Jump to content

Photo

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)


  • Please log in to reply
1718 replies to this topic

Poll: Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!) (130 member(s) have cast votes)

When will we see hockey?

  1. Oct 12 (10 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  2. Nov 12 (19 votes [14.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.62%

  3. Dec 12 (26 votes [20.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.00%

  4. Jan 13 (33 votes [25.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.38%

  5. Feb 13 (1 votes [0.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.77%

  6. Mar 13 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Apr 13 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. Oct 13 (14 votes [10.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.77%

  9. Never (27 votes [20.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.77%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1021 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,076 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

Wow that's kind of a big deal
  • 0

#1022 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,549 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

Haha that Adater tweet is why we're gonna see hockey this year. There is no way the NHLPA stays united for much longer
  • 0

#1023 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,893 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:00 PM

That's similar to how I see it. The sides keep getting loser, the bluster in the media doesn't concern me if they keep talking and keep getting closer every week.


There is no 'keep getting closer' though - the two deals are as goddamn close as they can be. I have to imagine the NHL is working off some sort of calendar we're not aware of and that it will probably be at least a week before they meet again, probably longer.

That adater tweet is horsesh!t - that guy who just had a league source telling him that Fehr is a 'suicide bomber' 10% of the union at least has ZERO interest in a lockout - they would play if it went 60/40 owners players.

Edited by Triumph, 06 December 2012 - 10:02 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#1024 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,664 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:01 PM

dater ‏@adater

From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out"


And that explains the 'change' between Tuesday and yesterday quite succinctly.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#1025 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

There is no 'keep getting closer' though - the two deals are as goddamn close as they can be. I have to imagine the NHL is working off some sort of calendar we're not aware of and that it will probably be at least a week before they meet again, probably longer.


I actually think it's the opposite, Fehr blew up an almost done deal to try and put more time pressure on the owners.

I thought that before the tweet about Fehr privately telling the players the owners will bend more if they wait, that comment rings believable to me since that's how it looked to me from the outside.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#1026 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,893 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

I actually think it's the opposite, Fehr blew up an almost done deal to try and put more time pressure on the owners.


I don't think he blew it up, but I guess we won't know. I mean, he certainly asked for more and put pressure on the owners, but this was the time to do it - it was clear the NHL very much wanted a deal.

I thought that before the tweet about Fehr privately telling the players the owners will bend more if they wait, that comment rings believable to me since that's how it looked to me from the outside.


I don't think Fehr wanted them to wait, he wanted a deal now but he thought he could get the league to go for some other things. I think the NHL has payment thresholds and the like that we're not privy to - sponsorship money and the like having to be refunded - and that's what I mean by a secret calendar.

Edited by Triumph, 06 December 2012 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#1027 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:16 PM

I don't think Fehr wanted them to wait, he wanted a deal now but he thought he could get the league to go for some other things. I think the NHL has payment thresholds and the like that we're not privy to - sponsorship money and the like having to be refunded - and that's what I mean by a secret calendar.


I thought it wasn't much of a secret, NHL needed to play 62 games to get full sponsorship money. That's pressure both sides should have felt, as that affects both owner and players money, owners immediately and players 1 year removed.

I had assumed both players and NHL would figure out how to jam in 62 games if an agreement had been made during these current sessions.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#1028 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,664 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:22 PM

I actually think it's the opposite, Fehr blew up an almost done deal to try and put more time pressure on the owners.

I thought that before the tweet about Fehr privately telling the players the owners will bend more if they wait, that comment rings believable to me since that's how it looked to me from the outside.


That and Fehr also ensured the players got destroyed in the court of public opinion by his inane press conference insinuating it was almost a done deal when he was specifically told these issues were non-starters in terms of length. You're not going to get people on your side by trying to use and play on public emotion to put pressure on the owners when there was really no time to do so anyway.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 06 December 2012 - 10:26 PM.

