293 replies to this topic

[NJDevs4978]

That's ridiculous. $49M cap?!?

The NHL gave their final offer - which I think gave away the store - this afternoon and said there was no room to negotiate. That was their final offer. And they come back with a cap that is outrageously higher than the one the NHL put forth?

Good night Irene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don :

First rule of negotiating... no offer is final until there are signatures on the document....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or the season officially gets canceled without another offer

[CMONPETEYD]

and thats a perfect reason why i dont like brian $anborn.. he is all about the dollars

[Derek21]

$7 million is significant; if and only if you regard these as real proposals. 

Both sides A:  do not want to accept the first offer that comes their way and B:  do not want to be the party that effectively cancels the season by rejecting a proposal without offering a counter-proposal.  Again, it's going to be a lot more than $105 million that the players (and owners) will be losing if they blow up the season, so the elements for a deal are all certainly here.

Has, you can't say "this is our final offer" and expect someone to accept it.  The PA has already bent over backwards in capitulating to the cap, and doing so in a real way.  Both sides need to be able to declare a victory for this to work.  If the NHL says "f-off, 42.5 was as high as we will go", they will have given the PR victory right over to the players, which is unacceptable when they've been winning from Day One.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This post nails it. Tri, while we may not always agree on stuff, I really have to give you credit here.

[minime]

this will get done at the last second - owners will probably counter at 43-44, maybe 45 MAX, i would think. but everything that has happened over the past day or two is a sign that a deal is imminent. its the only thing that makes sense at this stage.

[SueNJ97]

Has, I wasn't suggesting that they should increase rosters. I was just wondering how people were forgetting that current rosters were at 23 NOW. People were saying they were at 20 and some were talking about taking them up to 27. I was just saying they weren't at 20...just the actual players in any game were. I thought I might have missed some effort by the owners to cut roster size somewhere along the way.

Derek, in terms of JD wanting the 'cap' at $45-46 million, he doesn't even think it should be an actual cap, he wants high-spending teams to be able to go above it. He was pretty clear about that.

[Derek21]

and thats a perfect reason why i dont like brian $anborn.. he is all about the dollars

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMFAO... that's the way $ambone has always operated . Classic.

[NJDevs4978]

Come to think of it there's already been too many 'nevers' in the negotiation that have been broken...

Players: 'We will never accept a cap'
Owners: 'We must have linkage'
Players AND owners the other day: 'There will be no new offers'

So I guess moral of the story is you can't believe either of these buffoons

[Z-Man]

Does anyone else see the irony from one line in Goodenow's letter?


"I have attached a short summary of the main deal points discussed by Bill and Ted yesterday, as modified above."


I knew we had idiots doing the negotiating on both sides, but BILL AND TED???

Awesome, Dude!!!!

[Derek21]

Honestly, if the two sides can't reach an agreement now, they have no more excuses. They both have made concessions and aren't that far apart. Just compromise and they can save what little season there is left but gain back some credibility in the public eye. Losing an entire year is suicidal. They need to get it done.

[NJDevs4978]

Has, I wasn't suggesting that they should increase rosters.  I was just wondering how people were forgetting that current rosters were at 23 NOW.  People were saying they were at 20 and some were talking about taking them up to 27.  I was just saying they weren't at 20...just the actual players in any game were.  I thought I might have missed some effort by the owners to cut roster size somewhere along the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assumed they wanted active rosters to increase from 20 to whatever like baseball did when they increased rosters from 24 to 25 a couple decades ago, but I didn't read the posts carefully and increasing the active roster wouldn't work anyway, the symmetry of having four even lines and three even D-pairings I don't think can really be tampered with. Increasing the inactive roster might be something else, but I don't think it's really neccesary to go above 24.

[PeteyNice]

Does anyone else see the irony from one line in Goodenow's letter?

I knew we had idiots doing the negotiating on both sides, but BILL AND TED???

Awesome, Dude!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strange things are certainly afoot at the Circle K tonight.

['7']

finally we have some good back and forth here.

I refuse to believe the owners won't budge at least 2.5 from there supposed "final offer. Come back with 45 million and we might have a season. You've got the rollback, a luxury tax, and a high enough cap where it can't really be considered a true cap.

CBA is short, only 6 years, heck they'll start building up the warchests again by 2009. It's

[SueNJ97]

Has, I wasn't suggesting that they should increase rosters.  I was just wondering how people were forgetting that current rosters were at 23 NOW.  People were saying they were at 20 and some were talking about taking them up to 27.  I was just saying they weren't at 20...just the actual players in any game were.  I thought I might have missed some effort by the owners to cut roster size somewhere along the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I assumed they wanted active rosters to increase from 20 to whatever like baseball did when they increased rosters from 24 to 25 a couple decades ago, but I didn't read the posts carefully and increasing the active roster wouldn't work anyway, the symmetry of having four even lines and three even D-pairings I don't think can really be tampered with. Increasing the inactive roster might be something else, but I don't think it's really neccesary to go above 24.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I figured it was just a case of teams being able to carry more players on the total roster...they could possibly also increase the active roster for games, but I could see players getting really po'd at this as it would decrease their ice time, as was mentioned. Also, in a cap situation, the more players you have on the roster, the lower overall salaries will be. So I can't see players with HIGH salaries voting for it even though it might preserve jobs.

[Devils30]

The FAN590 is reporting that the NHL has rejected the offer.

['7']

the players wouldn't get pissed off by less ice time if they get paid more.

[PeteyNice]

NHL rejects the offer. It's on TSN as a headline (no article). No mention of a counter offer.

Edited by PeteyNice, 15 February 2005 - 10:56 PM.

[NJDevs4978]

Why would there be a counter offer, there's still 12 hours left...plenty of time

['7']

The FAN590 is reporting that the NHL has rejected the offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

now they're splitting hairs(millions) here. But they're not far apart. how hard can it be to meet in the middle at around 46 mil. The players budged from no cap, to 52, to 49. They might budge a little more but eventually they might dig in. That's the risk Bettman takes. Somebody come in with 46 and end this thing!

[redruM]

this is how it will go down... its a matter of who blinks first... and someone will blink....

1st nhl will reject offer, w/ no counter.....maybe around 9am

then about 11am players will counter again, maybe at 46....

then an agreement at 44

[Z-Man]

I think you're right, Red....this thing is going to go right down to 10:59am.....


ESPNNews has continuing coverage.....lots of quotes from players.....

Edited by Z-Man, 15 February 2005 - 11:01 PM.