game and so did the players. The rules let it happen and competition took over. At the end of the day the owners want to win and want to maintain their fan base so they shot themselves in the foot.

The CBA negotiations are the only opportunity to resolve these system issues regardless of whom the culprits may be. It is what it is and the root cause is irrelevant, the problem needs to be resolved through the CBA and that is the bottom line.

Rinzler is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:18 PM
  #358
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson3133 View Post
They aren't trying to just eliminate loopholes, their trying to take other things away as well. Those "loopholes" also presented mutual benefit for both parties, like lower cap hit to help teams stack their talent at the cost of longevity.
So exploiting loopholes is moral, as long as both parties turn a blind eye to it? It's obvious that it was not the intent of the league when the last CBA was signed. If the league wanted stacked teams, and dynasties, there was no point introducing the salary cap.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:21 PM
  #359
MakeTheIronSing
Registered User
 
MakeTheIronSing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinzler View Post
You're right, the owners are trying to fix their own stupidity. But guess what? It's their league and their business, they can run it as they please. It's pointless to take sides in this because both share the blame.

Players taking those massive deals knew exactly what the consequences would be. The owners knew that the contracts would destabilize the game and so did the players. The rules let it happen and competition took over. At the end of the day the owners want to win and want to maintain their fan base so they shot themselves in the foot.

The CBA negotiations are the only opportunity to resolve these system issues regardless of whom the culprits may be. It is what it is and the root cause is irrelevant, the problem needs to be resolved through the CBA and that is the bottom line.
That's a very dangerous approach that a lot of owners hopefully do not follow. This is a league built from the ground up by butts in the seats and the passion for the game by the fans. They dictate the salaries, not the owners. Revenue, salaries, tv deals, staff payroll all comes from the fans at the end of of a convoluted chain of ****. This league, while it is a billion dollar industry, is still only as good as the fans allow it to be, and to think that everyone is helpless against a bunch of squabbling between millionaires about how to spend OUR money is nonsense.

MakeTheIronSing is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:28 PM
  #360
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
So exploiting loopholes is moral, as long as both parties turn a blind eye to it? It's obvious that it was not the intent of the league when the last CBA was signed. If the league wanted stacked teams, and dynasties, there was no point introducing the salary cap.
I agree that their should be limitations on these as it poses a benefit to our Leafs. However, it's not as black/white as some think.

A lot of these guys were team players in taking long term deals to keep their teams intact and should not be vilified for the owners' willingness to hand them out.

anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:32 PM
  #361
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeTheIronSing View Post
That's a very dangerous approach that a lot of owners hopefully do not follow. This is a league built from the ground up by butts in the seats and the passion for the game by the fans. They dictate the salaries, not the owners. Revenue, salaries, tv deals, staff payroll all comes from the fans at the end of of a convoluted chain of ****. This league, while it is a billion dollar industry, is still only as good as the fans allow it to be, and to think that everyone is helpless against a bunch of squabbling between millionaires about how to spend OUR money is nonsense.
You get no argument from me. This argument translates to all businesses. Without revenue the employees don't get paid and the employers cannot run their business. At the end of the day the patrons (you and I) pay their salaries. This argument is implicit and unfortunately not a factor which is frustrating to say the least.

We the fans are denoted by 3.3 Billion dollars. This description is sorely lacking and does nothing to address fan apathy. The truth is neither side really cares about us, they care about #1 first. Otherwise there would be no work stoppages. (this is not an invitation to discuss lockout vs strike, they are two sides of the same coin).

Rinzler is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 03:52 PM
  #362
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson3133 View Post
A lot of these guys were team players in taking long term deals to keep their teams intact and should not be vilified for the owners' willingness to hand them out.
Let's not get carried away here. It's not like most of the players in question sacrificed anything by taking the long term contracts. They gained more job security, and in a lot of cases inflated contracts that they wouldn't have been able to get if they had to qualify for a new contract every 5 (or so) years. If they want to keep their teams intact so much, how about taking a hometown discount?

Having said that, I don't blame the players at all for signing those fat contracts, just like I don't blame Komisarek for signing his. They would have been idiots not to. That part is all on the owners. The unwillingness to fix the problem (since it's not in those select few's personal interest) is largely on the PA, though.


Last edited by 4evaBlue: 12-13-2012 at 03:58 PM.
4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:01 PM
  #363
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Let's not get carried away here. It's not like most of the in question sacrificed anything by taking the long term contracts. They gained more job security, and in a lot of cases inflated contracts that they wouldn't have been able to get if they had to qualify for a new contract every 5 (or so) years. If they want to keep their teams intact so much, how about taking a hometown discount?