  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#1029 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:23 PM

Anyone know of / can find a run down of the key differences in their proposals? Based on their pressers?

Bettman gave a lot of info and seemed angry at the PA's tactics, but I really couldn't make sense of what the key differences were.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#1030 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,893 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:56 PM

I thought it wasn't much of a secret, NHL needed to play 62 games to get full sponsorship money. That's pressure both sides should have felt, as that affects both owner and players money, owners immediately and players 1 year removed.

I had assumed both players and NHL would figure out how to jam in 62 games if an agreement had been made during these current sessions.


A lot of journalists were suggesting shorter seasons than that, I think 62 games would've been really tough - I don't think the NHL was ready for 3 games in 3 nights or 4 games in 5 nights kind of stretches like the NBA went through after their lockout.

Anyone know of / can find a run down of the key differences in their proposals? Based on their pressers?

Bettman gave a lot of info and seemed angry at the PA's tactics, but I really couldn't make sense of what the key differences were.


I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.

Edited by Triumph, 06 December 2012 - 11:59 PM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#1031 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,868 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:04 AM

@DonFehr1 Wonder if people will blindly follow me on Twitter as easily as the idiot hockey players blindly follow me as their union boss


  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#1032 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,868 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:15 AM

@DonFehr1: Btw, the whole press conference earlier? Don't blame me. I've been privately skyping with an imprisoned Alan Eagleson on and off- his idea.



  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#1033 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:22 AM

I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.


Yeah but Fehr acknowledged those stumbling blocks. Bettman's anger came from the idea that Fehr was cherry picking parts of the NHL's last offer. They were offering a package deal. The NHL came down on A in exchange for the NHLPA coming down on B. The NHLPA then presented that the NHL was coming down on A and said they were close to a deal.

There has to be more holding up a deal or Fehr's press conference wasn't misleading and not worth the righteous anger from Bettman. Bettman didn't specifically outline it as far as I could tell and I can't figure it out.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#1034 chrisg19

chrisg19

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:20 AM

I didn't watch the press conferences but it seemed like length of contracts was the biggest stumbling block, which seems like an awfully small hill to climb.

EDIT: Oh, and length of CBA, owners wanted 10 years, PA wanted 8.


My understanding is that there are 42 players with contracts longer than 5 years in the whole NHL, that is less than two players per team, or 16% of the union. Is that correct? If so, this should be a non issue. This doesn't even affect 84% of the players.

I was reading, I think it was Tannenbaums statement, that the tone of the meetings changed like someone flipped a switch on the Wednesday afternoon meetings. Unbelievable, the "depth" players better wake up fast. I'm sure Sid will send you a nice Thank You card when this is all over and he's playing hockey while your coaching squirts at the local rink......idiots....

C'mon Fehr, lets nuke it. Decertify baby, this will be in courts for years.

Edited by chrisg19, 07 December 2012 - 02:23 AM.

  • 0
"It wasn't Mike Eruzione shouting his own name that finally convinced coach Brooks to stop making the players do sprints. It was Mark Johnson, who smashed his stick against the glass in a fit of rage." Movie Mistakes and Bloopers


My Devils Photos


Work

#1035 DevilNurn

DevilNurn

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,128 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:28 AM

Really looks like the players are milking this debate for all it's worth. Especially Don Fehr. Because it's clear that although the PA has done nothing but give things up (compared to previous CBA), they still have leverage because ultimately, the owners are the ones losing money. Of course the players are losing some money, but many are making money in Europe. Owners are just losing money every day.

I can understand the NHL's frustration but it really makes them look like rookies. All this nonsense about the package deal and negotiating with themselves...they have only make concessions because their initial deal was so far off from reality and so far off from what they expected, it's not surprising it's taking as long as it has for the two sides to get closer.

