• Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room

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

Make it short enough and the owners will think twice about a lockout the next time as a dominant strategy. That's what's critical here - if they sign a 10 year CBA, we can all start planning for the 2022 lockout right now.

Last time around was a six year deal, and there's a lock-out just the same where the deal for the players gets worse. Definition of insanity and so forth . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time around was a six year deal, and there's a lock-out just the same where the deal for the players gets worse. Definition of insanity and so forth . . .

It was a 7 year CBA. 5 might be enough for them to be open to a deal before a lockout - some markets will be hit hard by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Goldstein ‏@goldieonice

on radio,@TSNBobMcKenzie "there are a lot of players and agents that said, I don't want to lose the season over this. let's take the deal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decertify -- piss on the owners. Sure you can say it's the players shafting themselvs but the fact is the owners are trying, as they have repeatedly HOPED they were achieving in past CBAs, to hash out a legal collusion agreement. This isn't because players are demanding so much -- it's because owners can't control themselves. Even Lou coudn't stop it on his own team. So this is the players problem HOW? Nit pick how lesser players are shafted -- you know what? they are anyhow... you can't madate away self-imposed exploitation. You can't protect every stupid effer out there. and that's not what the owners want anyhow.

Decertify and make it SOLEY the owners problem. I dont care if it goes smack down to 5 teams again -- I really dont. Piss on them all. It's stupid and to take everything off the table out of spite is complete BULLsh!t. It's garbage. I dont want sh!t hockey if it means this assclowns get to think they've finally stopped themseves from screwing eachother over. fvck THE OWNERS. They're rich already and since hockey is such a losing proposition any way they're clearly too fvcking imulsive with their money anyhow.

Just piss on the whole thing... fvck 'em

I think I've acheived a certain status by now where no one will state little pissant nit picky little reasons I am in error in my thinking here. CLEARLY I dont give a fvck right? Clearly I want to say my peice and have you all just STFU. No, I do NOT enjoy having to think of every fvcking little cross-argument someone can drum to make themselves feel more clever.

I feel how I feel about this. I really dont give a fvck how rational I am being. <_<

Yes I've read every peice citing flaws with this arguement. Tough sh!t -- what it's a win/win because their is more parity in salaries? Yeah -- and a work stoppage every 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it short enough and the owners will think twice about a lockout the next time as a dominant strategy. That's what's critical here - if they sign a 10 year CBA, we can all start planning for the 2022 lockout right now.

Someone on here made an argument that a 10 year CBA forces the owners to correct financially troubled team situations themselves rather than taking away money from the players to help.. Doesn't that have some merit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decertify -- piss on the owners. Sure you can say it's the players shafting themselvs but the fact is the owners are trying, as they have repeatedly HOPED they were achieving in past CBAs, to hash out a legal collusion agreement. This isn't because players are demanding so much -- it's because owners can't control themselves. Even Lou coudn't stop it on his own team. So this is the players problem HOW? Nit pick how lesser players are shafted -- you know what? they are anyhow... you can't madate away self-imposed exploitation. You can't protect every stupid effer out there. and that's not what the owners want anyhow.

Decertify and make it SOLEY the owners problem. I dont care if it goes smack down to 5 teams again -- I really dont. Piss on them all. It's stupid and to take everything off the table out of spite is complete BULLsh!t. It's garbage. I dont want sh!t hockey if it means this assclowns get to think they've finally stopped themseves from screwing eachother over. fvck THE OWNERS. They're rich already and since hockey is such a losing proposition any way they're clearly too fvcking imulsive with their money anyhow.

Just piss on the whole thing... fvck 'em

I think I've acheived a certain status by now where no one will state little pissant nit picky little reasons I am in error in my thinking here. CLEARLY I dont give a fvck right? Clearly I want to say my peice and have you all just STFU. No, I do NOT enjoy having to think of every fvcking little cross-argument someone can drum to make themselves feel more clever.