Having said that, I don't blame the players at all for signing those fat contracts, just like I don't blame Komisarek for signing his. They would have been idiots not to. That part is all on the owners. The unwillingness to fix the problem (since it's not in those select few's personal interest) is largely on the PA, though.
I agree with you though I feel blaming the owners for the problem exclusively isn't accurate either. Look no further than Brian Burke to find out what happens to a GM who makes a call to a star player UFA who isn't willing to hand out one of these contracts. If they had the option, they would have steered clear of these contracts. Players and their agents made it clear that in order to get to the table you must come with a lifetime contract.

They knew what they were doing and they played the system to get what they wanted despite knowing full well what would happen. The GMs cannot collude, so what do they do? They try to win and do the deal despite it being against their long term best interest. Everyone makes it sound like the GMs were giving these contracts because they wanted to, they don't trust me on this.

Both sides share the blame. I do blame the owners 100% for lacking the foresight into this back in 04 though.

Rinzler is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:13 PM
  #364
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Let's not get carried away here. It's not like most of the players in question sacrificed anything by taking the long term contracts. They gained more job security, and in a lot of cases inflated contracts that they wouldn't have been able to get if they had to qualify for a new contract every 5 (or so) years. If they want to keep their teams intact so much, how about taking a hometown discount?

Having said that, I don't blame the players at all for signing those fat contracts, just like I don't blame Komisarek for signing his. They would have been idiots not to. That part is all on the owners. The unwillingness to fix the problem (since it's not in those select few's personal interest) is largely on the PA, though.
Why did you snip the rest of my comment which states that these affairs are not simply black/white?

I'm in agreement with you. Both parties stood to benefit from these deals (the owners in the short run and the players in the long run).

anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:15 PM
  #365
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinzler View Post
I agree with you though I feel blaming the owners for the problem exclusively isn't accurate either. Look no further than Brian Burke to find out what happens to a GM who makes a call to a star player UFA who isn't willing to hand out one of these contracts. If they had the option, they would have steered clear of these contracts. Players and their agents made it clear that in order to get to the table you must come with a lifetime contract.

They knew what they were doing and they played the system to get what they wanted despite knowing full well what would happen. The GMs cannot collude, so what do they do? They try to win and do the deal despite it being against their long term best interest. Everyone makes it sound like the GMs were giving these contracts because they wanted to, they don't trust me on this.

Both sides share the blame. I do blame the owners 100% for lacking the foresight into this back in 04 though.
Fair point.

I do have to add, though. If all the GMs in the league had as much integrity as Burke does, the likes of Parise, Suter, Richards would either be playing in the KHL full time, or would have accepted a much shorter term after sitting out half a season, sulking. Noone is really holding a gun to the GMs' heads.

Either way, at this point, it serves no good pointing fingers. They both need to first recognize the problem (I don't believe the PA has done this yet), and figure out a way to fix it.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:18 PM
  #366
4evaBlue
Corsi != Possession
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson3133 View Post
Why did you snip the rest of my comment which states that these affairs are not simply black/white?
Because, I agree, no conflict is ever completely black or white. Those only exist in fairy tales. I have mentioned numerous times in this thread that owners deserve plenty of the blame for this mess both sides created.

I generally only include the specific sections that I respond to in the quotes.

4evaBlue is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 04:19 PM
  #367
MapleLeafGardens*
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Way to generalize. A few owners exploit loopholes that weren't considered at the time the last CBA was accepted, and you lump all the owners into the same category. Burke, as well as many other GMs (and/or their employers) had the integrity to resists the win at all cost greedy mentality you speak of.

People make mistakes all the time, that includes business men. The question is, what do you do once you realize that mistake? Eliminating the currently known loopholes is absolutely in the best interest of the game.



Player's livelihood? $100M contracts? Seriously? Speaking of a swamp lands that needs purchasing...

It is about how much they make. It's the main reason for this lockout.
This ^^^ and it's a well known fact through these negotiations that Bettman and the NHL have come out and admitted they made mistakes in the last CBA and are trying to correct their business model in the new CBA. Everbody knows the NHL screwed up the last CBA they are trying to correct issues that need fixing in the new CBA.

Mark Cuban's comments on the lockout...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...6933--nhl.html

When Mark Cuban speaks about the NHL, we listen.

Not just because he's a Dallas Stars season-ticket holder and a Pittsburgh Penguins fan, but because you know his words will be marinated in controversy, insight and the occasional expletive, but because he's a forward-thinking sports businessman that would have been an asset to the League's ownership ranks had he ever bought into hockey.

Why hasn't he? Cuban considers the NHL's business model to be broken.

Hence, he supports the NHL and its owners in the current lockout, as he did in the previous one; if this is their "hill to die on," then better to perish than allow a broken system to continue to damage the League.

In Feb. 2005, the Dallas Mavericks owner wrote a scathing attack on Bob Goodenow in which he congratulated the NHLPA chief on losing "1 billion dollars that NHL players will never, ever, ever collect." From Blog Maverick:

The good news is that the NHL stuck to its guns. A strong financial foundation will make the league more viable in the short and long term. That will benefit NHL players far more than anything the NHLPA has done. Why was it so tough for Goodenow to realize that businesses that are at least breaking even can pay more money to more employees than businesses that are losing money?

In spite of Goodenow, the NHL's strength of conviction means that kids around the worldwho are putting their heartsand souls into hockey with dreams of playing in the NHL can rest easy. The NHL didn't cave. They will survive.

The NHL didn't just survive it thrived, to the tune of $3.3 billion in revenues annually. But seven years later, another lockout arrives; and Mark Cuban, via CSN New England, still has the League's back vs. the union:

"When you have all your southern franchises basically sucking wind, there's a message there that you have to fix it. I mean, you have two different worlds; the north and the south. It's kind of like the civil war right now going on, and it's got to be fixed. So, yeah I'd cringe more as a hockey fan. I'd cringe more if they don't fix it. Just like the last one, it's only been like seven years right? But I even wrote a blog back then that they should have fixed it, and they didn't."

MapleLeafGardens* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:14 PM
  #368
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,381
vCash: 500
Forbes: NHL should be 20-team league

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...0_team_league/

Quote:
A report from Forbes suggests the only way the National Hockey League can thrive financially is if it drops from 30 down to 20 teams.

The publication argues: "Trimming back player salaries from 57% of revenue to 50% won't solve the fundamental problem. Neither will throwing a bit more of the New York Rangers' or Montreal Canadiens' money to the St. Louis Blues and Florida Panthers. That's because the fundamental problem is this: the NHL has 30 teams when it should have 20 teams. Time to start chopping."

Budsfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:42 PM
  #369
Anthrax442
Registered User
 
Anthrax442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,222
vCash: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budsfan View Post
Forbes: NHL should be 20-team league

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...0_team_league/
I agree. The quality of hockey would be superb.

Anthrax442 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:52 PM
  #370
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrax442 View Post
I agree. The quality of hockey would be superb.
Well they really don't need to axe that many teams, they can move some , how many I don't know, places like Quebec City and a few others but basically put them into places, that actually wants and will support NHL hockey.

Budsfan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 05:56 PM
  #371
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto/Fredericton
Country: India
Posts: 73,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrax442 View Post
I agree. The quality of hockey would be superb.
I am not so sure so I can't comment but talent would be magnified and prospect pools would be richer, but wouldn't many opt out to go to the KHL then?

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:11 PM
  #372
Woll Smoth
Registered User
 
Woll Smoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,578
vCash: 50
Trimming the league down to 20 teams would greatly increase the average player salary. Better players competing for ~200 less jobs.

The middle of the pack (in terms of $$) would just turn into what the poorer teams are now.

Woll Smoth is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:35 PM
  #373
Anthrax442
Registered User
 
Anthrax442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,222
vCash: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Rocket View Post
I am not so sure so I can't comment but talent would be magnified and prospect pools would be richer, but wouldn't many opt out to go to the KHL then?
People view KHL as a bottomless pit. It's a 4 year old league that has a very crappy infrastructure, teams that are located in very tough to live for foreigners markets, they average under 6,000 fans across the league. Some owners have money, but the number of players they would sign for 5+ mil is extremely limited. (2-3).

Anthrax442 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:49 PM
  #374
MapleLeafGardens*
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
TSN's That's Hockey reporting tonight one NHL Board Of Governor's proposed deal to end lockout...

9 year CBA (7 year opt out)

6 year contract limit (front-load/back-diving protection)

Simple buyout option (if buyouts are within cap)

Mike Johnson offered the PA would be interested...but i'm sure the mediators have tried this proposal and were probably rejected by the NHL.

MapleLeafGardens* is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 06:54 PM
  #375
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto/Fredericton
Country: India
Posts: 73,896
vCash: 500
Well then...that died down quickly.

Leaf Rocket 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 03:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.