Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

CBA Negotiations: We are getting close to the edge of darkness, yet we are not scared


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2321 replies to this topic

#1801 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:28 AM

So is the plan to turn the NHL into the NBA with regards to contracts? How is that working out? Isn't that the sport were there are roughly 6 teams that have any shot at winning the championship any season?


If you actually think that the length of contract issue is what disrupts the competitive balance in the NBA and that this would carry over to the NHL, you've never watched either league and know nothing about either sport. Of course, you don't actually think that because:

What I don't get is why each time the NHL just rejects the NHLPA proposal and stomps their feet rather than saying something to the effect of "we cannot accept the proposal in its current form but are willing to continue the process and look forward to coming to a resolution that works for all parties".

All they do by stomping their feet is turn the public off and probably piss off the players more as well.


you're obviously just looking for any excuse, no matter how nonsensical, to bitch about the owners. Now you're mad that they didn't give some bullshit mealy-mouthed answer about still continuing the process?

Edited by Myt1, 07 December 2012 - 10:29 AM.


#1802 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:46 AM

If you actually think that the length of contract issue is what disrupts the competitive balance in the NBA and that this would carry over to the NHL, you've never watched either league and know nothing about either sport. Of course, you don't actually think that because:



you're obviously just looking for any excuse, no matter how nonsensical, to bitch about the owners. Now you're mad that they didn't give some bullshit mealy-mouthed answer about still continuing the process?


Don't be a fucking douche bag, I already admitted to not watching the NBA but safe to say I have been following the NHL longer than most.

I've been watching the Bruins since they were on wsbk TV 38 when I had to adjust the bunny ears to get reception since they were on a UHF signal.

The NBA is the only sport I am aware of with 5yr contract limits and has by far the worst competitive balance of any US sport so I thought that perhaps that would translate to the NHL and quite frankly no one has proven otherwise.

Rather than mouth breathing why don't you explain why the same competitive balance issues that exist in the NBA won't transfer to the NHL?
It appears to me that the teams that do well in the NBA are the big markets and the warm weather cities. It might just be coincidence or it might have something to do with the limited flexibility in contracts negotiations. If all contracts are more or less equal then why would a superstar ever sign to play in Charlotte vs. a Miami or LA? Why won't this happen in the NHL if the same policies are put in place?

#1803 The Napkin


  • wise ass al kaprielian


  • 13,715 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:54 AM

how about we all take a deep breath or two before any of us reply, eh?

#1804 steveluck7

  • 1,148 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:01 AM

Andy Gresh just said that there's a clause (he's heard but hasn't been able to confirm) in Fehr's contract with the PA that says if they ultimately approve a deal without his consent, he gets an $8 million bonus.

Mutiny insurance

#1805 AMcGhie


  • The Robinson Canoe of RMPS


  • 1,133 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

Jack Edwards Twitter from last night is good. Also, I'd kill to hear him go off on Jacobs, but seeing as Jacobs is basically his boss, he probably can't talk about him directly. So help me, hockey w/o Jack Edwards just doesn't seem like hockey.

#1806 lexrageorge

  • 3,121 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:17 AM

If I may respond on the NBA vs NHL differences:

The impact of a single player on an NBA team is typically far greater than in any other sport, mainly because there are only 5 players on the court at any time, and the starting 5 players typically play anywhere from half to three-quarters of a game, with the typical premier player playing even a greater share. As a result, once that premier player becomes a free agent, he typically has many choices of where to go, and will naturally gravitate to either the team that (a) gives him the biggest chance of winning a championship; (b) the biggest endorsement deals; and/or © the warmest weather. These issues have always existed to some extent in the NBA; there's actually not a whole lot the league can do about some of these items. In the last CBA, the NBA did at least give the team that previously owned the player's rights the chance to give the player the best contract with the biggest raise. The sign-and-trade rules were also tweaked to make it more attractive for a player to stay with his old team, and more stringent limitations were placed on teams that have the highest payroll (recall that the NBA has a soft cap, as opposed to the NHL's hard cap). Also, remember that these changes are only 1 year old, and some of then do not go into affect until next year, so the impact of these changes really has yet to be felt.