I feel how I feel about this. I really dont give a fvck how rational I am being. <_<

Yes I've read every peice citing flaws with this arguement. Tough sh!t -- what it's a win/win because their is more parity in salaries? Yeah -- and a work stoppage every 5 years.

Fine, but the Devils for sure won't be one of those five teams. More importantly than no cap, decertification, if successful, means no draft. I don't love the idea of the Rangers signing Nate MacKinnon and Seth Jones.

I will say though that decertification might bring a very interesting legal issue to the Supreme Court. The short version, if NHL teams were telephone companies and there were no unions, it would obviously be a violation of antitrust laws for them to get together and fix the price of labor. Some have argued though, that sporting leagues are different because the product is competition. There's some force to this argument, but theoretical at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I know the difference between there and thier... man even Stevens corrects my spelling. No i do not forget anything - I'd have guessed you;d picked up on that by now. It's a curse.

SUre they wont Daniel -- BUT those like Lou will be working and those like Stevens will be working.... I want quality first and foremost. See I didn't put this in my post and I don't really feel like adding in bit by bit. I'm just not in the mood for a conversation onthis, I THINK OF ALL THIS sh!t -- YOu all know that... you all read my jumbled crap trying to answer all you perpetual debaters before you pipe up even.

I dont want to shut people down so much as - I've thought it through and in my current emotional state this is what I want.

I also want a shortened season because 82 games diminishes the qulaity of the hockey. Everyone wants diluted sh!t in the name of fairness -- the name of what? It's just in the name of revenue at the end of the day. Decertify. Save a union for small time leagues where stupid guys really will be taken for a ride.

Edited by Pepperkorn
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how are these fvcking CBAs NOT trying to fix the price of labor? Call a spade a spade. It's not about the players it's about league FIXING LABOR COSTS.

"You're really over simplifying here -- according to Johnson vs Johnson-Tugger..." blah blah blah -- I DONT CARE AT THE MOMENT!

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked HRR and the cap already 'fixed' labor costs, contract limits just control the length of deals.

Where were the people who are crying about the owners being unfair to the players now when HRR was 71%, the canadian dollar plummeted and franchises were dying on the vine? I guess it's okay when the players get every dollar they can and don't apologize for it while the league's in trouble but heaven forbid the owners want 50-50 and contract limits.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite part of this is trying to limit contract to 5 years, how about just offersing 5 year deals, no one forced the shmo from Minn to offer those ridiculous contrascts, HE chose to do it, now he wants out of them?

its the owners protecting the owners from THEMSELVES!!!!

I freakin g'tee LL would NEVER have given Kovy that contract.. GUARAN_FREAKIN-TEE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite part of this is trying to limit contract to 5 years, how about just offersing 5 year deals, no one forced the shmo from Minn to offer those ridiculous contrascts, HE chose to do it, now he wants out of them?

The first part is easy enough to say in theory but is literally impossible...unless you outlaw contracts beyond five years, there's 'always' going to be someone that does it to get an edge. Twenty-nine teams can decide no and all it takes is one to do it. And if there isn't then the players will cry collusion, especially since there's 90 such contracts now. It'd be pretty fishy if all of a sudden that stopped now without term limits.

The second part I agree on...Leipold can't be crying about getting a rollback on deals he signed three months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how are these fvcking CBAs NOT trying to fix the price of labor? Call a spade a spade. It's not about the players it's about league FIXING LABOR COSTS.

"You're really over simplifying here -- according to Johnson vs Johnson-Tugger..." blah blah blah -- I DONT CARE AT THE MOMENT!

