HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Notices

Hossa, Heatley, Spezza and Nash......Oh my

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-27-2005, 11:48 AM
  #26
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Too Easy

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Contracts are ticking .. Leafs will have only 8 players under contract come July 1st, 2005 .. Same magical day the UFA season opens, or at least would have.

Since 8 players does not make a full team so going to need a few more to fill and NHL roster, when the UFA market does open again ..
Funny, I could have sworn you were beating the drums for another red herring just yesterday.


Quote:
The Messenger
Don't Shoot the .....



Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: KELOWNA -The Edge of Heaven
Country:
Posts: 10,300 Not So Fast - Leafs may have a full team when the Lockout ends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a very interesting Article that makes some very interesting points in regards to player contracts and rights ..


http://www.nypost.com/sports/43143.htm

This could change a lot in the Leafs world

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 11:49 AM
  #27
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
He would still be limited by the entry level contract amount agreed to under the new CBA.
That is a CBA issue that needs to be negotiated in the NEW CBA and until all the "T" are crossed and "I" are dotted you are speaking out of turn ..

Mess is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 11:50 AM
  #28
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
Yeah, because that's really going to happen.
About as likely as these players rights not being retained under the coming CBA.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:00 PM
  #29
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
That is a CBA issue that needs to be negotiated in the NEW CBA and until all the "T" are crossed and "I" are dotted you are speaking out of turn ..
Limits on entry level contracts can be found in both the NHL and the NHLPA proposals, so it is a given that it will be there.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:02 PM
  #30
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Funny, I could have sworn you were beating the drums for another red herring just yesterday.
How come you guys can't think logically ??

Contracts are ticking, no one questions that .. .

A) The NHLPA would need the NHL to agree that ALL GUARANTEED CONTRACTS that were signed under the old deal would be extended by the lockout, ...(this would include Hossa and Thornton, Nash as RFA as well etc ) So they remain property of their old team.

The NHL is not likely to agree to that to avoid paying all those former bad contracts another year ..

SO

B) That takes us to today's discussion .. If the NHL does not want to honour those contracts then unsigned drafted player rights and RFA not receiving qualifying offers on time become UFA ( via Court) and all the older players on one year deals become UFA without question

BOTH OF THESE POSITIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSSIVE ...

YOU PICK A or B ?? .. Either or is the discussion

You can only have one or the other .. NOT BOTH .. Unless the NHLPA agree in a new CBA, and trades these bargaining chips (RFA & unsigned picks) for other NHLPA favourable parts in a NEW CBA for them.

Come on now keep up .. this is not so difficult that every little thing needs to be spelled out ..


Last edited by Mess: 04-27-2005 at 04:24 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:06 PM
  #31
Volcanologist
Habitual User
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
About as likely as these players rights not being retained under the coming CBA.
I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with that. I don't think these two things are equally improbable at all.

I think there is some credence to the notion, just in abstract terms, that it seems a contradiction to have contracts expire for some and frozen for others. On the other hand, there is NO support for the idea of honouring all contracts and then just having a bunch of teams stuck $15 million above the cap. Bettman et. al. have been very clear all along that this won't happen. At the very least you'd have that "dispersal draft" thing, otherwise the system wouldn't function properly.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:13 PM
  #32
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with that. I don't think these two things are equally improbable at all.

I think there is some credence to the notion, just in abstract terms, that it seems a contradiction to have contracts expire for some and frozen for others. On the other hand, there is NO support for the idea of honouring all contracts and then just having a bunch of teams stuck $15 million above the cap. Bettman et. al. have been very clear all along that this won't happen. At the very least you'd have that "dispersal draft" thing, otherwise the system wouldn't function properly.
I don't think that you can lump having players' rights in with contracts. They have always been separate and have had different expiration points.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:15 PM
  #33
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
How come you guys can't think logically ??
Did anyone else laugh out loud at the irony dripping from this statement?

Quote:
Contracts are ticking, no one questions about that ..

A) The NHLPA would need the NHL to agree that ALL GUARANTEED CONTRACTS that were signed under the old deal would be extended by the lockout, ...(this would include Hossa and Thornton, Nash as RFA aswell etc ) So they remain property of their old team.
Just yesterday you were telling us the PA would win this fight in court!

Quote:
The NHL is not likely to agree to that to avoid paying all those former bad contracts another year ..
Why not? It hurts the big spenders and ensures a glut of cheap free agents for the other teams, while still allowing a good deal of roster stability to most teams.


Quote:
B) That takes us to today's discussion .. If the NHL does not want to hounour those contracts then unsigned drafted player rights and RFA not receiving qualifying offers on time become UFA and all the older players on one year deals become UFA without question
Fine by the NHL. The PA on the other hand would throw a fit.

Quote:
BOTH OF THESE POSITION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSSIVE ...

YOU PICK A or B ?? .. Either or is the discussion

You can only have one or the other .. NOT BOTH .. Unless the NHLPA agree in a new CBA, and trades these bargaining chips (RFA & unsinged picks) for other NHLPA favourable parts in a NEW CBA for them.


It is in both the PA's and the NHL's interests to have the contracts tick off and the players rights retained.

Some individual agents may be looking for leverage for their clients, but as a group neither of these court challenges would be in the PA's interests.

Quote:
Come on now keep up .. this is not so difficult that ever little thing needs to be spelled out ..
Keep up with your red herring of the day? No problem.

Have a good chuckle at you flailing away? You bet.


Last edited by SENSible1*: 04-27-2005 at 12:21 PM.
SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:27 PM
  #34
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with that. I don't think these two things are equally improbable at all.

I think there is some credence to the notion, just in abstract terms, that it seems a contradiction to have contracts expire for some and frozen for others. On the other hand, there is NO support for the idea of honouring all contracts and then just having a bunch of teams stuck $15 million above the cap. Bettman et. al. have been very clear all along that this won't happen. At the very least you'd have that "dispersal draft" thing, otherwise the system wouldn't function properly.
The option as leverage for the NHL is there however. Don't think the PA doesn't understand the ramifications of the top spenders all being at or above the cap level. Heck, even if you throw the 24% in, the Leafs are still at 46 M for 19 players.

The PA sees what is coming and is desperatley trying to spin some leveage where none exists.

These "issues" will be dealt with in the negotiations. The contracts will tick off and the teams will retain the players rights with the exception of any general reduction in the UFA age. I'll bet posting rights for next season with any poster willing to bet against that outcome.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:29 PM
  #35
Dar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 4,813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dar
Some people just don't understand the difference between when someone says "would" or "could".

An article is posted stating one case of the argument and someone discusses the merits of it.

Fast forward one day later when the opposite argument is being stated, same poster discusses merits to it and all of a sudden is being charged with flip-flopping an opinion?

Both sides have some credence which is all I've seen TheMessenger make a claim for.

Dar is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:56 PM
  #36
Patty Lee
I hate the Habs
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Have a good chuckle at you flailing away? You bet.
Glad you're having fun thunderstruck. How about you come back when you catch up to the rest of us. Shouldn't take you too long.

Having a chuckle at your retort? You bet.

Patty Lee is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:58 PM
  #37
Crossroads*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Have a good chuckle at you flailing away? You bet.
Have a good chuckle at the Sens playoffs misfortunes? You bet

Crossroads* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:02 PM
  #38
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
So JP Barry admits that agents are prepared to take legal action and then says the following....

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Barry
"We could very well see the largest pool of young unrestricted free agent talent on the market in sports history," said Calgary-based agent J.P. Barry, co-managing director of IMG Hockey. "In addition to draft-age players such as (Sidney) Crosby, (Gilbert) Brule, (Mike) Richards and (Jeff) Carter being available, you can add a few hundred other free agents in the prime of their careers to the list of players available to any team. There are less than 300 players under contract for the 2005-06 season.

"Looking to rebuild? How about Joe Thornton, Rick Nash, Jarome Iginla or Dany Heatley? The list of star players in the prime of their careers that may be available is remarkable."
But apparently we're being unrealistic for even talking about it? What are we just supposed to ignore stuff like this? I don't think so.

Some people seem to get awful defensive about these things.

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:18 PM
  #39
Volcanologist
Habitual User
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The option as leverage for the NHL is there however. Don't think the PA doesn't understand the ramifications of the top spenders all being at or above the cap level. Heck, even if you throw the 24% in, the Leafs are still at 46 M for 19 players.
It's the same sort of "leverage" that their empty replacement player threat had, I would suspect.

Quote:
The PA sees what is coming and is desperatley trying to spin some leveage where none exists.
Heh.

What do they "see coming"? Probably not the same thing you do.

Where is the desperation? I don't see it.

If anything, the owners should be desperate. Their impasse/replacement road is now blocked, or at least so rocky as to no longer be a primary option. The CBA being talked about right now is Goodenow's framework, not Bettman's. That's why Jacobs was bleating so hard at the end of the last meeting. He realizes his dream of having NHL players come crawling to him for the privilege of playing for his B's at five bucks a game isn't going to happen...

The players are much better off now than they were even a month ago in terms of bargaining position. The team-by-team cap/linkage system works much better for them while still giving cost certainty.

Quote:
These "issues" will be dealt with in the negotiations. The contracts will tick off and the teams will retain the players rights with the exception of any general reduction in the UFA age. I'll bet posting rights for next season with any poster willing to bet against that outcome.
I guess you didn't learn anything from Zeke about internet bets, did you?

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:22 PM
  #40
Crossroads*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
So JP Barry admits that agents are prepared to take legal action and then says the following....



But apparently we're being unrealistic for even talking about it? What are we just supposed to ignore stuff like this? I don't think so.

Some people seem to get awful defensive about these things.
Well, I think it's understandable as to why he would be defensive. His Sens would be dismantled and would likely be reduced to a middle-of-the-pack team, a la Montreal.

Crossroads* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:28 PM
  #41
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepNCheese
It's nice to imagine the possibilities for our team in particular, but I don't think chaos like that is something the NHL wants.
I believe it is exactly what the league wants: Evey player who has a contract expiring at the end of 2005 becomes a UFA. That way teams are not forced to offer a minimum. This is one hell of a way to bring costs down.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:29 PM
  #42
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
So JP Barry admits that agents are prepared to take legal action and then says the following....



But apparently we're being unrealistic for even talking about it? What are we just supposed to ignore stuff like this? I don't think so.

Some people seem to get awful defensive about these things.
I think that what it boils down to is that if the NHL and their clients' union agree that rights are retained then what recourse do the agents have to sue and who do they sue?

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:34 PM
  #43
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
How come you guys can't think logically ??
FEAR. They may now realize that all this new CBA will do is give Toronto more of an advantage due to the intangibles the franchsie offers when all the money is equalled out.

Seriously we can get a million dolalrs from any of the 30 teams; only 5 offer us a contract; what city can offer the most considering equal money? It is killing them!

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:34 PM
  #44
Volcanologist
Habitual User
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
I believe it is exactly what the league wants: Evey player who has a contract expiring at the end of 2005 becomes a UFA. That way teams are not forced to offer a minimum. This is one hell of a way to bring costs down.
Right, but does the NHL want stars from medium and small markets taking this opportunity and bolting to the big teams? Many of these places need to sell tickets even more now because of the lockout.

Does Bettman really want Nash to leave the Blue Jackets right now? I doubt it.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:40 PM
  #45
sluggo*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Does Bettman really want Nash to leave the Blue Jackets right now? I doubt it.
I think the NHL would love to get some of those superstar, young players in markets like NY, LA and Toronto. These a big markets that can and do support hockey. Getting a superstar in one of those markets would really help the game over all just because of the added exposure they would get in those markets, and bring to hockey as a whole.

sluggo* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:41 PM
  #46
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 55,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor of MacAppolis
FEAR. They may now realize that all this new CBA will do is give Toronto more of an advantage due to the intangibles the franchsie offers when all the money is equalled out.

Seriously we can get a million dolalrs from any of the 30 teams; only 5 offer us a contract; what city can offer the most considering equal money? It is killing them!
A lot of people wanted to see Leaf fans suffer through a rebuild.

Under the UFA Armageddon the Leafs will just carry on as they have been the past 13 years.

I'd take the rebuild anyway, but I'm experienced.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:41 PM
  #47
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I think that what it boils down to is that if the NHL and their clients' union agree that rights are retained then what recourse do the agents have to sue and who do they sue?
1. This issue could go to the courts before the NHL and NHLPA agree to anything.

2. Even if the NHL and NHLPA both want to teams to retain players rights, can a CBA legally turn back the clock and say a player's rights belong to a certain team after a court has already determined him to be a UFA?

Leaf Army is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:42 PM
  #48
Volcanologist
Habitual User
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
A lot of people wanted to see Leaf fans suffer through a rebuild.

Under the UFA Armageddon the Leafs will just carry on as they have been the past 13 years.

I'd take the rebuild anyway, but I'm experienced.
ULF, the difference is now we'll have access to young star players instead of old ones.

It's all good.

Volcanologist is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:54 PM
  #49
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
1. This issue could go to the courts before the NHL and NHLPA agree to anything.

2. Even if the NHL and NHLPA both want to teams to retain players rights, can a CBA legally turn back the clock and say a player's rights belong to a certain team after a court has already determined him to be a UFA?
They will have to be careful because if teams lose rights to the young stars that could make more money as UFA's there will also be a lot of players who will make less than their current base also.

Take a player like Aki Berg as an example even though I don't know for sure if this affects him. He is a useful player but at $1.4 million a year now and then being thrown into a mix with a whole bunch of other free agent defencemen he has a very good chance of making far less than that on the open market.

mooseOAK* is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 02:09 PM
  #50
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55
A lot of people wanted to see Leaf fans suffer through a rebuild.
30 ****ing years of Ballard! WE SUFFERED ENOUGH!

MacDaddy TLC* 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 04:22 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.