Dead

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)

   130 members have voted

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,718 posts in this topic

That doesn't really look too great in my eyes

. To say the least. How do you make a serious proposal like that without first making sure 50/50 while honoring signed contracts and no escrow is even feasible (which by all accounts, it isn't)? Like I said in an earlier post, when it comes to the NHL (and in this case, the NHLPA), I always expect the worst, and I expect it to defy logic and common sense. See why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA's "50/50" and the manner it came up is both hilarious and insulting at the same time. Coupled with the idiots going out on twitter and spouting it as if it was something real and functional.... today was a hell of a day. Time to nuke the CHL and make these kids go to school because that was just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not aware of all the information. Yes, the NHLPA didn't build off the NHL's offer, but the NHL's offer was not a good one. Somewhere between offer #3 by the PA and what the NHL offered lies the eventual compromise. It just makes more sense for Bettman to walk out on that possibility.

this is exactly right and where it's going to end up.

what is crazy is that the owners have 100% allowed for no roll backs and every player contract will be paid in full. that comes out of FUTURE contracts that have not been negotiated or signed yet. and it's not that those contracts get cut - it's that there is less cap space to allow for so much money to be agreed to. so its players future contracts paying current signed contracts. i'm not saying that's fair, i'm just saying that's what has actually be offered. and nobody is explaining that in plain english. why, i'm not entirely sure.

fehr talking about how much money the players "gave up" over the life of the last CBA is absolutely irrelevant. in truth, its completely meaningless because before the previous CBA, there was no cap so you could say the players could have been paid an infinite amount of money.

furthermore, talking about how much the players are "giving up" going forward is also not entirely accurate. because there are no givebacks by the players, they are losing nothing of what has already been promised them. what they are giving up is a greater pie of future contracts not yet signed. contracts that by use of a floor are guaranteed to be offered regardless of talent (see last summer's FLA panthers' offseason).

as triumph said, there's a deal between players option 3 and the owners proposal

so my bet is this is how it ends:

50/50 split will be achieved by year 3.

54 year 1

52 year 2

50 year 3

existing contracts will have to be deferred, but to a lesser extent and those deferred dollars will effectively lower the cap until revenues rise to overcome them.

rookie deal max 3 years.

UFA 27 or 8 years

7 year max contracts

redden rule goes away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really look too great in my eyes

Yeah, it isn't great, but to me it's where a compromise lies. They're not going to get that, but something like it - that could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DId you pay attention to the offers the NHLPA made today? They acknowledge that the revenue split has to come down. They acknowledge that even though the NHL is at record revenues, they'll have to take future pay cuts at some point. The NHL walked out and made a big show and you believe that that's credible and true. They were going to do that unless the players fell on their knees and accepted their offer.

Triumph, you're smarter than this. As presented that idea doesn't work, it was basically written on a Tim Horton's bag before the meeting. You can't have a zero escrow 50% year when all of the signed contracts are at 57%. It's literally impossible. Under that system they can't reach true 50% until Shea Weber's contract ends 14 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triumph, you're smarter than this. As presented that idea doesn't work, it was basically written on a Tim Horton's bag before the meeting. You can't have a zero escrow 50% year when all of the signed contracts are at 57%. It's literally impossible. Under that system they can't reach true 50% until Shea Weber's contract ends 14 years from now.

And you're smarter than this - no, they can't get to 50% right away with no escrow. That's not what was offered, to my knowledge - it was guaranteed contracts with a slide to 50% in future years. Which you can do - you guarantee year 1, then in future years you escrow all new contracts. So say you go from 55% this year to 52% in year 2 and 50% in year 3. It means the cap would hardly move and new contracts would have some onerous escrow on them, but you could do it. That's not a deal that would be accepted by the NHL, but it could be close to what ends up being accepted.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're smarter than this - no, they can't get to 50% right away with no escrow. That's not what was offered, to my knowledge - it was guaranteed contracts with a slide to 50% in future years. Which you can do - you guarantee year 1, then in future years you escrow all new contracts. So say you go from 55% this year to 52% in year 2 and 50% in year 3. It means the cap would hardly move and new contracts would have some onerous escrow on them, but you could do it. That's not a deal that would be accepted by the NHL, but it could be close to what ends up being accepted.

