1718 replies to this topic

[NJDevs4978]

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.

I knew it was going to the last minute (at best) after they canceled the Winter Classic...although I allowed myself to believe for a day that it could be different during that gong show in NY a couple weeks back. They could have done something I thought was impossible and had a relatively nice, clean ending if it had been settled there with the moderates coming in on their white horses the way they did in the NFL and Crosby having a big part in it.

But when that got torpedoed (and in the spectacularly hideous fashion it did), I think that actually did more damage than the first two months of the lockout. It felt like the last straw emotionally to many people, even if there's somehow a last-minute settlement in a couple weeks.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 20 December 2012 - 10:15 PM.

[thefiestygoat]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Marshall]

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.

[DJ Eco]

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!

[NJDevs4978]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Devils731]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Devils731]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[EdgeControl]

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.

[Daniel]

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

['7']

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

[DevilMinder]

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

[SMantzas]

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."

[njd3b1ink]

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.

[SMantzas]

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

Oh, well **** me lol

[capo]

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.

[Triumph]

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.