I've never seen a sport go from "just about ready to announce the season is on, get out the podium Wednesday night" to "FUCK THIS! I'M JEREMY JACOBS, IM TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME!" so quickly. I'm guessing we lose the season now.
I guess they made some progress today but I think there are still some issues they have to work out. It's all still confusing at the moment.
Last edited by Grimmlokk; 01-07-2013 at 12:38 AM.
I've never seen a sport go from "just about ready to announce the season is on, get out the podium Wednesday night" to "FUCK THIS! I'M JEREMY JACOBS, IM TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME!" so quickly. I'm guessing we lose the season now.
Is anyone on the players side anymore? I know I jumped ship already.
Talk about total destruction of your fan base. It remains to be seen if the NHL can ever recover from this huge cluster fuck.
My local team (The Coyotes) have always struggled to fill seats here in the desert unless they made the playoffs and then the bandwagoners show up in full force. I'm pretty certain after the strike they won't last more than a couple years here even with the new ownership.
I think there is shared blame at this point. I was on the player's side to begin with, but I am crossing the picket lines. I just want some hockey. The cba length and contract length arguments seem incredibly fucking stupid. I understand why the players want longer player contracts and don't see why the owners would care if it is or isn't in the cba (hi, as an owner, how about you just not sign an over rated mediocre player that has one good year to a 15 year contract that is front loaded and then have said player turn out to be a bust?) There needs to be some accountability on the GMs who craft these deals for shitty players. Seems retarded to me that the owners want to limit the harm their GMs can do to their teams because they hire shitty GMs. On the cba length, just wtf?
I don't see why anyone would buy the "players have given up so much" line of argument. Yeah, they have given things up, because they've been making money hand over fist while most of the league loses money or barely breaks even. No shit they're being asked to give back some of their share of revenues, amongst other things. If they aren't willing to do that, then it's pretty much inevitable that at least a couple franchises will fold, and guess what, that means less players and less revenue to get a cut of.
As far as the CBA length goes, the players are stupid to try to argue for a shorter term. Everyone else, especially the fans, wants the CBA to be as long as possible so we don't have to put up with this bullshit again in 6 years.
Contract term limits I personally don't feel are necessary, either. So long as cap circumvention is fixed, I'm fine with letting GM's sabotage their franchise's future with ridiculous long term contracts that they can't get out of or bury in the minors. However! The reality is that the NHLPA is fighting for contract terms that only affect a couple dozen players, out of 700+. And that's really what it comes down to, the NHLPA can protest all it wants that they're fighting for the "average" union member who might have a 5 year career and make league minimum or slightly above it. But really the main bones of contention that the NHLPA has fought for are almost all about couple dozen superstars.
If the owner's last offer had been put to a vote by the NHLPA, we'd probably be playing hockey by now. Or it would have been very, very close. The 500+ "average" NHL players that don't have a hope of seeing 10 year contracts with 9 figures are NEVER going to make the money back from a lost or even abbreviated season. Ever. It's sheer idiocy on the part of the NHLPA to play with fire the way they have, because at the end of the day their membership can never recover the wages that have been and will be lost. They've already agreed on the revenue split, there had been an agreement on "make whole" money. Those two issues will ultimately determine how much money the membership makes going forward. Contract term limits have zero impact on that, other than further stratifying salaries with superstars making far more than the rank and file.
The issue with contract term limits ties into salary cap (which they want lowered) and ultimately the "average" players salary. It will be extremely hard to lower player salaries from what they have become at this point and if you limit their terms to say 7 years for a $100m contract, it takes up a substantially larger cap hit than if it is spread out over 10+ years which in turn leaves a lot less room for the middle to lower tier players (these are contracts Owners are giving out and they aren't reluctantly doing it see: Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Crosby, Richards etc. I understand the argument with needing parity in the league, but I disagree with lowering the salary cap to what the owners proposed. I like the idea of the salary cap staying up near where it was last year and just providing more variance in how high the more cash strapped teams have to spend to meet the minimum.
That doesn't make sense. The cap is based on per-season numbers. Whether a contract is 5, 7 or 10 years long if the average salary is 7 million the term is irrelevant as far as the cap is concerned. The only argument for having such long term contracts, in reality, is cap circumvention through back-diving deals. Plain and simple.Originally Posted by Filwen
Right, so player's cap hits are going to be much higher than what they used to be if you cut contracts to max 5 years like the owners want. Less room for the middle tier players. At least with 8 years, you can spread out a cap hit a bit and put into place some restrictions on salary difference in each year (e.g. the salary can't decrease by more than like $500k each year or by like more than $2 million from year 1 to x). I don't know what the answer is or why the owners want to make this a "line in the sand" when they have the power to limit this themselves outside of the cba. It's like they want it to protect themselves from themselves which makes no sense to me.