I am talking about "proposal 3" which must have been invented out of thin air today before Bettman came in.

Their actual proposal is 54% over 5/6 years. An improvement, but not enough. Enough where they can meet in the middle. But then they utterly humiliate themselves with this "50-50" deal, which quite possibly might be the dumbest thing ever proposed. And then Fehr said he didn't crunch the numbers on it. Why even bring it up? I'd walk out too, because clearly I'm dealing with morons.

What you are talking about doesn't even exist yet, and it still won't work right because no existing deals can be escrowed. And that's where the majority of the money is. You probably have 15+ guys running around with $1B or more of untouchable money. That's enough money, prorated to pay 200-300 fodder guys $1M for a year over the lifetime of a new CBA.

How can it work with that much of the potential payroll tied up in so few guys with contracts that need to be honored from the old 57% system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triumph, you're smarter than this. As presented that idea doesn't work, it was basically written on a Tim Horton's bag before the meeting. You can't have a zero escrow 50% year when all of the signed contracts are at 57%. It's literally impossible. Under that system they can't reach true 50% until Shea Weber's contract ends 14 years from now.

that's not entirely true - they can get there well before that but it will come out of future contracts. you are also incorrect that it is "literally" impossible to do in year 1. it is merely 99% impossible.

here's the best way i can explain this. let's say for easy math that revenue growth is 0 for the next five years and the league revenue is $100 dollars every year.

right now, players are entitled to $57 of that $100 and if you add up all the contracts on the books for this year, they will either equal $57. The players are paid over the season about $50 and the extra $7 is held in escrow just in case the league doesn't actually get $100 in revenue. If the league only makes, say $90 in revenue, the players will not get that extra $7. they'll get $1.30 (which would give them a total of $51.30 or 57% of $90).

so the players want to keep making $57 of that $100. the league wants them to make $50.

but here's the problem with the nhlpa's 50/50 year 1, no escrow suggestion: the players are already guaranteed about $57 for next year of $100. Teams have already committed to that in existing contracts and every side says no rollback is on the table. so unless the leagues revenues go to $114 next year, 50/50 is impossible and there is no way the league's revenues can go up 14% without every team selling out every game and every fan at every game buying a $300 authentic jersey. oh, and the winter classic would have to bring in about $60MM on its own.

in the owners proposal (again, assuming zero growth for easy math sake), you'll get let's say 7 years of $100 in revenue with a 50/50 split. that means the players' total contracts can add up to $50 every year.

as of RIGHT NOW, guaranteed existing contracts likely add up over the next 7 years to something like $57, $54, $50, $45, $42, $35, $20.

what the owners are saying is that the $7 this year and $4 next year that are over $50 will go towards the last 4 years in some way.

So instead of $45, $42, $35, and $20 of existing contracts, you've got $47, $44, $38 and $24.

assuming the same $50 available to players in future contracts, that means new contracts can be $3, $6, $12, and $26.

now in the real world, revenues are increasing and the total value of contracts drops way more each year than in my analogy. but this explains exactly what the owners latest offer is.

again, i don't think it's fair. i agree with triumph that what is "fair" and what would grow the league the most would be 50/50 with a soft cap and a luxury tax league that gives the 10 highest revenue teams a chance to use their advantage and fund the rest of the league through revenue sharing.