I think there will be a season, starting in January, once the NHL figures out a good negotiation tactic that can deal with Don Fehr. They need a deal, for credibility and financial purposes, and they're only going to get it through more negotiation. But they have had no sense of urgency (until now).
  • 0

#1036 Jas0nMacIsaac

Jas0nMacIsaac

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,306 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:41 AM

I think desertification works 90% of the time in the players favor. 80% of the time the owners will give a better deal before it hits labor boards and 50% of time they win in courts. Either way I don't think it's a road the owners want to travel.

Edited by Jas0nMacIsaac, 07 December 2012 - 02:43 AM.

  • 0
A true leader is one who knows when to step aside for others to lead.

#1037 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,207 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:18 AM

My understanding is that there are 42 players with contracts longer than 5 years in the whole NHL, that is less than two players per team, or 16% of the union. Is that correct? If so, this should be a non issue. This doesn't even affect 84% of the players.


They are affected indirectly. The salary and contract rules for the top players meant that both top and depth players got paid, since the AAV didn't necessarily reflect the annual salary. If you put in a 5 year cap on contracts we'll get higher AAVs for top players meaning depth and bottom players getting less...since there's less room under the salary cap.

Obviously this isn't an issue for all teams (internal salary cap etc), but still.
  • 0

Winner of the 2009-10 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster
Winner of the 2011-2012 RD Avatar Award
believe2.jpg

www.numerartovertag.wordpress.com - An NHL Blog (in Swedish)


#1038 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,664 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:10 AM

Yeah but Fehr acknowledged those stumbling blocks. Bettman's anger came from the idea that Fehr was cherry picking parts of the NHL's last offer. They were offering a package deal. The NHL came down on A in exchange for the NHLPA coming down on B. The NHLPA then presented that the NHL was coming down on A and said they were close to a deal.

There has to be more holding up a deal or Fehr's press conference wasn't misleading and not worth the righteous anger from Bettman. Bettman didn't specifically outline it as far as I could tell and I can't figure it out.


The PA also wanted cap compliance buyouts and escrow limits, two things outside the system...so clearly they weren't 'in agreement on money'. And they hadn't even gotten to discussing HRR yet (the transition).

But all the bait-and-switch stuff smacks of the players trying to pay back the owners for 2004 when they took the 24% rollback and used it against them. That's what they tried yesterday taking the $100 million and saying 'okay, what else'? Which tells you going tit-for-tat on an eight-year old negotiation is more important than actually getting the best deal or any deal. Problem is you not only ticked off Gary but most of the few guys on the other side actually willing to make a deal.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#1039 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,664 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

Really looks like the players are milking this debate for all it's worth. Especially Don Fehr. Because it's clear that although the PA has done nothing but give things up (compared to previous CBA), they still have leverage because ultimately, the owners are the ones losing money. Of course the players are losing some money, but many are making money in Europe. Owners are just losing money every day.


'Many'? It's not anywhere close to a majority of players playing overseas and there won't be, there's only so many jobs you can vulture in these foreign leagues. Of course the big-name players (the 5% whining about contract limits) will be able to get jobs overseas - not getting the salaries they would be getting here though so even they're 'losing money' - but the majority won't. And there are still too many owners who lose less money by not playing than do by playing, not to mention hockey isn't their primary source of income to begin with. Hockey's the players' only source of income.
  • 0
"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:
-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00
-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

#1040 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,893 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:13 AM

'Many'? It's not anywhere close to a majority of players playing overseas and there won't be, there's only so many jobs you can vulture in these foreign leagues. Of course the big-name players (the 5% whining about contract limits) will be able to get jobs overseas - not getting the salaries they would be getting here though so even they're 'losing money' - but the majority won't. And there are still too many owners who lose less money by not playing than do by playing, not to mention hockey isn't their primary source of income to begin with. Hockey's the players' only source of income.


I can't believe that you actually believe this. Jonathan Willis wrote a pretty great article on why even though some teams lose money, they are loss leaders for other things:

http://blogs.edmonto...hat-lose-money/

If I had to guess, Phoenix is the only team saving money by not playing, and we already know who owns them.
  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users