Lockout

[Sarcastic]

Does anybody have some data on an average contract length? How many currently exist that are longer than 6 years?

Bettman said in the presser that in 2004 there was 1 contract 6 yrs or longer. Now 90.

OK. Well, as I said, I can see why players don't want to give that up. I understand why the league wants to cut that down.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

To be fair though, with the variances and teams needing upfront cash to front load contracts (this might have been a huge issue witht the Pens in a few years) its also not as simple economic wise across the leauge as players salaries being tied to revenues.

The point is that ticket prices have nothing to do with the cba.

In my opinion fans have a hard time grasping the NHL finances because its so gate driven, hard core fan less corporate driven and the prices are so high. While the direct link between ticket prices and the CBA is not there, the fact that it is gate receipt driven fans are always going to focus on what's going out of their pockets.

I think that's why there are so many thoughts that are so out of touch.

[tfrizz]

And here you go, the very thing we are taking about:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1436 ... erm-limits

so like 20% at best are affected by what remains on the table. If they put the last offer up to vote, 80% of the players may have said, 'you bet!'. Of course, that assumes they have a brain.

According to Ron Hainsey, enough players liked what they saw that they would've put it up to a vote if it was a comprehensive proposal.

[Tim Thomasen]

http://www.thepensblog.com/2012-archives/december/crosby-fed-up-is-europe-in-his-future.html

if he goes to europe, it means nothing

Your probally right. One star player going overseas isn't going to change this lockout one way or other, but I thought I share this article anyways.

[RisslingsMissingTeeth]

And here you go, the very thing we are taking about:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1436 ... erm-limits

so like 20% at best are affected by what remains on the table. If they put the last offer up to vote, 80% of the players may have said, 'you bet!'. Of course, that assumes they have a brain.

According to Ron Hainsey, enough players liked what they saw that they would've put it up to a vote if it was a comprehensive proposal.

Yeah. In my first post of the day, I mentioned that it was curious that the NHL actually didn't give the players a votable proposal. My insinuation was that it was because the owners don't want this resolved until January.

[tfrizz]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

To be fair though, with the variances and teams needing upfront cash to front load contracts (this might have been a huge issue witht the Pens in a few years) its also not as simple economic wise across the leauge as players salaries being tied to revenues.

The point is that ticket prices have nothing to do with the cba.

In my opinion fans have a hard time grasping the NHL finances because its so gate driven, hard core fan less corporate driven and the prices are so high. While the direct link between ticket prices and the CBA is not there, the fact that it is gate receipt driven fans are always going to focus on what's going out of their pockets.

I think that's why there are so many thoughts that are so out of touch.

Yup. Simple economics - supply and demand. It's why you pay 10x more for a ticket in Toronto than in Florida. No split of HRR will change ticket prices, only a reduction in demand will.

[penny lane]

"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/201 ... g-to-.html

I can understand how the players & the owners being emotional when it appears there is no end in sight despite efforts.

[Sarcastic]

"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/201 ... g-to-.html

I can understand how the players & the owners being emotional when it appears there is no end in sight despite efforts.

"To summarize the information in the above table, there are likely less than 150 players who benefit from contracts beyond five years.

So if there's 150 or less of these players, why is a union of 700-plus members fighting so hard to avoid these term-limits when a large majority of the membership doesn't benefit from them? Why are the superstars and high-earners being allowed to lead the battle on this issue?"

[jmh470]

The real quandary here is why the players drew the line at term limits. It'll be grandfathered in, so this affects precisely no one's current deal. I think fewer than 10% have career-long contracts now. It simply dumbfounds me that so many are willing to sacrifice so much over something that will never affect them.

At this point I think it'd be worth it to lose the season if it meant this Union would be neutered. They've done more than enough to earn it. They're not fighting over child labor laws, for christ's sake.

[MRandall25]

"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/201 ... g-to-.html

I can understand how the players & the owners being emotional when it appears there is no end in sight despite efforts.

"To summarize the information in the above table, there are likely less than 150 players who benefit from contracts beyond five years.

So if there's 150 or less of these players, why is a union of 700-plus members fighting so hard to avoid these term-limits when a large majority of the membership doesn't benefit from them? Why are the superstars and high-earners being allowed to lead the battle on this issue?"

But, at the same time, why do the owners need such a low limit if they're imposing the value drop limit?

[MRandall25]

Also, with a max 5 year length, you'll see a lot more maxed out $ contracts. Leaves less $ for the rank and file.

More here: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5098

[Sarcastic]

Also, with a max 5 year length, you'll see a lot more maxed out $ contracts. Leaves less $ for the rank and file.

More here: http://www.mc79hockey.com/?p=5098

Yeah, I read that. It's an interesting perspective. I don't know who's right or not as far as that, but it is something to consider.