Edited by sundstrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not entirely true - they can get there well before that but it will come out of future contracts. you are also incorrect that it is "literally" impossible to do in year 1. it is merely 99% impossible.

here's the best way i can explain this. let's say for easy math that revenue growth is 0 for the next five years and the league revenue is $100 dollars every year.

right now, players are entitled to $57 of that $100 and if you add up all the contracts on the books for this year, they will either equal $57. The players are paid over the season about $50 and the extra $7 is held in escrow just in case the league doesn't actually get $100 in revenue. If the league only makes, say $90 in revenue, the players will not get that extra $7. they'll get $1.30 (which would give them a total of $51.30 or 57% of $90).

so the players want to keep making $57 of that $100. the league wants them to make $50.

but here's the problem with the nhlpa's 50/50 year 1, no escrow suggestion: the players are already guaranteed about $57 for next year of $100. Teams have already committed to that in existing contracts and every side says no rollback is on the table. so unless the leagues revenues go to $114 next year, 50/50 is impossible and there is no way the league's revenues can go up 14% without every team selling out every game and every fan at every game buying a $300 authentic jersey. oh, and the winter classic would have to bring in about $60MM on its own.

in the owners proposal (again, assuming zero growth for easy math sake), you'll get let's say 7 years of $100 in revenue with a 50/50 split. that means the players' total contracts can add up to $50 every year.

as of RIGHT NOW, guaranteed existing contracts likely add up over the next 7 years to something like $57, $54, $50, $45, $42, $35, $20.

what the owners are saying is that the $7 this year and $4 next year that are over $50 will go towards the last 4 years in some way.

So instead of $45, $42, $35, and $20 of existing contracts, you've got $47, $44, $38 and $24.

assuming the same $50 available to players in future contracts, that means new contracts can be $3, $6, $12, and $26.

now in the real world, revenues are increasing and the total value of contracts drops way more each year than in my analogy. but this explains exactly what the owners latest offer is.

again, i don't think it's fair. i agree with triumph that what is "fair" and what would grow the league the most would be 50/50 with a soft cap and a luxury tax league that gives the 10 highest revenue teams a chance to use their advantage and fund the rest of the league through revenue sharing.

Well, yeah, it can work if the league has an amazing windfall of revenue or the PA just decides that FA's for the next X years are fvcked, but these aren't logical or likely outcomes. I think, because of the positioning of the cap/floor, that the players would get a decent escrow payment this year. The problem is that literally everyone is signed. If they came up with this after a 6/30 lockout, it might be crazy enough to work. But not now, and my god, can they at least put the thing together before "presenting" it? That was so unprofessional and the lunkheads going out on twitter with the talking points about an offer that was merely a theory, and wasn't possible in reality.... ugh. It makes the players look dumber and more directionless than they already are.

The office pulls the strings and always has. They haven't even replaced Trevor Linden... I guess they don't want THAT happening again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are talking about doesn't even exist yet, and it still won't work right because no existing deals can be escrowed. And that's where the majority of the money is. You probably have 15+ guys running around with $1B or more of untouchable money. That's enough money, prorated to pay 200-300 fodder guys $1M for a year over the lifetime of a new CBA.

I don't think that's where a majority of the money is. It's where the majority of the money is in the next 2 years. Contracts end. Lots of them end soon.

How can it work with that much of the potential payroll tied up in so few guys with contracts that need to be honored from the old 57% system?

Because revenues will grow. I didn't do the math quite right, but I have NHL revenues at 3.263 billion. Say that 1.86 billion is earmarked to players right now - it isn't, but let's say it is. Do you really think that there's more than 1 billion guaranteed to players in two years? I don't. I'll do the math if you insist, but right now I don't see it. Teams just don't have that huge a salary commitment. And furthermore, if the NHL continues to grow by 6% every year, that puts NHL revenues at $3.66B after the 2013-14 season, making the total amount earmarked to player salaries to be *fanfare* $1.83B. So between expiring contracts and growing revenues, this 'problem' goes away. Again, the deal will never be this, but something like it could be the basis of a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's where a majority of the money is. It's where the majority of the money is in the next 2 years. Contracts end. Lots of them end soon.

Because revenues will grow. I didn't do the math quite right, but I have NHL revenues at 3.263 billion. Say that 1.86 billion is earmarked to players right now - it isn't, but let's say it is. Do you really think that there's more than 1 billion guaranteed to players in two years? I don't. I'll do the math if you insist, but right now I don't see it. Teams just don't have that huge a salary commitment. And furthermore, if the NHL continues to grow by 6% every year, that puts NHL revenues at $3.66B after the 2013-14 season, making the total amount earmarked to player salaries to be *fanfare* $1.83B. So between expiring contracts and growing revenues, this 'problem' goes away. Again, the deal will never be this, but something like it could be the basis of a deal.

