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.