Again, that's to cut back on cap circumvention. The system had a gaping loophole in it, one that I still can't believe wasn't thought of when the CBA was negotiated. Look at Shea Weber's contract:Originally Posted by Filwen
The likelihood of Weber playing out the last 3 years of that contract are slim to none, as he'll be 40 give or take. If you take those three years out, suddenly his cap hit goes from 7.86 to 9.72. It's blatantly obvious why the contract was structured as it was, and the NHL needs to eliminate it. So if the market for a player like Weber is truly a salary of 10-14m a year, so be it, that's what the cap hit for it should be as well.
I don't see how that negatively affects middle tier players, to be honest. If you keep the long contracts in, it will still only be 30-50 players who can expect to see such massive, long term deals. Most teams will have one or two of those on the books that take up a significant portion of their cap space, and will fill in the rest of the gaps with middle tier players as best they can. Those middle tier players can expect to keep getting 2-4 year deals at a fraction of the salary of the stars, regardless of whether those stars' deals are 5 or 10 years long, because at the end of the day the NHL will not allow cap circumvention like what we've seen continue.
The whole point of a cap system is to prevent teams from "spreading out a cap hit", not to make it something that every team tries to do in newer and more creative ways with each passing season.
Where have you been the last 7 years? That was ALWAYS what the cap system was about in the NHL. And indeed in every other pro sport with one.Originally Posted by Filwen
I think they also want to protect themselves from the unruly players as well. Its alot easier to say to a player that I cant offer you a 15 year term that you want because the CBA says I cant instead of Im sorry we dont like you or trust you will be a good enough player for 15 yrs to offer you that.
Pretty disgusted by Hartnell's comments here: http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/12/1...-roman-hamrlik
If that's the kind of attitude Hartnell has about his own teammates, then I certainly wouldn't want to count him as one. Harmlik didn't even say anything all that controversial, just that he wanted to get a deal done ASAP and that the membership should be allowed to vote on things. God forbid.
Yea the players are not doing themselves any favours this time around. I really don't recall such vitriol last lockout and I am sure it has something to do with Fehr. Seriously he is quickly starting to look like the worst thing that could have happened to the NHL for a long long time
I agree that the current or previous cap circumvention that GMs/owners/players were pulling was wildly out of line with the true intention of the salary cap. However, I don't think 5 years is that long for a player contract for someone you feel confident in committing to your team. I think they (players and owners) should be able to come to a compromise on both of their positions on this issue and it shouldn't hold up a deal and I also think there are creative ways for owners to keep those longer contracts (say 6-7 years) in check without front loading them with salary per year variance not to exceed a certain percentage of the yearly cap hit or something.
The NHL's last proposal had an exception for teams re-signing their own players that allowed up to 7 year contracts. Otherwise, if you were signing someone to a contract that wasn't previously your property, it was 5 years. That seems entirely reasonable to me.Originally Posted by Filwen
I dont recall seeing anywhere where the players agreed to term lengths. I thought they wanted to be able to sign for as long as they wanted.
Owners are at 5 years with an outside player and 7 years with an inside player like Eomer said above, while the players said they would "accept" 8 years. They seem pretty close, just get it done.
Weber's contract isn't that great of an example because it was structured that way to break Nashville financially.
Last edited by Ishad; 12-11-2012 at 10:31 PM.
Offshoot of this but who is happy they are losing 1yr out of a players term with this lockout and who's the player?
Horcoff - 1 year off the books thankfully
Khabibulin - Contract will be finished
Also does anyone know what would happen with Justin Shultz contract? Does he have to play the 7 games before his contract kicks in or because he didnt want to sign with Anaheim and became a free agent his first year contract has started and will now lose 1 of his 2 years he signed?
Howard and Filppula will hit ufa and lose one of what may be the last 2 years Datsyuk plays hockey in North America. Not happy in the least.
And I agree that the lockout in many ways hurts the Oilers amongst the least of any team for a variety of reasons, from shitty contracts ticking down (Bulin, Horcoff) to having our core all playing together in the AHL. The only negative really is Dubnyk is rotting. They've mismanaged his development so badly, he may never turn in to the goalie he could have.
So, NHLPA and NHL are supposedly meeting today. Anyone hopeful we get a deal in the next week or so? Games canceled to Dec. 30 which means hockey after new years?! Drop dead date is like Jan 14 or 15 I think as at that point we go under 48 games and Bettman won't let that happen.
As I've said all along on the other board, I never thought that there was a serious possibility of an entire season being lost because both sides had too much to lose. I am however surprised that they've taken this long to figure shit out. My hope was for a resolution sometime in early November and a 60-70 game season. Guess I was a bit optimistic.
They can do whatever they want, provided the previous dates were still available at the arenas and hadn't been re-booked with other concerts/events, which is unlikely given the short time frame. Regardless, even if they hadn't cancelled the schedule up to that point, the old schedule went out the window in October. They're going to have to re-jig everything to make a shortened schedule work and not have ridiculous travel for teams like the Jets.
Pretty sure Realignment isn't a CBA issue... I can't find any articles discussing it at all. The realignment discussions were held seperate of the CBA discussions earlier this year though.
Yeah I know they had a say in it (NHL threatened legal action) but the discussions were held mutually exlusive of the CBA negotiations so I thought it is not a CBA related item. But upon further digging apparently it is on the CBA agenda but because it is a non-economic issue it isn't something they are worried about. Once the economics are agreed to in principle the players will go back to work and these issues will get hammered out. Same with NHL participation in Sochi Olympics.
I find myself caring more about these EA Sports weekly sims of the season that would've been played than I do the 12-13 season happening. Can't say I like Detroit being dead last in the west though.
It's going to take a lot for them to get me to give a shit about the NHL again. Born and raised in the middle of Saskatchewan, played hockey for 15 years, been watching for over 30, but I seriously find myself not giving the smallest of shits anymore with all this CBA garbage. Both sides can fuck themselves since they clearly don't care about the fans or the people who work in/are supported by the industry (concession workers, ticket collectors, shop owners, etc). They almost lost me the first time around, pretty sure this one is the last straw.
I already put it in my head the season was lost. I fucking knew this shit would happen and not happy about it. Doesn't matter anyways because in the end I still wont be able to afford to take my family to a hockey game here in Chicago. Only thing I can hope is that it kills the majority of people that go to the games usually and drives tickets down. Its ok I don't mind taking the 2 hour trip to spend the money on our AHL team.
Guys like Riley Sheahan aren't really helping build a case for players' intelligence.
The lack of urgency between both sides these last few days is disheartening.
That is helpful. I don't really understand how this would bring us to solving the lockout though. I guess once both sides file a lawsuit there is more motivation to settle instead of going through litigation etc.?
It puts more pressure on both sides to figure things out between themselves before they roll the dice and let the courts do it for them. I agree it doesn't make any sense, but not much of this sordid affair does.
Hockeyís Wealth Redistribution Problem: Whatís Really Behind The NHL Lockout
Good article by Time.
You may not have noticed that the NHL hasnít started its season yet, which is arguably Problem #1 for the wannabe major league: Ice hockey is fourth in a three-horse race of pro team sports vying for the affection of casual U.S. fans. Problem #1A is the lockout of players thatís been in force since Sept. 15, which has resulted in the cancellation of nearly 550 regular-season games to date. But in the event you are following the inaction rinkside, donít be fooled when league officials or anyone else claims that the main issue is greedy players. The real problem in hockey is not in the locker room, but in the ownersí suites and commissionerís office.
The NHL would like you to believe that owners give too much money to players. That was managementís position almost a decade agoóthe last time the league locked out its talentówhen players were getting three-quarters of total revenues. After an entire season was voided, the NHL Players Association caved, agreeing to lower its membersí share of revenue to 57%. Peace and harmony have ensued since, but now the owners want an even bigger piece of the pie, claiming financial hardship.
Donít believe them, not for a minute. First, as Iíve written about before, sports team accounting is misleading at best, given that club owners can claim to be losing money when a) the losses are on paper only; b) there are tax benefits from whatever losses happen to be real; and c) the value of their teams continue to rise.
I fear the KHL might gain some traction too and I would hate for that to happen. I'm surprised the league hasn't entertained any European expansion(or move some failing franchises) to try and thwart the KHL a little. Put a team in London, Paris, and a couple other big European cities. I think you would have better shot of hockey catching on there than in the US South. Yes, those European cities aren't hotbeds for hockey but it can't fail any worse than the failure of the Southern expansion. I'm not sure how they would work out a schedule with European teams in the league. That would be a nightmare to schedule and might be too much to overcome.And all NHL owners would be wise to recognize their own culpability ASAP, rather than engaging in more legal maneuvering. (At the moment, the league is busy filing lawsuits and complaints, while the NHLPA is trying to decertify itself, so players can sue owners for anti-trust violations.) The urgency is not because NHL fans will give up on the sport; hockey fans are absolute gluttons for abuse and incredibly desperate to watch pro hockey. (Seriously, check this out.) No, NHL owners should get their act together because their league faces something none of the other major sports do: Russiaís KHL, an aggressive and surly rival league that has long resented how many European players in general and Russians in particular choose to play in North America rather than staying on their home continent. The KHLís finances, like most things Russian, are a little murky, so itís hard to know if the league could seriously compete with the NHL for top talent in the long run. But a surprisingly large number of iced NHLers are now playing in the KHL while they wait out the lockout, including a lot of North Americans.