[RisslingsMissingTeeth]

Sorry, I don't buy this logic at all. There are prices for having superstars in any cap system regardless of term limits on contracts. The Kings won the cup with no big stars by spreading out their payroll with all good players. As long as you have those options and can win, then arguing for why superstars need to get paid huge bucks with creative contracts won't work since you don't need superstars to win.

[Idoit40fans]

They had like 4 people with $6+ million contracts, didnt they?

[Fire0nice228]

The Kings have Doughty Richards and Carter on lifetime contracts, especially Carter with his low cap hit due to contract creativity..You know Ed Snider woulda thrown max at Richards/Carter if the term was limited.. Kopitar is on a nice long deal too with a cap hit of almost 7 million.. plus they just gave Quick a Lifer with a hit over just $5mil.. I think its safe to say if the term limit was 5 years that most if not all of their star players would be real close to cap max during their prime..

[Sarcastic]

Would that mean an end to discounts some players agree to with their teams? If that's so, then why would the owners want that? It would make more sense to keep long contracts, just make sure they don't dip too much.

[tfrizz]

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nh ... ight-kelly

This guy raises a very good point...

“The owners want to change the economics of hockey. They want that more than the players want to make more money. Then it becomes an issue of leverage. And the owners have the leverage.”

This is what Fehr, an American with a background in that country’s national pastime, cannot see. There is no pressure from below, not in the States. ESPN doesn’t give a damn about this story, as they did in similar instances with the NFL, NBA and MLB. The PA’s PR machine is pumping out memos no one reads. The owners know that, and the owners are all Americans.

Far more importantly, while stoppages have badly wounded baseball and, to a lesser extent, basketball, they’ve been an odd spur to the NHL’s business. There’s a pecuniary case to be made that lockouts are good for hockey. Since the league’s revenue has grown to record highs in each of the years since the lost season of 2004-05, why wouldn’t owners want to access that cheap stimulus package again?

“I didn’t believe they’d lose the Winter Classic,” Krupin says. “When they let that go, I knew they were ready to lose the season. Now that it’s gone, there’s really no reason to have a season.”

What would you do now?

“If I was an owner, I’d hold pat.”

And if you were working for the PA?

“Try to negotiate on some small issues, to save face. Take what you can and live to fight another day.”

So — give in.

What we have now is the ragged end of a chess match between a master and a novice. Ownership is chasing the NHLPA’s king across the board toward an inevitable end, but the union does not have the sense to retire.

Surrender isn’t their best option. It’s the only one they have left.

They must now be coming to a realization that should have dawned on them from the outset, that management is not only willing to lose another season, but that it’s been hoping to all along.

And therein lies the problem for the NHLPA.

1. There are too many teams that are fine with losing a season because they lose money, or aren't overly profitable, anyway.
2. The teams that do turn a meaningful profit can't put enough power together to overturn a vote.
3. Outside of Canada, there's not enough public support to pressure the league to play in the same way there was on the NFL, MLB, and NBA.

I'm going to be sorely disappointed when, after the NHLPA gives in to almost everything the owners want, there's still another lockout in 8-10 years. There's no way it doesn't happen because it'll be proven to be the perfect avenue for the owners to get virtually anything they want.

[columbia]

Not to mention the fact that the Flyers and their main TV carrier are one and the same.

[no name]

5 year max lenght is going to force players to try and max a contract out, it will lead to to much player movement. I would like it to be 6 or 7 years.

[Gaucho]

LeBrun thinks we're still close to a deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/20654/heres-why-were-still-close-to-a-deal

[champeen]

5 year max lenght is going to force players to try and max a contract out, it will lead to to much player movement. I would like it to be 6 or 7 years.

in the league's proposal fa's can re-sign with their current team for up to 7 yrs. i would think that would lead to LESS player movement. gm's could now offer their players a contract nobody else could.

[offsides]

LeBrun thinks we're still close to a deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/20654/heres-why-were-still-close-to-a-deal

I agree with this part of the article but am not sure the players\Fehr will do it.

"But at some point you have to know when you’ve played this out long enough. I believe that time has come. If I’m a player, I push hard to get back to the table next week and work with the league on its last offer. If the players do that, this lockout ends."

[Godric]

And here you go, the very thing we are taking about:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1436 ... erm-limits

so like 20% at best are affected by what remains on the table. If they put the last offer up to vote, 80% of the players may have said, 'you bet!'. Of course, that assumes they have a brain.

Paging mrandall this is exactly what I was saying yesterday

[Idoit40fans]

Those talking about the players havin no option left seem to be forgettin decertification. Is that a road you really want to chase them to? I dont fully understand it, but it seems to turn the whole thing into a coin toss. The owners can gain a ton right now or face that. If this season gets lost the owners are playing a very dangerous game with a union that is already pretty unhappy with them.

[MRandall25]

That's not what you were saying at all, Godric. But like I said, I disagree with what you were originally saying and that it. I'm done with it.