They are and they aren't. It all stems from the Supreme Court's decisions in baseball where it was held that baseball was a game and not "commerce" and hence exempt from the antitrust laws, even though the second time around the majority basically admitted it was disingenous, but decided to stick with precedent. In response, baseball players formed a union and threatened to strike if a deal wasn't reached through collective bargaining, which is eventually what happened and created free agency as we know it today. Although the Supreme Court stated specifically that its decision applied only to baseball and not other sports, the other leagues decided dealing with a union was preferable to a totally free labor market. Basically, unions make more sense for relatively unskilled workers who would get lower wages if they couldn't horizontally collude (which is really what a union is, no offense to union workers). That's why you don't see CEOs forming unions.

As I noted though, even with decertification, it might eventually turn out that owners could fix labor prices despite the antitrust laws on the grounds that the law should be different when the product is competition. The argument hasn't been tested, and it would take a few years for it to work its way through the courts. In the meantime, like Bleakhouse, a bunch of lawyers will get very rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked HRR and the cap already 'fixed' labor costs, contract limits just control the length of deals.

Where were the people who are crying about the owners being unfair to the players now when HRR was 71%, the canadian dollar plummeted and franchises were dying on the vine? I guess it's okay when the players get every dollar they can and don't apologize for it while the league's in trouble but heaven forbid the owners want 50-50 and contract limits.

They're still around, trust me - anyone in favor of decertifying the NHL permanently is in this camp. But absolutely no one forces the owner's hand to sign on the line that is dotted. The owner controls the ability to sign or not sign players. The trouble is, the owner is terrible at hiring a general manager who is A: competent to make those decisions or B: the owner doesn't care about the long term, he wants to win now, at any cost.

Under the old system, it was basically an awful idea to sign anyone over 31. Their prices were through the roof. Lou only signed Stevens, McKay, and Daneyko, pretty much - he let everyone else significant walk at that age, and people around here gnashed their teeth, but it was the only way a team on a budget could conduct itself. He's still let plenty of guys walk now, and while the amount by which they are a bad bargain is less, they are still, generally, a bad bargain.

So what is wrong with NHL owners that they cannot control their spending? Why is July 1 a feeding frenzy and not like baseball where it takes several months for players to get settled?

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked HRR and the cap already 'fixed' labor costs, contract limits just control the length of deals.

Where were the people who are crying about the owners being unfair to the players now when HRR was 71%, the canadian dollar plummeted and franchises were dying on the vine? I guess it's okay when the players get every dollar they can and don't apologize for it while the league's in trouble but heaven forbid the owners want 50-50 and contract limits.

Honestly -- strawman as we love to say here. This isn't abut what the players are demanding. it's what owners are demanding of other owners and they're hi-jacking the players to do so. How you can not honestly see that's what this comes down to is beyond me. It's owners manufacturing a common enemy so they can collude pretty much.

Seriously -- this has nothing to do with the players and never has. They dummass players will take whatever they get because they're priorities are all fvcked up in the name of hockey. I was an actor so I can relate. I may sound harsh but it's the truth of the matter. unions are to save players from totally killing themselves and regretting it later. it is protecting the stupid just like AEA AFTRA and SAG. And still actors find a way to get themselves exploited.

No... this isn't a strike. It's players getting dragged along for a really fvcking sh!tty ride by a bunch of whining boys who have no respect for the real game of hockey. The "poor" teams whine and cry and say they're not being treated fairly -- on it's just total crap. We all know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm curious, what happens if the union decertifies and loses in court?

If it's actual decertification...then probably a year or so's already gone by and they literally have no play left than to accept whatever terms the league wants. If it's the 'disclaimer of interest' (decertification lite I dub it), then they still have no card left to play and just cut the best deal they can ala the NFL.

I think disclaimer of interest is a waste of time anyway, it got thrown out of court in the NFL and the NHL's going to have an even harder time getting judges to take it seriously when it's been in the papers for weeks and followed the 'script' to a tee. Not to mention they wouldn't negotiate for more than a day without Fehr in the room, now they're supposed to be taken seriously when they want to break off the union? Actual decertification is inputting the nuclear launch codes and wasn't what happened in the other leagues.

