HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
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
12-09-2012, 12:01 PM
  #126
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Everyone involved, with the exception of Fehr, will lose as a result of this process. Players will likely lose the most, while Fehr solidifies his legacy by not "caving in" to the league's proposals. A bit ironic.

4evaBlue is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:01 PM
  #127
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
I don't believe the players who oppose the 5 year term limit, and the year-to-year variance will accept such a term. They believe that they're entitled to the retirement contracts they have "earned".
I think they should remove all make-whole money, but allow the players to tear up their existing deals.

But the option should be up to the player.

Accept a 12% reduction on those retirement deals, or become UFA and negotiate best deal they can get under 50/50.

I would allow teams to make-whole outside the Cap system at their own option.

Example, if you have already paid several huge years of a retirement deal, why would you not make-whole on the lessor portions of the contract?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:13 PM
  #128
showtime8
Registered User
 
showtime8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Everyone involved, with the exception of Fehr, will lose as a result of this process. Players will likely lose the most, while Fehr solidifies his legacy by not "caving in" to the league's proposals. A bit ironic.
Funny how that works and exactly right.

I'm sure Gary Bettman wasn't expecting this sort of resistance from the players, but really I think it was a bit nieve for him to not see it coming from Fehr.

I think that they are very similar in the type of negotiating styles. The bend but don't break with the mentality that they are getting paid, so it can drag on as long as possible. That means that they are both trying to make it seem like they are trying to get a deal with, as you said, preserve their own legacy. I don't get it from Bettman's side as to what he's trying to save. He's managed to bring a lot of headache to both the NBA and the NHL in both his tenures.

showtime8 is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:23 PM
  #129
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
I think they should do 10 years as a limit. 5 is never going to happen unless Goodenow (sp) comes back. But have the limit on salary ranging year by year.

Leafs For Life* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:24 PM
  #130
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by showtime8 View Post
Funny how that works and exactly right.

I'm sure Gary Bettman wasn't expecting this sort of resistance from the players, but really I think it was a bit nieve for him to not see it coming from Fehr.

I think that they are very similar in the type of negotiating styles. The bend but don't break with the mentality that they are getting paid, so it can drag on as long as possible. That means that they are both trying to make it seem like they are trying to get a deal with, as you said, preserve their own legacy. I don't get it from Bettman's side as to what he's trying to save. He's managed to bring a lot of headache to both the NBA and the NHL in both his tenures.
Bettman looked emotionally distraught the other night.

Losing a 2nd. complete season under his guidance isn't what he wants his legacy to be.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:41 PM
  #131
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan16 View Post
I think they should do 10 years as a limit. 5 is never going to happen unless Goodenow (sp) comes back. But have the limit on salary ranging year by year.
If you look at the NHL owners offer, the 5 year 5% doesn't add up.

If the entire contract is limited to 5 years, why would you worry about movement within 5 years?

The retirement deals of 10-15 years allow for huge movement, but on a 5 year deal, how far could you even move under the old terms?

One of these 5% or 5 years is a red herring.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:49 PM
  #132
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Everyone involved, with the exception of Fehr, will lose as a result of this process. Players will likely lose the most, while Fehr solidifies his legacy by not "caving in" to the league's proposals. A bit ironic.
Actually, not caving in is ultimately good for the players side, if not some of the individual players because it could be a deterrent for the owners using the lockout as the first tactic in negotiations. The owners side shouldn't be holding the game hostage in their attrition wars just to strong arm the other side every few years.

Sure some veterans could find themselves out of NHL work once the game starts up again, but I imagine that if the lockout is painful enough on the owners that they won't want to automatically go down this road next time, it could save us all from another lockout in 2020 or whenever.

Stephen is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:50 PM
  #133
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,058
vCash: 500
To get around the stupid issue of these crazy deals, each team should be given one contract that falls outside of the cap.

Stephen is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:57 PM
  #134
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
We should look at the NHL as a business and they are trying to address poor locations with the lock-out.

The expectations should be that the lock-out lottery will be to aide those franchises that need propping up, and that isn't the Leafs, Canadiens, or other financially strong teams.

My expectation is that teams like the Blues, Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers will be gifted the best picks from the lock-out lottery.

Leafs fans will return, they place no demands on a winning team to fill the cash box, so there is absolutely no reason to gift them a top 5 pick.

Leafs fans have built their reputation of being easily satisfied with decades of filling their arena. Bettman takes that for granted and will continue to focus on the welfare clubs.
The Habs got a top-5 pick the last time, and the player they got with that pick is currently their MVP. But yeah, I agree, I can't see the Leafs getting a top pick.

Regarding the feelings that many Leafs fans have that they are financing the poor teams with zero benefit, I don't agree with that. That money the poor teams receive can allow them to put together a better team, which means a better product when they face the Leafs.

I don't know about others, but I wouldn't to see the Leafs face the Habs, Rangers, and Wings 25 times a year. Look at the some of the best rivalries the Leafs have had in recent history. Teams like the Sens, Sabres, and even though it was very short-lived, the Islanders. None of those teams would likely be around if the big market teams continued to drive up the price of doing business.

asdf is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:06 PM
  #135
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Funny how many posters here wanted the NHLPA to sign the first deal put on the table.

Again, the results of the agreement will not help the fans at all. Ticket prices will not be reduced, people in Phoenix don't buy $25 tickets today, selling $12 tickets might get more people there, but it doesn't improve the financials of the league.

I still think they should allow players to go UFA status if the teams don't want to make whole. If the team doesn't want to pay don't force them, allow the players to decide if they will play under a 12% reduction or if they'd like to tear up the contracts and move on. All new contracts would have to fit in the 50/50 system, so going forward teams wouldn't have to make whole.
Well a player contract buyout is at a 2/3rds rate paid out over twice (2X) term remaining. So Owners can under the current system pay only 66.66% (33.33% savings) and make the player a UFA.

Why a lockout and loss of huge revenue in order to get 12% reduction + (% of $300 mil make whole).

33.33 % - 12% = 21.33% differential.

Of that 21.33% how much is gained by an owner when he factors in loss revenue due to lockout, and paying out $300 mil of $450 mil owing (ie $300/$450 =66.66%) Notice $300 mil or 66.66% make whole is the same rate of payment as a contract buyout.

I'm betting the financial costs/opportunity revenue losses are much higher than a simply buyout to save money on player salaries.

Perhaps Bettman by his unwillingness to negotiate, is orchestrating a NHLPA decertification and forcing salary savings for Owners by ripping up exiting contracts so Owners can have a do over.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:19 PM
  #136
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf View Post
The Habs got a top-5 pick the last time, and the player they got with that pick is currently their MVP. But yeah, I agree, I can't see the Leafs getting a top pick.

Regarding the feelings that many Leafs fans have that they are financing the poor teams with zero benefit, I don't agree with that. That money the poor teams receive can allow them to put together a better team, which means a better product when they face the Leafs.
I don't see any benefit whatsoever when the Islanders come rolling in with our hometown boy scoring a hatty against us with a portion of his salary paid for by us, only to log onto hfboards and have all 29 fanbases tell us how stupid Leafs fans are.

I'd rather go Russian Billionaire in the BPL on those second rate franchises, poach all their star talent and watch the Leafs crush those teams night in and night out and run out of space for championship banners in the rafters.

Parity flat out sucks.

Stephen is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:20 PM
  #137
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Actually, not caving in is ultimately good for the players side, if not some of the individual players because it could be a deterrent for the owners using the lockout as the first tactic in negotiations. The owners side shouldn't be holding the game hostage in their attrition wars just to strong arm the other side every few years.
There is no season without a CBA. It's as simple as that. If the players really wanted to avoid a lockout (which they had to know was impending), they would have started negotiations a year ago.

It's the owners who want a 10 year CBA length, and the PA who wants to repeat this crap again in 5 years. Who's holding who hostage? It sucks for the future stars that their contracts will not be able to exploit the cap to get retarded deals, but it needed to be fixed, and is the main focus behind the new CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Sure some veterans could find themselves out of NHL work once the game starts up again, but I imagine that if the lockout is painful enough on the owners that they won't want to automatically go down this road next time, it could save us all from another lockout in 2020 or whenever.
It's a lot more painful for the players. The majority of the owners could hold out for years, and not be affected much (1/3rd of the franchises are losing money or breaking even). Sure, some teams may whither and die, and it won't be good times for the select few owners, but that would also result in less NHL players needed to field the teams that are left over. Then again, it's the superstars who are driving the bus now, and I seriously doubt they care about such minor inconveniences as long as they get their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
To get around the stupid issue of these crazy deals, each team should be given one contract that falls outside of the cap.
I don't see the owners agreeing to any sort of amnesty, or additional payments (make-whole) outside of the cap, as I believe some owners / GMs will find a way to exploit it. The GMs were warned after the Kovalchuk debacle that there would be consequences for using these loopholes, and I believe they will be hit hard. Amnesty is probably about the furthest though on owners' minds right about now.

The major difference between Bettman and Fehr is that Gary is trying to do what's best for the future health and growth of the game. I really believe Fehr could care less if there's a season or not.

4evaBlue is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:22 PM
  #138
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I don't see any benefit whatsoever when the Islanders come rolling in with our hometown boy scoring a hatty against us with a portion of his salary paid for by us, only to log onto hfboards and have all 29 fanbases tell us how stupid Leafs fans are.

I'd rather go Russian Billionaire in the BPL on those second rate franchises, poach all their star talent and watch the Leafs crush those teams night in and night out and run out of space for championship banners in the rafters.

Parity flat out sucks.
Maybe they should go back to having a 6 team league. The league could be just like the CFL.

4evaBlue is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:28 PM
  #139
Jerkini
Registered User
 
Jerkini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I don't see any benefit whatsoever when the Islanders come rolling in with our hometown boy scoring a hatty against us with a portion of his salary paid for by us, only to log onto hfboards and have all 29 fanbases tell us how stupid Leafs fans are.

I'd rather go Russian Billionaire in the BPL on those second rate franchises, poach all their star talent and watch the Leafs crush those teams night in and night out and run out of space for championship banners in the rafters.

Parity flat out sucks.
I pretty much agree with everything you just said.

Jerkini is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:34 PM
  #140
showtime8
Registered User
 
showtime8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Bettman looked emotionally distraught the other night.

Losing a 2nd. complete season under his guidance isn't what he wants his legacy to be.
I don't think that he has much choice.

It doesn't really look like he wants to fold his side either.

showtime8 is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:49 PM
  #141
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
Maybe they should go back to having a 6 team league. The league could be just like the CFL.
Sports is about excellence and competition. Granted, this sounds hilarious coming from a Toronto Maple Leafs perspective, given the sad state of affairs in Leaf Land, but I just can't understand why the strongest, richest entity in the game has to be held down just to give all those weak sister window dressing teams a chance at survival and success.

Stephen is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:53 PM
  #142
p.l.f.
mvp
 
p.l.f.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 34,625
vCash: 500
secret exclusive email !

Bettman@hotmail.com to Fehr@hotmail.com

Yes or No ?

Fehr@hotmail.com to Bettman@hotmail.com

.....working on a counter proposal

p.l.f. is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:57 PM
  #143
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Well a player contract buyout is at a 2/3rds rate paid out over twice (2X) term remaining. So Owners can under the current system pay only 66.66% (33.33% savings) and make the player a UFA.

Why a lockout and loss of huge revenue in order to get 12% reduction + (% of $300 mil make whole).

33.33 % - 12% = 21.33% differential.

Of that 21.33% how much is gained by an owner when he factors in loss revenue due to lockout, and paying out $300 mil of $450 mil owing (ie $300/$450 =66.66%) Notice $300 mil or 66.66% make whole is the same rate of payment as a contract buyout.

I'm betting the financial costs/opportunity revenue losses are much higher than a simply buyout to save money on player salaries.

Perhaps Bettman by his unwillingness to negotiate, is orchestrating a NHLPA decertification and forcing salary savings for Owners by ripping up exiting contracts so Owners can have a do over.
I'm not suggesting the owner buy-out the contracts, I'm saying let the players decide if they want to be declared UFA. No money changing hands, just a player saying the contract is declared null and void.

However, if the player is willing to play under his existing contract minus 12%, it is solely his decision.

I would provide the teams the option to top up that 12% without it counting against the cap.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:00 PM
  #144
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4evaBlue View Post
The major difference between Bettman and Fehr is that Gary is trying to do what's best for the future health and growth of the game. I really believe Fehr could care less if there's a season or not.
The major difference between Bettman and Fehr is their employer.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 02:05 PM
  #145
asdf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country:
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I don't see any benefit whatsoever when the Islanders come rolling in with our hometown boy scoring a hatty against us with a portion of his salary paid for by us, only to log onto hfboards and have all 29 fanbases tell us how stupid Leafs fans are.

I'd rather go Russian Billionaire in the BPL on those second rate franchises, poach all their star talent and watch the Leafs crush those teams night in and night out and run out of space for championship banners in the rafters.

Parity flat out sucks.
To each their own. I agree that parity has drawbacks, but if the Leafs don't want their hometown boy scoring a hattrick against them, then put together a team that's good enough to prevent their hometown boy from a hattrick against them.

I don't get this notion that the Leafs would be some juggernaut if the crippling salary cap and revenue sharing were abolished. They had free reign to do this prior to 2004, and while they had some very good teams, they were never truly amongst the upper echelon.

asdf is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:07 PM
  #146
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf View Post
To each their own. I agree that parity has drawbacks, but if the Leafs don't want their hometown boy scoring a hattrick against them, then put together a team that's good enough to prevent their hometown boy from a hattrick against them.

I don't get this notion that the Leafs would be some juggernaut if the crippling salary cap and revenue sharing were abolished. They had free reign to do this prior to 2004, and while they had some very good teams, they were never truly amongst the upper echelon.
2000 - 7th. overall
2001 - 14th.
2002 - 3rd.
2003 - 9th.
2004 - 5th.

Certainly much different than

2009 - 7th. last
2010 - 2nd. last
2011 - 9th. last
2012 - 5th. last

Not sure there is much debate that the Leafs were pertinent when they spent money.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:07 PM
  #147
Kurtz
Registered User
 
Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Actually, not caving in is ultimately good for the players side, if not some of the individual players because it could be a deterrent for the owners using the lockout as the first tactic in negotiations.

I heard similar notions repeated several times, and every time it sounds more ridiculous to me.

There is only one deterrent to owners not considering lockouts - and that is if most of them are making money.

Guess what...when only 40% of the owners are making money, a lockout will always be an acceptable alternative.

Kurtz is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:10 PM
  #148
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Sports is about excellence and competition. Granted, this sounds hilarious coming from a Toronto Maple Leafs perspective, given the sad state of affairs in Leaf Land, but I just can't understand why the strongest, richest entity in the game has to be held down just to give all those weak sister window dressing teams a chance at survival and success.
So you believe that having a league where the majority of the games are lopsided, and only a handful of games are actually worth watching any given week is the way to go? I don't doubt it'd be good for the Leafs' fanbase for a while, but for the sport? Not so much.

4evaBlue is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:19 PM
  #149
4evaBlue
Registered User
 
4evaBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
The major difference between Bettman and Fehr is their employer.
So you believe whatever Fehr is after is in the best interest of the game?

4evaBlue is online now  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:21 PM
  #150
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
I'm not suggesting the owner buy-out the contracts, I'm saying let the players decide if they want to be declared UFA. No money changing hands, just a player saying the contract is declared null and void.

However, if the player is willing to play under his existing contract minus 12%, it is solely his decision.

I would provide the teams the option to top up that 12% without it counting against the cap.
I follow what yor're saying and in fact love the suggestion..

Any owner that is unwilling to pay a binding contract in full that he negotiated in what was believed to be consummated in good faith is fraud.. That should allow the player the option to void the deal (if he wants to) to become a UFA and sign a new contract with another team's owner that will honour in full.

It would send the fear throughout the owners as its likely the stars that will cut themselves loose, while the average players would stay and take the 12% paycut.

Mess 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 06:47 PM.

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.