1718 replies to this topic

[Triumph]

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.

Let's go through the players listed as being in New York for the negotiations.

Craig Adams, David Backes, Mike Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews, Kevin Westgarth.

First let's acknowledge that none of these players were involved significantly last time. The union leaders were by and large players over 30. That organization has been overhauled since then. Then, let's think about who among these players were actually in the union last time - Adams, Cammalleri, Darche, Doan, Hainsey, Horcoff, Mayers, Malhotra, McDonald, Miller, Richards, and St. Louis were NHL players at the time, but only Richards, St. Louis, and Doan were prominent ones. The rest of the guys probably wanted desperately to play that season. Many of them were on the NHL fringe or just coming up - a year off could be a disaster.

This has nothing to do with 2004-05. It has to do with now - getting the best deal now.

Edited by Triumph, 07 December 2012 - 08:23 AM.

[NJDevs4978]

Tri, even six or seven teams that lose less money by not playing than playing is too many (the Isles are probably another one, at least until they get out from that stupid lease in Nassau and get to Brooklyn). Because then you're always going to have a block of hardliners guaranteed to block a deal. Many of these owners are 'making money' with their arena leases and having other events in the arena it's true, that doesn't mean they make money from playing hockey as opposed to putting on the Icecapades.

I don't think they would be going to the wall this much NOW, after 04-05 if things were as rosy as you and PA-friendly writers suggest.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 07 December 2012 - 08:45 AM.

[Triumph]

Tri, even six or seven teams that lose less money by not playing than playing is too many (the Isles are probably another one, at least until they get out from that stupid lease in Nassau and get to Brooklyn). Because then you're always going to have a block of hardliners guaranteed to block a deal. Many of these owners are 'making money' with their arena leases and having other events in the arena it's true, that doesn't mean they make money from playing hockey as opposed to putting on the Icecapades.

Did you read the article? According to Broward County, the Panthers lost the most in 2004-05. And this is the Panthers, a team routinely on the relocation list - if you had to list teams that you figured would lose less during a lockout, the Panthers would be high up on it. But they didn't.

Owners can't block a deal if Bettman recommends it. Again, and I say again, if this is about losing less money, why isn't the salary floor being moved away from the salary cap? Because it isn't about that.

I don't think they would be going to the wall this much NOW, after 04-05 if things were as rosy as you and PA-friendly writers suggest.

The league is at record revenues with cost certainty - they know how much they have to pay out in salaries every year. How can things NOT be rosy? What is the problem? Share the money better if that's the problem, but big-market teams are making boatloads of money - they are guaranteed profit machines. Notice again how the only small market owner invited to talk was Vinik, whose team is still spending quite a bit this year. No Wang, no Karmanos. Regardless, owners are going to the wall to protect franchise values, which is a ton of what the bottom half of the league wants - if they are losing money (and I don't think they are losing all that much if they are save Phoenix) at least they can sell for a profit - they don't want huge contracts on the books until the end of time. sundstrom made this point many times when it looked like Vanderbeek is/was going to sell - Kovalchuk's contract is something a potential owner has to frown at. If they are in agreement on dollars, which Bettman and Daly didn't seem to deny yesterday, they're going to the wall for other dollars. To me Fehr's play is to get more dollars by eventually giving this up.

[redruM]

Bettman needs to go, his legacy is now the Lock man.... He has basically ruined hockey fo me... I'm not sure the owners or the players really want a deal, I think the players hope the season is shut down, and maybe a ne league start up, this is ridiculous!!!!

I WANT HOCKEY!!

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

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

From reading articles like this
http://www.cbc.ca/sp...ew-options.html
http://www.penticton...f-optimism.html

The main differences that are clear at this point are Bettman wants

• a 10-year deal with a mutual re-opener after eight seasons
• a five-year term limit on contracts (seven years for your own player) -- player contract length is the "hill we will die on," according to Daly.
• no compliance buyouts or caps on player escrow as the NHL and NHLPA transition from the old CBA to the new one.

NHLPA hasn't agreed on these issues. Fehr indicated the first two were issues and said they were close. So either you have to give Bettman the benefit of the doubt and there's something else there that he didn't articulate keeping a deal from being made and Fehr mischarecterized negotiations or they really are close to a deal.

[Satans Hockey]

I can assure you that however out of touch the players are, the owners are more so. This has nothing to with what people have to do to get by. It has to do with being fairly compensated for exceedingly rare talents.

But if we miss this entire season it's going to have a lot to do with what the average family makes. The vast majority doesn't want to hear that thousands to millions of dollars isn't enough money for these whining players to play a game. There isn't going to be much sympathy for them or the owners. I think both the players and owners are so out of touch with how many people are going to stay away from the sport in droves if we don't get some sort of season.

[oofrostonoo]

Aww the owners and players all have hurt feelings.

[Daniel]

I don't know why the union wants a shorter deal. If CBA negotiations in the NBA and NFL have taught us anything, the terms get better for the owners for each new CBA. MLB is the exception, but the NHL is not MLB.

The idea that the players can get a better deal by holding the 100th anniversary of the league hostage is wishful thinking.

[Triumph]

But if we miss this entire season it's going to have a lot to do with what the average family makes. The vast majority doesn't want to hear that thousands to millions of dollars isn't enough money for these whining players to play a game. There isn't going to be much sympathy for them or the owners. I think both the players and owners are so out of touch with how many people are going to stay away from the sport in droves if we don't get some sort of season.

It's not about money. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's like the old experiment where you put two people, call them A and B, in a room, you give A $10, and you say that A has to a split it with B. He can split it any way he likes, but the other person has to agree to the split, or both people get nothing. Well, some people will offer an even split. Others will offer only $1, figuring that hey, $1 is better than nothing, so B should take the deal. But a lot of potential Bs will see that as unfair and won't take it. That's the psychology we're dealing with now - the owners are trying to get with offering $3, and the players see that as unfair, no matter how much they get paid in total.

[Triumph]

I don't know why the union wants a shorter deal. If CBA negotiations in the NBA and NFL have taught us anything, the terms get better for the owners for each new CBA. MLB is the exception, but the NHL is not MLB.

The idea that the players can get a better deal by holding the 100th anniversary of the league hostage is wishful thinking.

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.

[Satans Hockey]

It's not about money. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's like the old experiment where you put two people, call them A and B, in a room, you give A $10, and you say that A has to a split it with B. He can split it any way he likes, but the other person has to agree to the split, or both people get nothing. Well, some people will offer an even split. Others will offer only $1, figuring that hey, $1 is better than nothing, so B should take the deal. But a lot of potential Bs will see that as unfair and won't take it. That's the psychology we're dealing with now - the owners are trying to get with offering $3, and the players see that as unfair, no matter how much they get paid in total.

I get what you're saying but I still think the fans are still going to have a tremendous backlash to this nonsense but when you take this small sample of a board as an example. Myself, who I would describe as die hard as it comes when it comes to the Devils and NHL hockey (hell I've had Devils season tickets for over 10 years and I normally travel to the cup finals if I can even if the Devils aren't in it, I was at game 7 of oilers-hurricanes in 06, game 5 and 6 of detroit-pittsburgh in 07, game 7 of detroit-pitttsurgh in 08 and game 6 of boston-vancouver in 11) is thinking of being done with giving any of money to support them in anyway then what is the average fan thinking? There are other die hards on here that have expressed how frustrated they are with having to go through this situation again so soon after 2004-05. I just don't think the owners and players have any clue at how bad the backlash is going to be in some cities.

I don't have much desire to argue dollars and cents when it comes to the CBA terms. I'm not on either side. All I want is this nonsense to be over with because the more I hear the owners and especially the players talk the more I have no desire to ever give them another cent of my money. I honestly would feel like a complete fool if we miss an entire season and I decide to keep my season tickets anyway. I'm not saying I won't keep them but I probably will take the route of trying to sell as many games as possible for awhile. When the economy is in such a sh!t it's really hard to really care about these owners and players whining over ridicilious amounts of money.

[Daniel]

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 . . .

[Triumph]

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.

[Zubie#8]

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"

[Pepperkorn]

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.

[Colin226]

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?

[Daniel]

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.

[Pepperkorn]

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, 07 December 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[Pepperkorn]

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, 07 December 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

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, 07 December 2012 - 03:55 PM.