Then the owner needs to hire better management and coaching.
Or rework the framework of the CBA, that should work How about a lower cap-floor, somehow I don't think the players would be open to the suggestion though
17) Moderator Abuse (Attacking/Disobeying the moderators): If you disagree with something the moderators did, fine, disagree and let us know, but do it politely through PM or email ONLY. Complaining on the forums is not permitted. If your thread or post was moved/closed/removed there was a good reason for it. Do not start a new one. Attacking or flaming a moderator via PM is subject to a Moderator Abuse infraction. Be respectful and considerate. Profanity and abusive conduct isn't tolerated.
Do not plead the first amendment and cite your right to free speech. It does not apply to the private sector. This is a privately owned website. Dancing around the rules, purposely skirting them just to see us twitch will not help you out much, either.
We don't need the silly Hitler references, folks. If you cannot participate in a discussion without dredging up thoughts of genocide you are on the wrong forum.
Before people start quoting this or PMing me confused, it is an issue I have noticed quite a bit during this entire Lockout. This isn't something new, nor is it directed at any particular poster.
__________________
You can take my wings, but I'm still gonna fly
For the life of me, I can't fathom why a majority of players are unwilling to accept a term-limit on contracts when such a small minority of players even receive contract offers that or 5 or more years in length.
The list is mostly of star players, but there are quite a few free agent signings that received outlandishly long contracts in order for teams to circumvent the cap. This is one loophole that has to be closed in the next CBA, and the players should learn to accept it.
Even more, the owners (I believe) were going to allow a max term of 7 years if you were re-signing with the team who held your rights. How many players on deals over 5 years long are NOT with the team that held their rights before that deal? I bet it cuts the number of deals that wouldn't be allowed under the proposed rule even smaller. It's a ridiculous minority of players, when you think about it.
This is the reasoning I've seen put forth by the media and players. Why is it naive? The idea is that guys like Malkin and Crosby will get paid no matter what. If they're on a 5 year contract, their cap hit will be higher. That could be between 3-4 million that doesn't get spread among other players on the team.
I personally believe it only affects a select few teams with megastars, but it's certainly not inaccurate. It could create a situation where those teams might not be able to build decent depth because players would rather go to teams with more cap money available to pay non superstars.
GMs try to build competitive teams. Players want to play on competitive teams. The idea that stars suddenly will eat all the cap space is silly. Teams that try to build teams that way will be less competitive and less desirable for stars. Teams where stars buy in will have a competitive advantage.
If Sedin's can accept a five year deal for $6.1M/year during the last lockout, big name players will do in during a new CBA with a limit to contract length.
I think there might be a slightly changed equilibrium where stars make a little bit more and marginal players a bit less but I can't see there being any cataclysmic shift.
It's probably hard to be honorable when you're being offered a boatload of money
This is the reasoning I've seen put forth by the media and players. Why is it naive? The idea is that guys like Malkin and Crosby will get paid no matter what. If they're on a 5 year contract, their cap hit will be higher. That could be between 3-4 million that doesn't get spread among other players on the team.
I personally believe it only affects a select few teams with megastars, but it's certainly not inaccurate. It could create a situation where those teams might not be able to build decent depth because players would rather go to teams with more cap money available to pay non superstars.
The problem is that it is not correct.
While it does increase cap space it lowers actual pay for those players. It means that the teams that can afford those deals get supported though escrow by the players on every team. And when the player falls far enough below his cap hit he will leave and some other player will take his place getting a skewed deal so the little guy (500k is little) never gets his share back
I remember when the last meetings with the mediators went dry. I remember one of the sides said that the mediators told them to call them back when they are close enough to make a deal, or something around those lines, so they can help close the deal.
Last week, the NHL made its call to the relief corps. It looked like Ron Burkle, Mark Chipman, Larry Tanenbaum and Jeff Vinik were going to combine for the save. But at the end, things went all Joey McLaughlin.
Now it's Don Fehr's turn. He's got an ace, the Mariano Rivera of last year's NBA lockout, in Jim Quinn.
Quinn's bio is here and it's, uh, not bad.
Thirteen months ago, Quinn reached out to the NBA and the National Basketball Players' Association to settle their insane, tortuous and destructive lockout. The union had filed its disclaimer of interest and things were disintegrating rapidly.
Quinn, who spent almost two decades as the NBPA's lead outside counsel and had a good working relationship with NBA commissioner David Stern, was invited to step in. Approximately 10 days later, he played a pivotal part in brokering a deal, thanks to several phone conversations with the particulars and a marathon 15-hour bargaining session.
He is available to do it again with the NHL's own insane, tortuous and destructive lockout.
Last edited by Beef Invictus: 12-11-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Reason: copyright rule
It is naive because it only looks at one side of the story. The players love to say how good it is for the middle class now, but what about later on? You cant have it both ways. Cheating the system at the beginning means getting screwed by the system at the end.
Sure, you may save $4M in cap space during the first years of the contract but you are wasting $4M in cap space at the end. That money is getting tied up no matter how it is allocated. Why not just level the AAV and only pay the players their market value for a shorter term.
Uh...of course it only looks at one side of the story. The post I was replying to wanted to know the players' reasoning, so I gave them the players' reasoning. It's not really my reasoning.
I personally don't care all that much about contract limits and such.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
"Eff our employees and the contracts we signed" is really understandable.
The players took advantage of an artificial bubble created by the cap going up to 70M and their agents helped exploit it. You're absolutely right, eff them
There are two things about his comments that amuse me.
1. The owners literally said, we want 'a,b and c' and we'll give you 'x, y and z' to get it. Maybe if these comments were a couple of weeks ago, I would understand, but the meetings last week literally had the owners expose their cards. They stopped playing games and basically said what they won't go forward without and what they're willing to do to get what they want. How can you say at this point that you don't know what the league wants? Maybe Gill needs to take Fehr up on his information sessions. He needs one.
2. A player already said that Fehr told the PA that they can still get a better deal than what the league last suggested to them during the discussions last week. If you just want to play, why is your PA using wasting time as a negotiation strategy?
And this is exactly why the players shouldn't say anything. Many times they say things that only conflict with information that's already out there or something that someone else from their own PA is saying. It's time to hang up the stupid PR talking points (from both sides). I don't doubt that both sides want to play, but both sides only want to play if the price is right for them so don't reduce the sentiment as if people are too stupid to figure it out.
Let's say you and I are negotiating and I have an internal deadline of Feb.1 that I don't tell you about. But you guess that my deadline is somewhere around that date. And one thing you know is that you won't see my best offer until that date.
Now it's early December and I make you an offer. Do you accept it knowing that I haven't reached my own personal pressure point?
Let's say you choose not to because you strongly believe there's something better to come. Does that mean you are wasting time or does it mean you are just reacting to a negotiating partner that you know to be willing to waste time?
How about a lower cap-floor, somehow I don't think the players would be open to the suggestion though