Honestly -- strawman as we love to say here. This isn't abut what the players are demanding. it's what owners are demanding of other owners and they're hi-jacking the players to do so. How you can not honestly see that's what this comes down to is beyond me. It's owners manufacturing a common enemy so they can collude pretty much.

And I'm supposed to feel bad for the players getting 5-7 year term guaranteed contracts? Even the president doesn't get a five-year term, much less normal working schmoes :P What this lockout is about is the league wanting an NBA system they don't particularly need and Fehr wanting a baseball system he can't have and both sides convinced of their own moral superiority and invincibility.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owners dont have to make these offers. Players are fighting for opportunity to exist. You are effectively saying Piss on the players. Why shoudl they have the right to ask for more?

IT'S JUST ASKING. It's the right to ask for somethign the owners are more than willing to give even if it kills their payroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a completely random thought...

I would like to see Cam fight Bettman on the ice before the puck drops on opening night...

Other than that I am just done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of sympathetic to the owners on the issue of contract lengths. It's not as simple as just "Player A is worth a 100 million dollar contract and the owners are trying to limit his worth." The long term contracts come from the fact that "Player A is worth 12 million dollars a year in physical money but only if his cap hit only 6 million dollars a year." The NHL's system of calculating cap hit is creating a problem for owners where there's an incentive in agreeing to risky long term deals, since you're trying to assemble the greatest group of players for the smallest cap hit possible and Player A is worth more to your franchise if his cap hit is smaller.

Just consider Ilya Kovalchuk, there's no way he gets a 100 million dollar contract from the Devils if it means he carries a 11 million dollar cap hit next year. His smaller cap hit has extra value to a franchise and it's creating distortions in the player labor marketplace.

But I don't think the solution is to limit max contract lengths. I think the solution is to change how the cap hit is calculated.

Edited by halfsharkalligatorhalfman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of sympathetic to the owners on the issue of contract lengths. It's not as simple as just "Player A is worth a 100 million dollar contract and the owners are trying to limit his worth." The long term contracts come from the fact that "Player A is worth 12 million dollars a year in physical money but only if his cap hit only 6 million dollars a year." The NHL's system of calculating cap hit is creating a problem for owners where there's an incentive in agreeing to risky long term deals, since you're trying to assemble the greatest group of players for the smallest cap hit possible and Player A is worth more to your franchise if his cap hit is smaller.

Just consider Ilya Kovalchuk, there's no way he gets a 100 million dollar contract from the Devils if it means he carries a 11 million dollar cap hit next year. His smaller cap hit has extra value to a franchise and it's creating distortions in the player labor marketplace.

But I don't think the solution is to limit max contract lengths. I think the solution is to change how the cap hit is calculated.

I don't disagree but owners want contract lengths for two reasons (besides the whole more control and nudging players to stay with their current teams thing)...number one the fact insurance doesn't cover more than five years on a contract anymore, and number two without cap hit variance all of a sudden players are going to demand more money per year. Over the long haul most of the big players who this would affect probably wind up getting more with two five-year deals than with the one ten-year deal except of course in the case of injury or the rare guy who falls off a cliff.

The funny part is there was one five+ year contract before this CBA, if they'd somehow slipped term limits in nobody would have batted an eyebrow, but since there's ninety of these deals now it's become the hill we die on. And players already proposed eight-year lengths so term limits will be a fact, it's just a matter of where it ends.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

number one the fact insurance doesn't cover more than five years on a contract anymore

If they fix the screwed up incentive teams have for giving long term deals to avoid cap hit, then this won't be a problem. There's a reason we didn't have over 5 year contracts before the last CBA and that's because of reasons like this, it's risky to give out contracts longer than 5 years. It's just the potential cap savings made it worth it to so many teams. (Btw I'm trusting you on this, I don't know for myself how exactly insurance works)

number two without cap hit variance all of a sudden players are going to demand more money per year.

