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

#1061 redruM

redruM

    Hockey God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,483 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

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!!
  • 0
Posted Image

2006 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2006 JHL CHAMPION!!
2005 CHAMPION of the 1st Annual NJDevs Fantasy Wrestling League!!!
2005 Finalist 1st Annual NJDEVS Fantasy Baseball League
2005 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2004 LockOut Trivia CHAMP!!!


Keeper of The original Welcome to Hell Forum, Jimmy Dowd, Brian Rolston, "Christmas Tree" Jersey's and the Original Trade Documents of the FREEZE man!!


BOM U11G Dynamite

Posted Image

#1062 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,451 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

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.
  • 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

#1063 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,808 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:33 PM

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.
  • 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?

#1064 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,775 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:34 PM

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, 07 December 2012 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0

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


#1065 Hi, I'm VALUE!

Hi, I'm VALUE!

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:35 PM

So I'm curious, what happens if the union decertifies and loses in court?
  • 0
VOTE CRASHER FOR LADY BYNG 2011!

2008 NJDevs Fantasy Football Champion
Co-winner of the 2008-2009 UnderdogX Signature Award (Internet awards = serious business)


Devils Head Coach = More turnover than the Defense Against the Dark Arts post.


"congratulations, Value. Maximum Value was, apparantly, gaurenteed." -Martysb3tt3r

I will not remove this line from my signature until everyone alive realizes that
THE INTERNETS ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS KTHXBYE~!

#1066 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:53 PM

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.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#1067 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,451 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

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, 07 December 2012 - 04:59 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

#1068 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:04 PM

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.
  • 0

I'm here for the party


#1069 Dead

Dead

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,894 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:12 PM

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...
  • 0

Stationed @ The Rock   Devils!!! :devil: :gd: :devil:
gallery_47_36_882.pngSection 114 & Kovy's Second Contract

 


#1070 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:51 PM

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, 07 December 2012 - 05:53 PM.

  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#1071 NJDevs4978

NJDevs4978

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,451 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:05 PM

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, 07 December 2012 - 06:06 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

#1072 halfsharkalligatorhalfman

halfsharkalligatorhalfman

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,820 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

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.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

#1073 Coorslight

Coorslight

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:40 PM

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, 07 December 2012 - 06:42 PM.

  • 0

1dun.jpg


#1074 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,834 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:44 PM


Henrik Lundqvist

"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, 07 December 2012 - 06:44 PM.

  • 0

#1075 moustic

moustic

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:52 PM

http://sports.yahoo....18148--nhl.html
  • 0

#1076 capo

capo

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:58 PM

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

#1077 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,280 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:09 PM

I just gained a ton of respect for Lundqvist. At least he gives a sh!t.
  • 1

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


#1078 Coorslight

Coorslight

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

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.


I love the "It's not Bettman, he's just a voice for the owners" comments I see everywhere. Yeah, you're right...he's hired to do the owners will at all costs. He will lie, cheat, and more importantly steal ALL he can from the players, just like every other lawyer out there is paid to do. Just not many lawyers are paid 8mill a year to do it. Let me guess...it was in good faith Bettman brought up player/owner only meeting without him and Fehr. No it was try to negotiate a contract with people not as versed in these things. The players MET in good faith with the thought they were going to discuss and overcome some of the more important issues. Owners took it as contract or CBA negotiations. When they came back with a proposal on those discussions....NOT negotiations mind you...as the last 2 days weren't suppose to be that...Bettman then again pulled another move of acting horrified, speachless, etc etc etc.

Bettman may not be the sole person at fault on the owners side but he sure as sh!t is the cause for every single damn thing that happens. Make no doubt about it. He is paid to make the OWNERS money under any circumstance possible. Lie, cheat and steal...he doesn't give a sh!t about the fans or the game either...not matter what some fans think or how the media tries to spin it.
  • 0

1dun.jpg


#1079 Zubie#8

Zubie#8

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:34 PM

Although I hate the Rangers I will always love Lundqvist. Great goalie and better yet an amazing person. He is a class act off the ice and he treats the fans the right way. But of course I will always root against him when he puts on that Rag jersey.
  • 0

believe-zubrus.jpg

 


#1080 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,834 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:13 PM

The thing is, the owners who want to win will find a loophole and the players will get paid anyway. It certainly happened last CBA
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users