You got them to 50% in one year. That's great. The problem with this is they have created two linkages. The current one, which starts at 57% and diminishes with time, and the new one, which is 50% from this day forward. The problem with implementing this is... implementing it. So your 50% number looks great, but the problem is the majority of the money is still in the 57% linkage. Which means their share is probably say 54% in year two.

I think it would be 56% or so in year one just because they're throwing away escrow in a year it would benefit them to have it.

How the hell do you implement this? The second problem is that clearly you have put more thought into this system than they have. It's just something they could throw out for sh!ts and giggles for PR. Yes, the first year in the NHL's offer is the same, but it actually can be implemented. Just at a cost of probably around 12% to the players. That can be mitigated by moving the % up, as I assume it would with negotiations.

I have no earthly idea what they're thinking with this and they don't either. Suddenly it's a big deal that contracts are guaranteed 100% when they never were in the past. I understand that yes, the CBA is over. Fine, so they want this. But at the same time, the CBA is over, which means 57% isn't a birthright either, and they are up in arms that god forbid that number may go down immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's where a majority of the money is. It's where the majority of the money is in the next 2 years. Contracts end. Lots of them end soon.

Because revenues will grow. I didn't do the math quite right, but I have NHL revenues at 3.263 billion. Say that 1.86 billion is earmarked to players right now - it isn't, but let's say it is. Do you really think that there's more than 1 billion guaranteed to players in two years? I don't. I'll do the math if you insist, but right now I don't see it. Teams just don't have that huge a salary commitment. And furthermore, if the NHL continues to grow by 6% every year, that puts NHL revenues at $3.66B after the 2013-14 season, making the total amount earmarked to player salaries to be *fanfare* $1.83B. So between expiring contracts and growing revenues, this 'problem' goes away. Again, the deal will never be this, but something like it could be the basis of a deal.

i was hoping Capgeek had a league total of committed dollars each year so we could actually do the math without having to add up team by team. frankly, i went looking for it because i WAS going to do the math and show 5% growth and 50/50 and show what contracts could be given out over that timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got them to 50% in one year. That's great. The problem with this is they have created two linkages. The current one, which starts at 57% and diminishes with time, and the new one, which is 50% from this day forward. The problem with implementing this is... implementing it. So your 50% number looks great, but the problem is the majority of the money is still in the 57% linkage. Which means their share is probably say 54% in year two.

I think it would be 56% or so in year one just because they're throwing away escrow in a year it would benefit them to have it.

I don't think it is this high, but the problem is that the players' share is salary and benefits - we're not privy to the benefits numbers. Neil Greenberg tweeted that there's 53.4% of HRR committed to players now. There's a few notable unsigned players but not that many. So they could go to 55% this year, unless benefits comprise that much more.

How the hell do you implement this?

I don't think it's very hard. The trouble would be with coming up where the cap number would fall - that could be agreed to beforehand, like the luxury tax in MLB. So say they put the cap at $65M in year 1, $66M in year 2, then in year three it's 50% of 2013-14 revenues.

I have no earthly idea what they're thinking with this and they don't either. Suddenly it's a big deal that contracts are guaranteed 100% when they never were in the past. I understand that yes, the CBA is over. Fine, so they want this. But at the same time, the CBA is over, which means 57% isn't a birthright either, and they are up in arms that god forbid that number may go down immediately.

I mean - really? That's what the whole damn problem with this lockout has been. I recognize that escrow does not mean that players' contracts are fully guaranteed, but for the most part players have made what their salary says. Players are upset that they signed big deals which the owners are going to take money from, in addition to continuing the escrow system which jeopardizes that money too. The players recognize 57% isn't happening. So, again, I think guaranteeing deals and moving to 50/50 (or even 49/51) could be where a deal lies. I would still like to see, if a CBA can't be agreed to by say, September 15, 2019, the 2019-2020 season cap is set at 57% of revenues. This gives the players some lockout protection and incentivizes both sides to cut a deal before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is this high, but the problem is that the players' share is salary and benefits - we're not privy to the benefits numbers. Neil Greenberg tweeted that there's 53.4% of HRR committed to players now. There's a few notable unsigned players but not that many. So they could go to 55% this year, unless benefits comprise that much more.

I don't think it's very hard. The trouble would be with coming up where the cap number would fall - that could be agreed to beforehand, like the luxury tax in MLB. So say they put the cap at $65M in year 1, $66M in year 2, then in year three it's 50% of 2013-14 revenues.

I mean - really? That's what the whole damn problem with this lockout has been. I recognize that escrow does not mean that players' contracts are fully guaranteed, but for the most part players have made what their salary says. Players are upset that they signed big deals which the owners are going to take money from, in addition to continuing the escrow system which jeopardizes that money too. The players recognize 57% isn't happening. So, again, I think guaranteeing deals and moving to 50/50 (or even 49/51) could be where a deal lies. I would still like to see, if a CBA can't be agreed to by say, September 15, 2019, the 2019-2020 season cap is set at 57% of revenues. This gives the players some lockout protection and incentivizes both sides to cut a deal before then.

They accepted linkage and should understand how it works by now. Yes, 12% off the top is too much. They need to find a way to get to a happy medium. If they want to fight linkage altogether, that's another thing and they are entitled to that. Just as the league is entitled to change the linkage %.

And if they don't understand why they may not get the same on their deals as they did under 57% linkage.... they don't understand how linkage works.

Just find a way to do it that doesn't penalize them too heavily on the way down. 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 49 would be 51% exactly to the players over the lifetime. Seems pretty easy. The initial haircut would be insignificant and hopefully revenue would keep future ones away. Instead we have 12% haircuts and bizarre financial systems thought up out of thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/18/zach-parise-is-mad-at-owners-but-doesnt-single-out-craig-leipold/ Minnesota’s Zach Parise has been pretty vocal when it comes to calling out the owners as the lockout rages on. He’s sounded off before, but after seeing the NHL reject the players’ union’s three proposals this afternoon, he’s got his dander up again.

Parise tells Michael Russo of The Star-Tribune he’s upset about how the owners conducted business this summer with a lockout on the horizon they knew they’d put into effect and Wild owner Craig Leipold sort of gets called out.

“You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, ‘We don’t want to pay these contracts,’” Parise said. “Maybe that’s how they conduct business. That just doesn’t seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, ‘You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?’”

Russo asked Parise if he was, indeed, calling out Leipold and he wisely said he wasn’t “pointing fingers” at anyone. Hmm.

Leipold, of course, signed Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts this summer. Meanwhile, Leipold is one of the owners leading negotiations for their side, precisely one of the owners Parise would be calling out if he were assessing blame.

Awkward. Glad to see our former captain is off to a great start with his new boss lmao. I swear, you can't make up how stupid these people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the mechanism is that everyone's cap hit is revalued to 87% of the current number and they still get paid what they are due. Then it moves forward as it would in the past.

So it's really just a game of "pretend we get paid 50% for as long as we can, guys who need to get paid... too bad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Zach Parise has been pretty vocal when it comes to calling out the owners as the lockout rages on. He’s sounded off before, but after seeing the NHL reject the players’ union’s three proposals this afternoon, he’s got his dander up again.

Parise tells Michael Russo of The Star-Tribune he’s upset about how the owners conducted business this summer with a lockout on the horizon they knew they’d put into effect and Wild owner Craig Leipold sort of gets called out.

“You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, ‘We don’t want to pay these contracts,’” Parise said. “Maybe that’s how they conduct business. That just doesn’t seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, ‘You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?’”

Russo asked Parise if he was, indeed, calling out Leipold and he wisely said he wasn’t “pointing fingers” at anyone. Hmm.

Leipold, of course, signed Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts this summer. Meanwhile, Leipold is one of the owners leading negotiations for their side, precisely one of the owners Parise would be calling out if he were assessing blame.

Awkward. Glad to see our former captain is off to a great start with his new boss lmao. I swear, you can't make up how stupid these people are.

Not to mention Zach acts like this is all such a big surprise. Gee, your insistence on getting two guaranteed $10 million checks in FA couldn't have had ANYTHING to do with the impending labor issues, could it? I swear either everyone involved in this lockout is arrogant, stupid, or thinks everyone else is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid, arrogant, uneducated jocks. Some of these guys should just delete their twitter because it is embarrassing. They are so out of touch with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They accepted linkage and should understand how it works by now. Yes, 12% off the top is too much. They need to find a way to get to a happy medium. If they want to fight linkage altogether, that's another thing and they are entitled to that. Just as the league is entitled to change the linkage %.

They aren't fighting linkage as such. They are fighting the owners' attempt to use linkage to ding their current contracts, outside of the system they agreed to. That's why future contracts would still be subject to escrow.

Just find a way to do it that doesn't penalize them too heavily on the way down. 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 49 would be 51% exactly to the players over the lifetime. Seems pretty easy. The initial haircut would be insignificant and hopefully revenue would keep future ones away. Instead we have 12% haircuts and bizarre financial systems thought up out of thin air.

The owners haven't offered anything resembling this either. I think that's where they end up, maybe, but I don't know what happens once games start getting canceled for real.

Not to mention Zach acts like this is all such a big surprise. Gee, your insistence on getting two guaranteed $10 million checks in FA couldn't have had ANYTHING to do with the impending labor issues, could it? I swear either everyone involved in this lockout is arrogant, stupid, or thinks everyone else is stupid.

It has nothing to do with it. That's a contract that a player and an owner agreed to. The owner offered it and he accepted it. If it came out of the owner's pocket without him offering it, I think we'd all be correct in saying that yes, this lockout is happening for a reason other than the owners see fit to reduce the players' share because they have the power to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with it. That's a contract that a player and an owner agreed to. The owner offered it and he accepted it. If it came out of the owner's pocket without him offering it, I think we'd all be correct in saying that yes, this lockout is happening for a reason other than the owners see fit to reduce the players' share because they have the power to do so.

My point was that Zach's feigning surprise when he obviously prepared for this. Players weren't asking for huge up-front signing bonuses before this offseason. Then all of a sudden Parise, Suter, Weber, etc had to have a huge chunk of money up front this offseason. Gee, I wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that Zach's feigning surprise when he obviously prepared for this. Players weren't asking for huge up-front signing bonuses before this offseason. Then all of a sudden Parise, Suter, Weber, etc had to have a huge chunk of money up front this offseason. Gee, I wonder why?

They were offered that money. Also you are wrong about this, check out the Sabres on capgeek sometime. As players + agents realized that a lockout was inevitable (since the only way owners can control spending is by collectively bargaining $$$ out of the players), yes, many star players asked for bonuses that would come due on July 1, 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great irony of this whole thing is Zach is one of the handful of players who has the least to lose from a lockout, and Kovy probably has the most to lose - financially at least - given his lack of signing bonus and the fact his $11 million years start now. I don't know who else stands to lose that much this year among the players (though obviously Kovy will make a chunk of that back in the KHL), since most of the ones that have comparable salaries have them because of signing bonuses.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, Kovy makes the most money this year. There's a site that is keeping track of how much each individual player will lose each month but I forgot what website it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great irony of this whole thing is Zach is one of the handful of players who has the least to lose from a lockout, and Kovy probably has the most to lose - financially at least - given his lack of signing bonus and the fact his $11 million years start now. I don't know who else stands to lose that much this year among the players (though obviously Kovy will make a chunk of that back in the KHL), since most of the ones that have comparable salaries have them because of signing bonuses.

Zach is signed to a 13 year contract - he doesn't lose in a lockout, but he will lose enormously if the union comes back with a bad deal (which, if there's a lockout, they almost certainly will). They're in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites