HFBoards

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

2012 CBA/Lockout talk Part VII..Will a deal get done..

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 09:30 PM
  #926
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
Kidding I know, but there's something to be said for not following certain people on twitter. Lots of sound and fury out there that signifies nothing.
All joking aside Artemis, totally agree. Couple of problems with twitter: It's being used in a form it wasn't intended to be used in and the 140 character limit. I wish some of those people would invest in something like tweet longer or something similar that by-passes that.

But even Pierre LeBrun's tweet (who I have the utmost respect for) gives a whole different meaning to his tweet just by leaving out one word - separately.

To me twitter is suppose to be the medium that leads to a longer and more detailed explanation via an actual article, much like Elliotte Friedman does. His tweets are almost always followed by an in depth piece at the end of the day.

I know you are very good at it, but it's then up to us to follow up on those tweets. And for that reason, I'm very picky about who I follow.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:32 PM
  #927
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
7 by my count Mike.

Real smart play by Fehr here. If the NHL really is serious that this is meant to help the smaller market teams as opposed to penalizing the big teams that spent to the cap, then they'd have a hell of a lot of explaining to do if they fail to accept this.

See, I can fight the players side too
It helps the smaller market teams financially right now sure because it allows them to spend less on talent.

Does it help the on ice product though? Being a fan of a team operating 21 million below the current cap won't likely entice many to come out and spend their money on the games.

Does it help those teams be competitive?

Does that lack of competitiveness help them long term?

Still say anything that hurts parity is an issue. If they accept a compromise of 65 million then don't lower the floor. Set it at 49 million and whatever teams can't handle the strain financially can blow up.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:44 PM
  #928
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
All joking aside Artemis, totally agree. Couple of problems with twitter: It's being used in a form it wasn't intended to be used in and the 140 character limit. I wish some of those people would invest in something like tweet longer or something similar that by-passes that.

But even Pierre LeBrun's tweet (who I have the utmost respect for) gives a whole different meaning to his tweet just by leaving out one word - separately.

To me twitter is suppose to be the medium that leads to a longer and more detailed explanation via an actual article, much like Elliotte Friedman does. His tweets are almost always followed by an in depth piece at the end of the day.

I know you are very good at it, but it's then up to us to follow up on those tweets. And for that reason, I'm very picky about who I follow.
That was kind of my point. Im not referring to the Eklund and Insiderrs of the world, sources that I would typically consider fairly legitimate have even fallen victim to the madness with this lockout. It's fascinating.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:08 PM
  #929
Spooner st
Registered User
 
Spooner st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,498
vCash: 500
HayesTSN: So, Letang decides to leave for the KHL when the momentum appears to be moving towards a deal? Interesting.

Spooner st is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:17 PM
  #930
Jack Donaghy
Good God Lemon
 
Jack Donaghy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somerville MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooner st View Post
HayesTSN: So, Letang decides to leave for the KHL when the momentum appears to be moving towards a deal? Interesting.
Ridiculous.

Jack Donaghy is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:19 PM
  #931
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooner st View Post
HayesTSN: So, Letang decides to leave for the KHL when the momentum appears to be moving towards a deal? Interesting.
Reasons to do something so absurd:

1. You dont believe a deal will get done
2. The thrill of unsafe air travel
3. Gambling problem

Not suggesting any...just reasons I can think of.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:20 PM
  #932
Kelly23
Pedroia and Drew
 
Kelly23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 5,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LancelotLink View Post
Ridiculous.
Letang is also a player that loves to dive so take it with a grain of salt he is a db and some pens fans say he sucks on the PP.

Kelly23 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:22 PM
  #933
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 26,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly23 View Post
Letang is also a player that loves to dive so take it with a grain of salt he is a db and some pens fans say he sucks on the PP.
Oh my.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:25 PM
  #934
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
All joking aside Artemis, totally agree. Couple of problems with twitter: It's being used in a form it wasn't intended to be used in and the 140 character limit. I wish some of those people would invest in something like tweet longer or something similar that by-passes that.

But even Pierre LeBrun's tweet (who I have the utmost respect for) gives a whole different meaning to his tweet just by leaving out one word - separately.

To me twitter is suppose to be the medium that leads to a longer and more detailed explanation via an actual article, much like Elliotte Friedman does. His tweets are almost always followed by an in depth piece at the end of the day.

I know you are very good at it, but it's then up to us to follow up on those tweets. And for that reason, I'm very picky about who I follow.
There are two problems with twitter I see, one to do with situations such as the current one, and the other more general.

1. Newspeople tweeting speculation and hearsay, which is treated as news.

2. Reporters who can't write clearly or concisely. Dreger for example has tweeted a few comments (which I've seen posted or retweeted; I don't follow him) that are practically gibberish. As you said about LeBrun, leaving out a word or not using a word properly can make a huge difference.

Twitter is a tool. In itself it's not good or bad; it just needs to be used properly.

Artemis is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:26 PM
  #935
Jack Donaghy
Good God Lemon
 
Jack Donaghy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somerville MA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruwinz37 View Post
oh my.
lol!

Jack Donaghy is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:47 PM
  #936
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UConn126 View Post
This is just dumb at this point. Why weren't the negotiations moving this rapidly back in September?
Because 8 (right?) teams were losing money and many owners felt cost of free agents and league expenditure was too high, so they just saved over a billion JUST in player salaries. Not to mention travel, fuel, food, trainers, doctors, you name it. Now they will get what they want in the end. Revenue will continue to rise, and the owners will receive more of the pie

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:51 PM
  #937
Pie O My
Registered User
 
Pie O My's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Shawmut Center
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightofBoston View Post
Because 8 (right?) teams were losing money and many owners felt cost of free agents and league expenditure was too high, so they just saved over a billion JUST in player salaries. Not to mention travel, fuel, food, trainers, doctors, you name it. Now they will get what they want in the end. Revenue will continue to rise, and the owners will receive more of the pie
oh yeah? that's what they think!

Pie to JJ - Get your hands off me you damned dirty ape!!

Pie O My is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:52 PM
  #938
Pie O My
Registered User
 
Pie O My's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Shawmut Center
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LancelotLink View Post
lol!
not that there's anything wrong with that.

Pie O My is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 11:09 PM
  #939
PatriceBergeronFan
U.S. Army Hooah!
 
PatriceBergeronFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,202
vCash: 500
I get the feeling a lot of these media reporters love using Twitter because they think it's the "cool" and "in" thing to do. Somewhat unrelated, I set up my father with a smartphone and he thinks it's the coolest thing ever and goes around playing with it everywhere -- but he doesn't really know what he is doing. Sure he is older than these guys I am sure, but that is the metaphor I think of when I see these tweets posted here. Perhaps I'm way off on that.

I don't have a Twitter (thank God!) and I really hope this Twitter phase ends soon, although I doubt it will.

PatriceBergeronFan is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:00 AM
  #940
TwineTickler
TheUltimateBruin
 
TwineTickler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandy Hook, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 21,496
vCash: 500
Praying a deal gets done. It seems like the differences are so minor that it shouldn't be an issue. Wish both sides weren't so ****ing hardheaded. I need me some Bruins hockey.

TwineTickler is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 05:31 AM
  #941
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,715
vCash: 500
Great read- What a gong show.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/stor...n=jessespector

Quote:
After a stupidly short night’s sleep dreaming assuredly stupid dreams, the NHL and NHLPA woke up to find a bumper crop of stupidity, and proceeded to spend the day harvesting it.

JMiller is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 06:50 AM
  #942
MarshmontMcSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Just one more week of this crap right?

No deal next Friday and Bettman will have the decency to cancel the season I assume?

Not saying that is what I want but this crap has dragged on a little too long.

MarshmontMcSlewfoot is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 07:07 AM
  #943
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
It helps the smaller market teams financially right now sure because it allows them to spend less on talent.

Does it help the on ice product though? Being a fan of a team operating 21 million below the current cap won't likely entice many to come out and spend their money on the games.

Does it help those teams be competitive?

Does that lack of competitiveness help them long term?

Still say anything that hurts parity is an issue. If they accept a compromise of 65 million then don't lower the floor. Set it at 49 million and whatever teams can't handle the strain financially can blow up.
It is one season. You really think the parity of the league will be destroyed by one season?

And you'd rather see teams blow up than allow them the option to spend 5 million less, again, for one season?

Strange.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 07:39 AM
  #944
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Hate to be the one to throw another log on the fire, but here's an issue that no one seems to have mentioned at anytime, at least that I can find.

The part of the CBA which identifies at what age a CHL player can play in the AHL. Doesn't affect NCAA or Europeans as agreements are still in place for them. But the CHL situation was and will be a part of the CBA.

Problem is, the agreement with the CHL has expired and to my knowledge and from what I have been able to find out, the NHL/CHL have only come to an agreement on what happens to players that are eligible for the NHL in the event the lockout ends.

This also affects emergency call ups of junior players. I believe the Flames used the option last year.

And again from my knowledge and information that I have been able to get (The CHL just does not talk about these things) there have been no talks between the NHL and CHL.

And of course it comes down to payments by the NHL to the CHL. Just another thing they'll have to reach an agreement on as it will certainly be part of a new CBA.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 07:45 AM
  #945
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,396
vCash: 500
For s CBA that only needed to be 'tweaked', this has turned into a giant cluster****

I can't wait for this to be over, one way or another. I won't be giving any of my hard earned cash to this league for a while.

Therick67 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 07:49 AM
  #946
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
It is one season. You really think the parity of the league will be destroyed by one season?

And you'd rather see teams blow up than allow them the option to spend 5 million less, again, for one season?

Strange.
I think anything that doesn't promote parity and in fact encourages the opposite, even for one season, isn't a good thing. Yes, that is correct. Question for you though... why is whether players get an artificially inflated cap for longer more important then the actual on ice product?

And so yes, as I'd rather not see that gap between minimum and maximum widened. Assuming they didn't widen it, I do believe that extra 5 million in minimum salary would put a lot of strain on some teams. Having to spend an extra 5 million hurts your bottom line when you aren't making money. Will that cause some teams to blow up? I don't know. There are a few teams on the cusp already, who knows if Columbus, Phoenix, or Tampa can afford to lose an extra 5 million next year?

Sounds like a rock and a hard place type deal to me. Parity or financial stability? Sacrifice parity and on ice product for the next two seasons so that players can get an extra $200,000 on their next contract. I don't care enough about the players pocket books apparently.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 08:11 AM
  #947
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I think anything that doesn't promote parity and in fact encourages the opposite, even for one season, isn't a good thing. Yes, that is correct. Question for you though... why is whether players get an artificially inflated cap for longer more important then the actual on ice product?

And so yes, as I'd rather not see that gap between minimum and maximum widened. Assuming they didn't widen it, I do believe that extra 5 million in minimum salary would put a lot of strain on some teams. Having to spend an extra 5 million hurts your bottom line when you aren't making money. Will that cause some teams to blow up? I don't know. There are a few teams on the cusp already, who knows if Columbus, Phoenix, or Tampa can afford to lose an extra 5 million next year?

Sounds like a rock and a hard place type deal to me. Parity or financial stability? Sacrifice parity and on ice product for the next two seasons so that players can get an extra $200,000 on their next contract. I don't care enough about the players pocket books apparently.
It is one season. And you can easily argue the other way, that by not having any relief for some teams for that one year, they will be forced to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible. Who wants that?

Did I mention you are worried over one season? At a number that would be exceeded by what? Did OOG say 7 teams? 7 teams would get releif, the NHL product wouldn't be diluted.

Also, a fair playing ground is more important than parity. Parity kind of sucks. As long as every team has an opportunity to field a team that can win, that is what matters most.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 08:53 AM
  #948
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
There is Z-E-R-O chance this ends in a lost season. ZERO

This is the final bickering, threats, planes, trains, and automobiles

Sure- cancel the season and miss a year or more of your career, then come back as a joke sport with a pie that has shrunk by a third....

This reminds me of the people who are steadfast in joining a gym first of the year, eating better, losing weight etc.....and starting XMas Eve they eat anything and everything for a week. That is all this is

we knew this was coming, right?

DKH is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 08:53 AM
  #949
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
It is one season. And you can easily argue the other way, that by not having any relief for some teams for that one year, they will be forced to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible. Who wants that?

Did I mention you are worried over one season? At a number that would be exceeded by what? Did OOG say 7 teams? 7 teams would get releif, the NHL product wouldn't be diluted.

Also, a fair playing ground is more important than parity. Parity kind of sucks. As long as every team has an opportunity to field a team that can win, that is what matters most.
It's two seasons actually, as what remains of this season would also be done under an artificially inflated cap number which would see many teams able to afford payrolls many more others can't. Perhaps you mean "it's just one more season?"

I must admit, I don't understand your stance here. You're asking why I don't support a wider gap between max and min payrolls and then ask why anyone would support a system that "forced [a team] to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible." Just to be clear, I believe having a wider gap between min and max. caps achieves exactly that. When you lower the minimum salary cap there are teams who will add more minimum contracts so they can stay closer to the 44 million figure rather then being forced to spend more to reach that 49 million figure. Why would anyone want that? You tell me? Yes, it may only affect 7 teams, but we are only talking about a 30 team league and those 7 teams just happen to be an areas where the sport needs the most help.

And parity is part of a fair playing ground, is it not? You set up the financial fundamentals in such a way that will allow teams like NYR and Toronto to spend 20 million more on payroll then teams like Phoenix and Columbus and you're putting those teams at a disadvantage... no? If you don't believe in a correlation between salary and skill then I can understand the reasoning but I believe the better players get paid more (not something I would have classified as going out on a limb on honestly).

I'll ask my question again. Why do you believe I, as a fan, should care more about the players pocket book then I do the quality of the on ice product? Why do you think I should support a wider gap between max and min payroll spending? Perhaps you can change my mind.

Just for reference, my preferred choices in this case are:
1. Go to 50/50 split sooner rather then later as it allows teams to be competitive payroll wise with each other sooner (read: I care more about on ice product then I do players pocket books).
2. Failing #1, concede on 65 million in year two but keep the minimum cap closer to the 65 mill figure so that teams are forced to be a little bit more competitive payroll wise (read: I care more about on ice product then I do owners pocket books).
3. Failing #2, concede on both the 65 million upper limit and the 44 million lower limit. (I care more about having a hockey season then I do on ice product over the next two seasons).


Last edited by Kaoz: 01-04-2013 at 09:11 AM.
Kaoz is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 09:08 AM
  #950
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pie O My View Post
not that there's anything wrong with that.

patty59 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 11:39 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.