Isn't this obviously going to happen if you limit contract lengths to 5 years? Suppose Player A gets to choose between 5 years / 10 million per and 6 years / 9 million per. What contract is better for the owner? For Player A? Why remove that contract option in allowing teams to build? Now the teams are forced to pay more per year with shorter contract lengths because they can't compensate instead with future salary. I don't get how this is necessarily even good for the owners.

The problem is how cap hit is calculated. If they solve that, then a lot of the issues of long term contracts go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as contract lengths I understand why they want to have a limit inputted into the CBA. Listen, just because an owner doesn't want to hand out a 10+ year contract to a franchise player doesn't mean he won't be FORCED to, to keep that player. I.E. Weber. A contract limit makes it fair for big and smaller market teams to potentially get or keep an elite caliber player.

I completely agree with that stance, it's not about limiting or protecting the owners from themselves, but from other owners also. The idea that a 5 year limit is fair or even remotely make sense is asinine. If they could do 6yr out of franchise 8 year in franchise I don't see how that can't be acceptable on both sides of the argument. I actually LOVE the fact that the owning franchise can offer a slightly longer deal to keep a prized player.

For those saying what the NHL is offering is more then fair, the players aren't losing much, they already lost $XXX and should just sign so they can play. I get that, it's not a HUGE downfall for what they're getting with the old CBA. This isn't all about what the players are making today, next season, or hell 5 seasons from now. This also has to be about the future players. If they agree to a 5yr contract limit now the owners will NEVER give that up. The players will never get that back, along with whatever else they agree to "just to play hockey and get NHL back on TV for our viewing pleasure". It. Will. Be. Lost. FOREVER. Not this CBA or maybe the next CBA. FOREVER. No matter how trivial some of it sounds to us as a fanbase, it for the future of the NHLPA.

Let's say they gave in to a 5 year contract limit this CBA just to get a deal done. What stops the owners, maybe even not the next CBA, or even the one after that. Hell maybe 15-20 years from now saying...you know what? Not good enough anymore....25%HRR for players, 3yr contract length, and 24% roll back on salaries. Oh, you don't like that idea...to bad you're locked out then. That's never happened right? They would NEVER roll back salaries, not guarantee signed contracts, roll back HRR% or start limiting contracts, or limit them even further like the NBA just did. Nope never.

Listen I'm as anxious for hockey as much as the next fan, but I sure as sh!t don't want the players to roll over and get back to work if it literally may fvck the rest of the future players for years to come. Those complaining about the 5% who have contracts over 5 years? Really...they already have their lifetime contracts...you honestly think they give a sh!t about themselves??? No, they're thinking of the future.

Oh and not to get fvcked over by Gary Bettman once again. Nice temper tantrum last night Gary, rivals even my 4yr old when I turn off the PS3 on him...

Edited by Coorslight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think it's embarrassing that we haven't been able to agree with the owners. It's embarrassing to people who follow the sport and live their lives around hockey. We have a responsibility towards them. I can think the owners have a big part of it (the conflict) but both sides have to take responsibility for it"

Hopefully more smart guys among the players will start to get involved and make their voices heard. I'm not sure an all out internal war against Fehr would be good at this stage (but it would be entertaining). I think the fastest solution is if the moderates push for a deal while allowing Fehr to save face.

I hate him, but hes spot on
Edited by SMantzas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players can't cave at this point. It has to be their agreement. They gave way too much in the last CBA and they've offered to give away a ton again. This is a profitable league the way it stands. If the NHL has teams losing money it's their problem and has nothing to do with the players. The players have given enough. There shouldn't be teams in Nashville, Phoenix, Florida and so on. You could even argue New Jersey (I know... just saying...) Bettman and co. are at fault for the locations of these franchises. This isn't about us as fans this is about the players and their payers. The owners can't control themselves from themselves and that is why we are where we are. It has nothing to do with the players. The players have given plenty.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites