Jump to content

Photo

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)


  • Please log in to reply
1717 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

#1221 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,611 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:27 AM

At least we're about two weeks away from ending this mess (or our involvement with it) once and for all now. It's laughable they still haven't announced a drop-dead date but everyone knows in the vicinity of when it is at this point. This has to be the last cancellation if they want to get in 48 games.

That's the way I am viewing this right now. I never expected a season and will still be surprised if there is one, but at least within 2 weeks or so we can stop having to hear so much about it one way or the other.
  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#1222 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,723 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:05 AM

I'm starting to really get irritated. I prepared mentally for a resolution by a few weeks ago. I didn't expect it to go this long.


Neither did I, but now that it's gone this long its end is inevitable before the drop-dead date. Way too close for things to go otherwise.
  • 0

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


#1223 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,559 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:47 AM

I don't get the discussion about why other players shouldn't/wouldn't care about top players not getting these lifetime deals. Top players get longer contracts = guaranteed money (sort of) = lower cap hit = more money for depth players.

Imagine if we'd signed Kovy to a 5-7 year deal. He would've had a 9-10m caphit rather than 6.67. That has an effect on the rest of the roster for sure.

Edited by Marshall, 21 December 2012 - 07:47 AM.

  • 0

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


#1224 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,041 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:18 AM

I don't get the discussion about why other players shouldn't/wouldn't care about top players not getting these lifetime deals. Top players get longer contracts = guaranteed money (sort of) = lower cap hit = more money for depth players.

Imagine if we'd signed Kovy to a 5-7 year deal. He would've had a 9-10m caphit rather than 6.67. That has an effect on the rest of the roster for sure.



Interesting; never saw it that way but makes total sense!
  • 0

#1225 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,679 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:27 AM

Except that without variance, term limits themselves don't affect the cap number anyway. If you're not able to offer $10 million and $1 million years in the same contract, having a term limit isn't going to affect payroll one iota. Crosby can get 5-50 just as easily as he could get 10-100, the only reason he and other stars have less of a cap hit is variance and back diving of contracts.
  • 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

#1226 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,723 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:08 PM

Except that without variance, term limits themselves don't affect the cap number anyway. If you're not able to offer $10 million and $1 million years in the same contract, having a term limit isn't going to affect payroll one iota. Crosby can get 5-50 just as easily as he could get 10-100, the only reason he and other stars have less of a cap hit is variance and back diving of contracts.


This is incorrect, of course. How could term limits not affect the cap number? It's utter nonsense. Crosby is the wrong example because he wants his dumb contract to have a cap hit of 8.7M no matter what.

How much contract limits will affect the cap number remains to be seen, but it will affect it without question. Front-loaded contracts allow big market teams to substitute dollars for cap hit and they won't be able to do that anymore.
  • 0

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


#1227 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,566 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:12 PM

This is incorrect, of course. How could term limits not affect the cap number? It's utter nonsense. Crosby is the wrong example because he wants his dumb contract to have a cap hit of 8.7M no matter what.

How much contract limits will affect the cap number remains to be seen, but it will affect it without question. Front-loaded contracts allow big market teams to substitute dollars for cap hit and they won't be able to do that anymore.


Variance is much more important than length when it comes to the BS deals. A 15 year deal with no variance has no cap difference while a 6 year deal with backdiving has a cap difference. We can simply see that variance is the problem more than contract length.
  • 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

#1228 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,723 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:29 PM

Variance is much more important than length when it comes to the BS deals. A 15 year deal with no variance has no cap difference while a 6 year deal with backdiving has a cap difference. We can simply see that variance is the problem more than contract length.


I don't really agree, but I also don't see how it's germane to the discussion. Contract length allows players to defray risk by trading potential dollars for security. If the wide variation were limited but contract lengths were not, we'd still see the same principles at play, it's just that the deals would be shorter and the cap hits bigger.
  • 0

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


#1229 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,566 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

I don't really agree, but I also don't see how it's germane to the discussion. Contract length allows players to defray risk by trading potential dollars for security. If the wide variation were limited but contract lengths were not, we'd still see the same principles at play, it's just that the deals would be shorter and the cap hits bigger.


What will limit cap manipulation more, term limits or zero variance? It's obviously zero variance and you seem to be saying term limits matter more.
  • 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

#1230 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,723 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

What will limit cap manipulation more, term limits or zero variance? It's obviously zero variance and you seem to be saying term limits matter more.


No, I agree with that, I guess I just don't see where 'cap manipulation' is really the problem the NHL is trying to solve. Plus, if they get term limits, they could limit the variance far less than what's being proposed now and still not have many problems.
  • 0

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


#1231 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

guaranteed contracts and 50% of the revenue (not profit). the players should be reminded of that every meeting. all this redistribution of money talk is way secondary! once the cap number and revenue % was settled this thing should have been done weeks ago.
  • 0

#1232 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,439 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

Evidently Bill Daly said there will be a season. From an NHL network Sirius tweet FWIW.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#1233 '7'

'7'

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,971 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

Evidently Bill Daly said there will be a season. From an NHL network Sirius tweet FWIW.


Yes, someday...there will be a hockey season

someday
  • 0
^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph
Posted Image Posted Image

#1234 DevilMinder

DevilMinder

    Owner / Administrator

  • Admin
  • 9,187 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

He was put on the spot, he couldnt say No.
  • 0

#1235 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:06 PM

He was put on the spot, he couldnt say No.

I'm not gonna read too much into the comment, but he could have danced around it and said something like, "that's our intention."
  • 0

#1236 njd3b1ink

njd3b1ink

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

I'm not gonna read too much into the comment, but he could have danced around it and said something like, "that's our intention."

They said it had to be a yes or no answer.
  • 0

#1237 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Head Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,099 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:17 PM

They said it had to be a yes or no answer.

Oh, well **** me lol
  • 0

#1238 capo

capo

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 11:00 AM

I thought that it was necessary for the last lockout to last the season to get it fixed for good. All did was make the owners even more greedy. The only way to fix the problem this league has is mass relocation. Not steal from the players to fix the fact that we have franchises in places they don't belong. Even if the players gave the owners everything they wanted in this CBA they would demand more and lock them out again because they failed to fix the real problem. The only way to make all teams profitable is to put them in markets with demand.

Edited by capo, 23 December 2012 - 11:01 AM.

  • 0

#1239 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,723 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:23 PM

I thought that it was necessary for the last lockout to last the season to get it fixed for good. All did was make the owners even more greedy. The only way to fix the problem this league has is mass relocation. Not steal from the players to fix the fact that we have franchises in places they don't belong. Even if the players gave the owners everything they wanted in this CBA they would demand more and lock them out again because they failed to fix the real problem. The only way to make all teams profitable is to put them in markets with demand.


All teams shouldn't be profitable - teams should make profit when they are good and lose money when they are bad. I suspect TV is what keeps the teams where they are - Canadian teams do terribly on TV in the States, and the US is the biggest growth market for the game. Owners are therefore convinced that keeping teams where they are is better in the long-term.

There's also the idea that because of the stupidity of the NHL system, small market teams would hate it if Phoenix moved to Toronto - that would cost them money.

Edited by Triumph, 23 December 2012 - 06:25 PM.

  • 0

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


#1240 capo

capo

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

There's also the idea that because of the stupidity of the NHL system, small market teams would hate it if Phoenix moved to Toronto - that would cost them money.


I don't know... I think it's more Bettman's refusal to admit that he's wrong and thus the lengthy work stoppages we've had under his tenure.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users