While one player can certainly impact the fortunes of a hockey team, his impact is less than that of an NBA player. Keep in mind that Gretzky himself never won a Cup after leaving Edmonton, but Edmonton did win one shortly after Gretzky went to LA (a painful, 3-OT memory for us long time Bruin fans). The hard cap also makes it harder for teams to "collect" superstars; having 3 great goal scorers helps, but even that wasn't enough for Tampa or Vancouver to win the Cup 2 years ago (a much better memory for us Bruin fans). A lot of contending teams are still built from drafting, player development, and the vast majority of mid-tier players that are critical for the various specialized roles on a hockey team.

Also, endorsement money in the NHL is very different from that in the NBA. Parise played in the US's largest media market, and on a pretty decent team, and was still not a household name outside of die hard hockey fans. Being a star hockey player in LA means you get girls and a couple of commercials for local car dealerships, and not a whole lot else. If you want endorsements, play for Toronto or Montreal, and be prepared for the corresponding tax hit.

I don't agree with the contract length provision, or at least the idea of limiting it to 5/7 years. Either make it longer, or simply use actual salary payout when calculating a team's cap hit for contracts going forward. Or just state that a player's salary within the contract cannot vary by more than X%, but let it be as long as it wants. But the contract length limitation is unlikely to turn the NHL into the NBA.

#1807 Joe D Reid

  • 2,623 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:36 AM

I'd be considerably more sympathetic to the idea of the contract issues being the hill the owners were willing to die on if they hadn't emphasized primacy of the revenue % so much when they imposed the lockout. If both of the main issues ($$ and contracts) are truly religious ones for the owners, then there's not much negotiating to be done.

#1808 RIFan

  • 259 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:43 AM

Andy Gresh just said that there's a clause (he's heard but hasn't been able to confirm) in Fehr's contract with the PA that says if they ultimately approve a deal without his consent, he gets an $8 million bonus.

Mutiny insurance

Gresh is an idiot. I guess he figures if Burton has insiders, any clown can float crap. Larry Brooks had reported that the NHL board was pushing that rumor and Fehr knocked it down.
http://www.nypost.co...UYRGeiAMY3xF1QN

#1809 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,534 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:45 AM

It's a load of horseshit. it goes completely counter to everything the MLBPA has ever done.

#1810 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

That is very true that a core of all-stars don't guarantee success to the same degree they do in the NBA (sorry Greg but Penguins are an excellent example of this) because of the significant impact depth players have in the NHL vs. NBA. At the same time I wonder what players will be willing to go to crappy teams if virtually everyone is offering the same contract. You still need a core of very good players to have a reasonable chance in the NHL.

Obviously FA's are just one component and savvy drafting/development can greatly make up for lack of impact FAs but that lessens the margin of error if you are constantly having to draft/develop top talent.

At the end of the day I find it hard to believe that the same NHL owners that just approved dozens of long term contracts over the last couple years is now willing to die to end the practice.

#1811 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:21 PM

how about we all take a deep breath or two before any of us reply, eh?


Because the issue with the guy whose argument is "Correlation = Causality and you haven't proved otherwise," isn't a matter of emotion; it's a matter of him having picked a side and torturing reality to fit that worldview and posting nothing but complaints about the league. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why, when thinking about this lockout, I shouldn't forget that the last CBA allowed the players 57% of revenues.

Don't be a fucking douche bag, I already admitted to not watching the NBA but safe to say I have been following the NHL longer than most.

I've been watching the Bruins since they were on wsbk TV 38 when I had to adjust the bunny ears to get reception since they were on a UHF signal.

The NBA is the only sport I am aware of with 5yr contract limits and has by far the worst competitive balance of any US sport so I thought that perhaps that would translate to the NHL and quite frankly no one has proven otherwise.


I mean, the bolded reasoning doesn't get you out of the Sandbox. The NBA's the only league to recently remove a pro franchise from Seattle. Is that the cause of the competitive imbalance? No one has proved otherwise.

The NBA is unbalanced because the nature of the sport allows the best players to regularly dominate games in a way that simply doesn't exist in the other big 3. And those best players are on the playing surface more regulalry.

Rather than mouth breathing why don't you explain why the same competitive balance issues that exist in the NBA won't transfer to the NHL?


When "correlation = causality" is your argument, you don't get to complain about mouthbreathing. And the guy who's complaining, repeatedly, about one side stamping their feet and not being willing to negotiate obviously isn't interested in really discussing these issues.

