Lockout

[tfrizz]

The players are more interested in getting paid than improving the game.

Of course they are. The median NHL career last 4 seasons, and could be that career could be shortened at any given moment. Thus, the players have no long-term investment in the NHL - it's a matter of getting paid while they can.

[Steve]

Keeping up with and understanding what's going on with these CBA negotiations, feels alot like work to me.

[Gaucho]

Jamal Mayers ‏@jamalmayers
@DarrenDreger Not meant to spark a debate we ALL can agree we are so close to a deal and losing season will hurt everyone!

[Gaucho]

The players are more interested in getting paid than improving the game.

Why would it be their job to improve the game?

[Froggy]

My feeling regarding front loaded contracts... What's the point of even having a salary cap if there are measures in place to get around it?

This drives me nuts in the NFL, too

[shmenguin]

improving the game is just a way for owners and players to earn more money. it's in everyone's best interest, financially, to care about hockey, but it is no one's primary objective.

[Gaucho]

Players need to worry about improving their game, not the game.

[no name]

Why would a player want that? If he sucks after 5 years he knows he'll get cut. If he overachieves, he'll still be stuck with the same team and contract. That's a lose-lose situation from a player's perspective.

Yeah that scenario is no different from the 5 year contracts

Correct, no different from the 5 year which is what the owners want, but allows the players the freedom to sign a 8 year deal and get paid as long as the owners want to pay them (player is still productive). But a guy like Geno you know he will still be producing after 5 years so the owner can just agree to sextend the contract every season after the 5th year 6th and 7th. Owners get security knowin they don't have to risk losing that player after 5 years.

Or if the owner doesn't want to pay they get a buy out option. That benifits the player. Owners pay 20% of remaining money on the contract. and they player still is a UFA to sign with another team.

[tfrizz]

Why would a player want that? If he sucks after 5 years he knows he'll get cut. If he overachieves, he'll still be stuck with the same team and contract. That's a lose-lose situation from a player's perspective.

Yeah that scenario is no different from the 5 year contracts

Correct, no different from the 5 year which is what the owners want, but allows the players the freedom to sign a 8 year deal and get paid as long as the owners want to pay them (player is still productive). But a guy like Geno you know he will still be producing after 5 years so the owner can just agree to sextend the contract every season after the 5th year 6th and 7th. Owners get security knowin they don't have to risk losing that player after 5 years.

It does nothing for job security for a player. Suppose Crosby signed a deal like this, and suffered a career-ending concussion in the 4th year of the contract. The owners could then simply terminate the contract after the fifth year, Crosby doesn't get paid, and the team gets off scot-free. It eliminates any risk to the team in signing long-term contracts, which doesn't seem right.

You could also run into scenarios where a team like Philly starts throwing 8 year deals at a bunch of people with the intention of dropping them after 5.

[Gaucho]

Correct, no different from the 5 year which is what the owners want, but allows the players the freedom to sign a 8 year deal and get paid as long as the owners want to pay them.

You summed it up perfectly. So why would the players agree to this? Sorry, it doesn't make any sense.

[no name]

Correct, no different from the 5 year which is what the owners want, but allows the players the freedom to sign a 8 year deal and get paid as long as the owners want to pay them.

You summed it up perfectly. So why would the players agree to this? Sorry, it doesn't make any sense.

Its a risk, maybe if you allow the 20% buyout it would be benifitial to the players.

SO i take it if you were Fehr this doesn't help at all, is there a way you can think of using this model that makes it attractive to the players?

[Gaucho]

Dave Molinari ‏@MolinariPG
Just watched Brooks Orpik score on a breakaway. Lockout can end now.

[Tico Rick]

It's not really an 8 year deal - it's a 5 year deal that can be extended if and only if the owner wants to. This in fact would give more power to the owners than if the NHLPA were to agree to a 5 year deal, as players would not be free to test the free agent market unless the owner's wanted to let them go. How is this a compromise?

[no name]

It's not really an 8 year deal - it's a 5 year deal that can be extended if and only if the owner wants to. This in fact would give more power to the owners than if the NHLPA were to agree to a 5 year deal, as players would not be free to test the free agent market unless the owner's wanted to let them go. How is this a compromise?

OK how about the player has the first option, give the player the power, if he signs the extention, then the owners has to agree to it. SO the player can turn it down and test free agency, or extend it. THen all the owner has to do it agree to extend the deal the year also.

I am just debating it trying to see where my logic is going wrong, it still sounds like a good option to me.

[no name]

It's not really an 8 year deal - it's a 5 year deal that can be extended if and only if the owner wants to. This in fact would give more power to the owners than if the NHLPA were to agree to a 5 year deal, as players would not be free to test the free agent market unless the owner's wanted to let them go. How is this a compromise?

OK then how about, owners want 5 for free agents or 7 for returning players. Players want 6 and 8. What if we give the 6 and 8 for returning. but the last year of either of thoes are option years. the last year both player and owner have to agree to extend it. If either one wants out the last year is null and void.

[shmenguin]

is this the nfl model being discussed? sign a player to a long deal, but release him before it ends? the nflpa is ok with it because they get huge signing bonuses (and because they have charcoal leverage in negotiations). that's not gonna fly in the nhl.

[no name]

OK ok, this is my last offer. 6 year free agnet, and 8 year for returning players. But the last year of thoes deals are option years. Both owner and players havwe to sign off on the last year to extend it. If either side wants out the contract is null and void the last year.

IF the owner doesn't want to extend the deal and the player does, the owner has option to pay a 20% buy out or extend the deal. If the player was due 6 million the owner can pay him 1.2 and he is free to go. Or can pay him 6 million to stay on the team. If you as the players want the owner to be more at risk on this so buy outs don't occur as often, not only you have to pay the 20% of that contract, but that 20% counts against your cap.

If the player wants out, he goes to UFA or RFA which ever he is due?

?? sound any better??

[Lt. Dish]

Dave Molinari ‏@MolinariPG
Just watched Brooks Orpik score on a breakaway. Lockout can end now.

And the world will end with it.

[MRandall25]

No name, options deals are not going to fly. Pure and simple.

If an owner doesn't want to keep a returner for 8 years, there's nothing stopping them from signing him to less.

[Alejandro Rojas]

We can't expect owners to control themselves.

[no name]

No name, options deals are not going to fly. Pure and simple.

If an owner doesn't want to keep a returner for 8 years, there's nothing stopping them from signing him to less.

Wow i really thought i was onto something, but i guess with as many people not liking it must not be a good deal. The players want the 8th year not the owners they want 7. I am giving you 8 with a slight risk that we or you can bail the last year.

Oh well, i was trying.

[Bathgate]

Another good article that demonstrates the idiocy of the PA for pushing this to far:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/12/14/nhl_nhlpa_lockout_difference_mlb_contraction/

[tfrizz]

Another good article that demonstrates the idiocy of the PA for pushing this to far:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/12/14/nhl_nhlpa_lockout_difference_mlb_contraction/

It also illustrates the problem with the NHL and Bettman's "vision".

It is Gary Bettman’s impossible dream: To create a National Hockey League economy in which Dallas, Florida, Phoenix, Columbus and Anaheim can all be profitable.

Without, of course, shipping containers full of money heading south on a regular basis from the Canadian teams, the Rangers, Philadelphia, Detroit and Boston.

Even if the NHL Players’ Association gave in on all collective bargaining agreement fronts this weekend, would Phoenix not still be a smoking crater of a hockey market? Would the Stars' ticket prices still not be the lowest in the NHL? (Dallas was the only club with an average ticket price of less than $30 last season.)

With apologies to Sports Illustrated, this is hockey’s dirty little secret: Even if the financial pendulum stops right at six o’clock, with the revenues split evenly down the middle between the owners and players, it won’t even come close to guaranteeing profitability in Tampa, Carolina, Nashville, or a number of ill-advised Sunbelt markets.

Based off the numbers reported by Forbes for the 2011-12 season, in order for Phoenix to be profitable they would need 67.8% of their revenue. The picture isn't much different for the other bottom feeders, and that percentage is only going to grow with the expected drop in revenue caused by the lockout. We're looking at Phoenix needing 70-75% of HRR to break even once the lockout is over.

[tfrizz]

Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl
NHLPA Executive Board voted last night,to give players a vote to AUTHORIZE Exec Board to chose to proceed on Disclaimer of Interest #TSN



Sounds like a disclaimer of interest is imminent, which means full cancellation of the 2012-13 season will be coming soon.

[shmenguin]

Based off the numbers reported by Forbes for the 2011-12 season, in order for Phoenix to be profitable they would need 67.8% of their revenue. The picture isn't much different for the other bottom feeders, and that percentage is only going to grow with the expected drop in revenue caused by the lockout. We're looking at Phoenix needing 70-75% of HRR to break even once the lockout is over.

this lockout is more about pittsburgh than it is about phoenix. middle class teams are at the wheel.