Edited by Myt1, 07 December 2012 - 12:24 PM.


#1812 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 11,069 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:07 PM

Pretty good writeup from Katie Baker on Grantland.

#1813 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

When "correlation = causality" is your argument, you don't get to complain about mouthbreathing. And the guy who's complaining, repeatedly, about one side stamping their feet and not being willing to negotiate obviously isn't interested in really discussing these issues.


Right because that is the only issue I have brought up in this entire thread. I'll agree that 5yr limits probably won't lead to the same competitive balance issues that exist in the NBA but I also think it is going to lead to small market teams really struggling to secure premium FAs. Perhaps that doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things but I fail to see how this will be good for the game.

I've tried to look at this negotiation from both sides and have sided with both parties on issues. Most recently I have been 100% behind the NHLs demands for a 10yr CBA. I think it is essential that they have a long term CBA if they are going to attract significant sponsors. I have a hard time believing any entity is going to put significant sponsorship $$ behind a league with the work stoppage history of the NHL unless they get some guarantees that there will be no labor strife for several years.

Rather than spending so much effort picking apart my ideas why don't you come up with some of your own? All I really get out of your posts is how awesome you are at lawyering.

As someone that I assume spends a fair amount of time negotiating I would expect you more than most to understand that how you say something can be as important as what is said. When the NHL declines the NHLPA offer via voicemail 10min after they receive it and break off talks that is far more detrimental to the process than if they had come back with a measured less emotional response. At the end of the day these are billionaires fighting with millionaires and they are both willing to risk billions. There is very little rational thinking and a lot of emotional decisions being made.

#1814 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

Right because that is the only issue I have brought up in this entire thread. I'll agree that 5yr limits probably won't lead to the same competitive balance issues that exist in the NBA but I also think it is going to lead to small market teams really struggling to secure premium FAs. Perhaps that doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things but I fail to see how this will be good for the game.

I've tried to look at this negotiation from both sides and have sided with both parties on issues.


I'm going to try to slow my asshole roll a bit.

Those don't mean the same thing. You're looking at what you want and if a party agrees to that, you support it. That's not the same as looking at the negotiation practices from both sides.

Most recently I have been 100% behind the NHLs demands for a 10yr CBA. I think it is essential that they have a long term CBA if they are going to attract significant sponsors. I have a hard time believing any entity is going to put significant sponsorship $$ behind a league with the work stoppage history of the NHL unless they get some guarantees that there will be no labor strife for several years.

Rather than spending so much effort picking apart my ideas why don't you come up with some of your own? All I really get out of your posts is how awesome you are at lawyering.

As someone that I assume spends a fair amount of time negotiating I would expect you more than most to understand that how you say something can be as important as what is said. When the NHL declines the NHLPA offer via voicemail 10min after they receive it and break off talks that is far more detrimental to the process than if they had come back with a measured less emotional response.


Again, you're not considering both sides of that issue. If the NHL suspected that NHLPA were publicly posturing by exaggerating how close the sides were to a deal in an attempt to build some critical mass of public interest and support, when the sideas really weren't that close at all, then a terse voicemail and breaking off talks may, in fact, be better for the process than remaining silent about the BS the other side just threw out there while giving a shitty PR non-answer of, "We remain committed to continuing the discussion." I'm not ignoring the fact that how one says something means things. In fact, I'm hyper aware of it. But it applies to both sides, and when you're faced with completely incongruous reports from the two parties and what seems like genuine anger on the part of one, you need to think a bit about why that might be. For example, had I been in the union's position, that's pretty much what I would have done as a first response if I thought the owners' first proposal were simply absurd.

As for ideas of my own, as is often the case, I lack the breadth and depth of knowledge for my ideas to have much value at all. That's why I rarely post affirmative policy suggestions anywhere on the board. I do know some stuff, but most of what I know is a method of reasoning rather than the specific inputs into that process.

Edited by Myt1, 07 December 2012 - 03:42 PM.


#1815 Blacken


  • Paddy Tanniger the Caddy Manager


  • 8,421 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:55 PM

Because they're bags of shit undeserving of water carrying?

Fuck those Job Creator assholes and their expectations of boot-licking.

#1816 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

"Millionaire service workers of the world unite"? Good luck. Uncle Karl would have a shit-fit and Che played rugby, not hockey, so you're probably not getting a helmet on him. :)

Understanding that a melba toast "Well, we're not there yet, but we're still willing to work towards a solution," isn't really an answer and isn't necessarily an effective way to further negotiations (depending on the circumstances) has nothing to do with water-carrying. You were onto something with your Turing machine comment from a while back. I don't care enough or have strongly enough held beliefs on 99.9% of issues to bother carrying water for anyone.1








1Outside of things like Santarpio's pizza, chugging beer, and wanting to beat Lindy Ruff's face through the back of his head.

Edited by Myt1, 07 December 2012 - 03:33 PM.


#1817 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 11,069 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:48 PM

1Outside of things like Santarpio's pizza, chugging beer, and wanting to beat Lindy Ruff's face through the back of his head.

And the true cause of the end of the Cold War.

#1818 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

Yeah, but then I'm carrying water for unassailable fact. Which makes it not really carrying water at all.

Ooooh . . . evil carrying water.

#1819 FFCI

  • 197 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

What possible leadership is Donald Fehr bringing to the NHLPA in this negotiation?

I don't understand what he hopes to gain for the players?

The players seem to have agreed to 50-50 revenue sharing and are having their existing contracts honored, yadda, yadda, yadda....

And assuming the parameters of the make-whole provision are hammered out to an acceptable solution - the deal breaker becomes limiting contract length - and the length of the new CBA. Seriously?

What NHL player wants to go through this again in their career? The majority of the players surely would be glad to simply find out what the rules are - and get back to business - their business of making millions and playing hockey. They can all live with 10% less - but 100% less - aka a lost season - they can never recoup.

The sport will survive, there will be an NHL. The majority of the owners made their wealth in an industry other than the NHL. They've seen investments drop in value, they know that eventually, the NHL and their franchise values will likely hit record highs again...

The players have a limited time to make their money. Many will be able to make enough for a lifetime, some will have to work once their careers end. A few may be set up for generations.

The argument about contract limits doesn't protect the majority of the NHLPA - to hold out over that issue that will impact less than 10% of the NHLPA is asinine.

Anyhow, what is the player's next move? If there's no season, they most certainly can't be in a stronger position to negotiate next season, can they?

The players may "decertify" which essentially busts the union for the owners, doesn't it? If things end up in court, what is the end game, all contracts voided, everyone a free agent? How does that help the players?

Bottom line is the players can't lose in getting a new deal - they can only lose in not getting a new deal. Whatever the terms of the deal - they make money. With no deal = no money.

#1820 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,663 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

McKenzie is tweeting out just how asinine the contracting rights thing is for both sides.

He went through cap geek and apparently there are 89 players with contracts that are 6+ years long. About half of those fall in the 6-7 year long category, which currently satisfies both sides proposals. He says about half of the remaining 40 would qualify as back diving deals, and those will be addressed one way or another in the new CBA anyway. So the righs they are fighting over affects about 20-30 players. Roughly 5% of the membership. From the NHL's side, why are they adamant on placing a safeguard from themselves spending stupidly when there are so few deals that are affected?

#1821 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:41 PM

I'm not quite sure exactly what the hell just went on in here, other than thor hates the owners just like I do, but I agree that max contract lengths suck, having different ones for your own player vs. a FA sucks, and the NBA experience has proved that they suck, and it's got almost nothing to do with competitive balance.

Max means your greatest generational talent players can only get X amount of years. And unless said maxes are some ridiculous amount like 10-12 years, it also means a whole bunch of mediocrities are going to get that same security. It's worse in the NBA because it's max dollars as well as max years, so you have bums like Joe Johnson making as much as LeBron, Kobe, and KG. And when you add on an allowance for guys to make more if they re-sign with their own team...well, sure, it's a nice pollyanna idea to help crappy markets where nobody wants to play have a bit of an edge when it comes to keeping their own guys. But as we're seeing over and over again in the NBA, what actually happens is you have guys running to Stephen A Smith and babbling all over twitter about how they won't sign anywhere but LA or Brooklyn, and these teams are forced to either let their guy walk for nothing (and cost him money, leading him to be an insufferable coach-killing malingering douche for the duration of his contract) or trade him to the Lakers for a pair of sweaty socks and Andrew Bynum's used rubber. And while NHLers by and large aren't quite the level of diva that some NBA "stars" are, when they start having to leave money on the table if they can't get themselves dealt to where they want to be vs. playing it out and signing there, well, I'd expect the douche level in the NHL to rise significantly.

And the thing is, it's happening right here in the NBA and they've got a fantastic view of how max deals screw with the salary structure. They're getting their linkage, they're getting a fair split, if they want to eliminate back-diving fine, that should have been addressed in the last CBA but whatever. Are league GMs that stupid that they need a crutch like contract limits? Here's an idea...don't give 9 years to mediocrities like Ilya fucking Bryzgalov.

#1822 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:43 PM

I will add that the players apparently not wanting a 10-year CBA is stupid. Theyr'e never going to win one of these deals; their next CBA will be worse than the last. Why not have the current deal go as long as possible?

#1823 finnVT

  • 1,117 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:46 PM

The players seem to have agreed to 50-50 revenue sharing and are having their existing contracts honored, yadda, yadda, yadda....

is this true? i thought the closest they had come was to have 300m of the 7% rollback honored (i don't know what the dollar value of the full 7% is, though), with some of that being essentially deferred payments (to a pension fund).

And I think that's really the ultimate deciding factor for who's side you come down on this issue. To me, I see the owners trying to get out of signed contract obligations, despite recent league growth, without offering the players anything in return (except, i guess, the idea that it would be "good for the league" moving forward). And then piling contract restrictions, etc, on top of that. Is there a single issue in the new CBA proposals that we've heard where the players would end up better off than they were in the previous one? I've been repulsed by Fehr in this, but I at least sympathize with this point, because I don't see any justification for cutting existing contracts, and it reeks of the owners just seeing the % that owners in other leagues are getting and deciding they want more.

I agree the whole CBA length issue is bizarre. I really feel like the players and owners should be flipped in terms of which side they're on of that issue, with players wanting a longer one (do they really think there's any chance that 5, 6, 8, 10 years from now the owners are going to say "ok, now you can have 54%"?).

Edited by finnVT, 07 December 2012 - 05:06 PM.


#1824 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

From the NHL's side, why are they adamant on placing a safeguard from themselves spending stupidly when there are so few deals that are affected?


Because if the number of such future deals goes to zero without being codified, they open themselves up to complaints of collusion. And this is a concern that doesn't apply with equal force to the NHLPA.

#1825 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,663 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

The money is agreed upon, so presumably they are at 50/50. The information Fehr gave in his "we're close!" press conference wasn't inaccurate, he just knew well and good the NHL wasnt happy with him. Bettman, in his rage fueled press conference, never refuted Fehr's claim that the money was agreed upon. He (well, Daly) said they had 3 key points: CBA length (NHL is at 10/8, PA at 8/6), Term limits (NHL 5/7, PA 8), and compliance (PA wants buyouts, league wants artificial cap). No mention of money issues. The "wide gulf!" Bettman talks about are 2 years of CBA length and a year or two in contract term limits.

#1826 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,663 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:09 PM

Because if the number of such future deals goes to zero without being codified, they open themselves up to complaints of collusion. And this is a concern that doesn't apply with equal force to the NHLPA.


Yeah, I get that. But by all accounts the PA isn't at unlimited, there at 8 year limits.

#1827 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:27 PM

Yea I don't really see what the problem is there. Give the PA their 8, get rid of back-diving, and in return they give the league their 10-year deal (which as I said upthread is better for the NHLPA anyway).

#1828 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 19,641 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:38 PM

Yeah, I get that. But by all accounts the PA isn't at unlimited, there at 8 year limits.


I don't understand why that matters. The Existence or absence of these deals isn't goin to subject the PA to claims of collision. They're fighting for a codification that effectively affects the contracts and negotiating of a tiny percentage of their people. The league is fighting for a codification designed to protect the entire league from having to compete with those kind of contracts and in the alternative collusion charges. As such, there's much less identity of interests among the players, which makes me wonder why it's such a sticking point. I kinda admire their cohesiveness though.

Edit: Stupid phone.

Edited by Myt1, 07 December 2012 - 06:38 PM.


#1829 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:59 PM

Yea I don't really see what the problem is there. Give the PA their 8, get rid of back-diving, and in return they give the league their 10-year deal (which as I said upthread is better for the NHLPA anyway).


I really don't understand why the NHL didn't just counter with exactly that but then again I don't really understand their negotiating strategy at all. Perhaps it is more advanced then what I am used to. The thing is they have pulled this "offer off the table" routine already as well as "this is our best and final offer" which is a viable strategy but not when you then further give in even more a couple weeks later.

What they need to do is tie their negotiation to a compelling event which right now doesn't apparently exist. Why don't they come out and say the offer on the table is only valid until X date because after that date we can no longer play the sufficient # of games to meet sponsorship requirements (rumored to be 62 games) and once that happens we lose X revenue which will come directly out of the make whole provision.

Instead they keep insisting they have presented their final offer, pull it off the table, put a better offer back on the table. I can understand why Fehr is holding out since thus far it has not cost them anything. Of course you can only play this game of chicken so long so it will be interesting if the NHL gives at all yet again.

#1830 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:17 PM

Hopefully something we can all agree on: Seguin + Spaceships + Flash Gordon Remix = Awesome



#1831 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,655 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

Great, now I'm going to spend the next ten years posting HF-level trade scenarios whereby we acquire Kane to put on a line with Seguin.

#1832 pjr

  • 456 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:30 PM

http://www.weei.com/...nt-meet-weekend
According to multiple reports, the NHL and NHLPA will not meet this weekend after negotiations took a turn for the worse on Thursday evening.
SportsNet's John Shannon tweeted Friday that the two sides could be in some form of contact, but they will not meet.

#1833 FFCI

  • 197 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:22 PM

Yea I don't really see what the problem is there. Give the PA their 8, get rid of back-diving, and in return they give the league their 10-year deal (which as I said upthread is better for the NHLPA anyway).


Fire Fehr, hire MoGator and this is solved. Now get to work on the schedule.

#1834 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:31 PM

Fire Fehr, hire MoGator and this is solved. Now get to work on the schedule.


Working on realignment right now. Trying for a scenario where the B's and Flyers are in the same division but it's not working. Might have to contract some clubs. As in, all the ones south of the Caps.

#1835 FelixMantilla


  • reincarnated mr hate


  • 8,665 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

http://www.theglobea...article6121918/

#1836 BrazilianSoxFan

  • 1,139 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:52 AM

Hopefully something we can all agree on: Seguin + Spaceships + Flash Gordon Remix = Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAj5Govv_xs


Am I nuts or do the players that are on fire use a special golden uniform?

#1837 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 11,069 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

Hopefully something we can all agree on: Seguin + Spaceships + Flash Gordon Remix = Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAj5Govv_xs

My god his shot and release are deadly. Every was top shelf and on the corners. That was impressive.

#1838 PedroSpecialK


  • Comes at you like a tornado of hair and the NHL salary cap


  • 16,983 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:12 AM

The last goal by Seguin... good god

#1839 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,556 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:46 AM

Part of the problem is how the owners treat the players. Suppose the NHLPA said "we will agree to the terms of your latest proposal, with one condition -- that Gary Bettman is fired immediately and never is employed again by the league or any of its member clubs" -- how would the owners react? Surely, they would tell the players to get fucked, and that they would never accept the players dictating how they run their business. And the owners would be absolutely, 100% right.

So, how is it different for the owners to say that Don Fehr coming back into the room could be a deal-breaker?

Both sides could've gotten to a 50/50 deal with a $300mm make-whole in time to play a full season. The owners dragged their feet because they lose money (in the aggregate) during the first 20 games of the season. The players were pissed and are giving ownership a taste of their own medicine, as the difference between a 62-game season and a 48-game season is much bigger for ownership than for players. Now, the owners are threatening to move the goalposts and force further concessions from the players. Ken Dryden nails it in the article linked above -- it's about pride now. And that makes me nervous, because while I was confident that the season would be saved so long as both sides followed their economic self-interest, pride is not so predictable.

#1840 j44thor

  • 4,235 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

It seems as though on Thursday the owners might have tried to force the players to accept a deal without Fehr in the room.
Miller and Jacobs got into a heated exchange when the NHLPA wanted to bring Fehr back into the room.

This is rather interesting and very shady if true:

In a text to The Buffalo News today, Miller explained his version of the events:
"The owners wanted to leave the room and pull everything we spent a full day on. I asked them to stay and continue pushing through. I may have been passionate but there was no disrespect or calling out one owner by name. I have a lot of respect for any owner because they are a big part of hockey.

"I wanted more than anything to make a deal but we are not professional negotiators. We as players didn't have the experience or authority to make a final deal. We were trying to responsibly move this process forward as best we could. If anyone thinks that we did wrong by the game or by the fans then they are misinformed. We have a responsibility to about 750 players and we made moves approved by them and thinking about them."


http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/

The more I read the tea leaves the more I believe Jacobs is the driving force behind the lockout even more so than Bettman. Jacobs has had issues with owners, players, Fehr, virtually anyone not named Bettman. I believe that virtually every time he has been involved with the negotiations they have gone south. I don't think a deal gets done unless some other owners take a stand against him.

Edited by j44thor, 08 December 2012 - 11:59 AM.


#1841 lexrageorge

  • 3,121 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:28 PM

It seems as though on Thursday the owners might have tried to force the players to accept a deal without Fehr in the room.
Miller and Jacobs got into a heated exchange when the NHLPA wanted to bring Fehr back into the room.

This is rather interesting and very shady if true:



http://blogs.buffalonews.com/sabres/

The more I read the tea leaves the more I believe Jacobs is the driving force behind the lockout even more so than Bettman. Jacobs has had issues with owners, players, Fehr, virtually anyone not named Bettman. I believe that virtually every time he has been involved with the negotiations they have gone south. I don't think a deal gets done unless some other owners take a stand against him.


Based on the reaction from the moderate owners, the chances of that happening are nil.

#1842 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16,534 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

That's the reaction now so they might still be on the board of Gary can deliver us some more money without losing the season. We still have a few weeks before the drop-dead date.

#1843 pjr

  • 456 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 06:57 PM

I'm glad they they are in a hurry to get a deal done.

Renaud Lavoie@RenLavoieRDS
NHL and NHLPA were in contact today. They talked about setting up something for this week, but nothing finalized at this time

Edited by pjr, 09 December 2012 - 07:33 PM.


#1844 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15,655 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:16 PM

I glad they they are in a hurry to get a deal done.

Renaud Lavoie@RenLavoieRDS
NHL and NHLPA were in contact today. They talked about setting up something for this week, but nothing finalized at this time


This is like a pair of ex-lovers trying to set up a dinner date to work things out for the sake of their baby, except both would really rather just get a quick cup of coffee.

#1845 MoGator71

  • 4,970 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:43 PM

This is like a pair of ex-lovers trying to set up a dinner date to work things out for the sake of their baby, except both would really rather just get a quick cup of coffee.


And kill the baby. Or at least anonymously dump it off at the nearest hospital.

#1846 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10,417 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:59 AM


Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger

Further NHL regular season cancellations today. Thru Dec 30th.



#1847 AMcGhie


  • The Robinson Canoe of RMPS


  • 1,133 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:43 AM

Not a huge surprise there. If this does get going, will everything get rescheduled or will they just put new events where they can in the existing schedule to round it out?

#1848 cshea


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,663 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

It'll be a new schedule. You can't play the existing schedule because it'd be unbalanced and all over the place. The dates will probably be similar due to arena availability, but the teams will change.

They should just cancel the whole thing, because the existing schedule is getting torn up if/when they settle this fiasco anyway.

#1849 behindthepen


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,902 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:55 AM

even though it looks gloomy, for some reason I'm allowing myself to keep spending time on the hopes of a 2013 season, but I keep coming back to my biggest problem with this process which is:

The owners are asking the players to give up:
-value of existing contracts
-pretty significant amount of cap levels for a long time
-all kinds of concessions on contracts

and the owners are offering in return:
-nothing?

Am I missing something here?

#1850 steveluck7

  • 1,148 posts

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

even though it looks gloomy, for some reason I'm allowing myself to keep spending time on the hopes of a 2013 season, but I keep coming back to my biggest problem with this process which is:

The owners are asking the players to give up:
-value of existing contracts
-pretty significant amount of cap levels for a long time
-all kinds of concessions on contracts

and the owners are offering in return:
-nothing?

Am I missing something here?

Bob Beers was on the radio this weekend and said that the owners conceded to the players around "pension issues", I don't know what the specifics are but that's something!




11 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users