I think long term what's more likely is for the KHL to evolve in to a pan-European league, and then perhaps there could be play between the two leagues. But that won't happen so long as Russia and the KHL remain corrupt as shit.
As far as the Time article goes, that's exactly what I said several times on the FOH boards. Without significantly more revenue sharing, it's simply not possible to have a cap system work properly for the bottom third of teams. Even if they only spend to the floor they're barely going to be able to break even. There's too wide of a gap between the top and bottom teams, and hoping for a cap based upon the lowest common denominator is both unrealistic and likely to lead to teams like the Leafs making 100 million a year.
I've been optimistic since the start, or in other words wrong. I still have a hard time fathoming both sides being idiotic enough to piss away the entire season. But I guess we'll see.
Last year I started to get some of my non hockey fan friends into the NHL (particularly once the playoffs started). I think the NHL was making real progress towards gaining some traction in the American psyche; I fear this will undo a lot of that. They are doing crazy damage to their brand. No way the guys I got watching last year are going to be interested again in the near future.
48 game regular season would be pretty interesting. Wouldn't the majority of the games be against teams in your own division? I don't believe they'll get a deal done.
Like I said, I don't think they're stupid enough to piss away the season. But half of me kind of wants to, just to see what will happen. Half a dozen teams will fold, Bettman will get his ass fired, contracts might get invalidated, no one really knows.
This provides me with hope. I think it is a good deal for the players, although I don't see any mention of where they are on the salary cap. If the NHL kept their proposed salary cap of like $60m, then there is no way the players will accept this outright, but it does show the NHL is willing to compromise.
Does anyone else find it mildly funny in a weird way that we have the fiscal cliff negotiations and the NHL lockout negotiations going on at the same time and seem to take the same trajectory? I think we'll ultimately get a deal done for both, but it won't come until the very last minute.
Further information on the deal. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I am sure that the NHLPA will want to push on a few items, namely contract length and salary cap.
Old but I found it funny. He's going to be doing nights on the new CBS Sports Radio lineup without the strong language.
Did someone say Datsyuk?
They need to get this shit taken care of soon. The NFL will be over in a month, I don't follow basketball so the NHL was my goto sport until the NFL starts up again.
They've still got a week.
It's always darkest before the dawn..
I'm betting they get a deal done. Employees in Boston were told to "be ready to report" by management according to some Twitter reports. They're close, but they have a week still as said above. Deal done by 1/11' training camp until the 19th, first game on Jan 25th, 48-game season. That's my prediction.
I suppose if we can avoid the fiscal cliff we can avoid a complete season loss...
I'm still not hopeful.
Might see a deal this week. Both sides are getting close apparently.
How many times over the past two lockouts have we heard that exact line? I'll believe it when I see it, until then I'll remain pessimistic.
They have a hard deadline of next Friday. Again, I don't think either side is stupid enough to go over the cliff, but yeah, I'm not going to celebrate until the ink is dry.
Really curious to see how the Oilers will do out of the gate. All of our best players are in mid-season form, and have been playing really well. Only exception is the goalie Dubnyk, but he looked extremely sharp in the Spengler Cup, although that was only 3 games. Gonna be interesting to see if Schultz can translate his ridiculous AHL scoring to the NHL. He's been fucking unreal, going almost point for point with Eberle, who has played two season in the NHL and is a forward. RNH had a pretty damn good WJC, as did Yakupov, and Hall is playing like a monster now.
Getting wood thinking about it.
Yeah, I have no doubt the NHL owners are that dumb.
Time to start the NHL (No 2012)/2013 season thread. Reports that they have finally settled.
Gary Bettman can't resist pissing fans off..
14 of the 24 KHL All-Stars were NHL'ers, and are now heading home.
Decisions will still be handled by Brendan Shanahan, but there’s a new wrinkle to the appeal process. Appeals will first go through NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and, for suspensions of six games or more, a neutral third party will get involved.
Great, because we all know how well Bettman is at making decisions.
At this point, I don't think I'll watch any games this season. Fuck them.
Really fucking annoyed it took this long, but I'm going to watch (and maybe go to games). Besides the NFL playoffs and March Madness, not much around the corner in the sports world that will draw my attention from Isles hockey.
Are we pretending that bettman is anything else besides the owner's attack dog?
I absolutely love hockey but I have zero desire to attend or even watch games for this gimp season. While it really is a rush to the cup, which is cool, the eventual cup winners wont feel like legit champs to me. Fuckin' watch the Leafs or some team win it, too.
Was there anything about realignment in the CBA? I know the Olympics stuff wasn't included but I haven't read anything about realignment.
They said that will have to be negotiated separately as well. I would imagine both realignment and Olympics will be resolved over the summer.
I've seen it mentioned in several articles as well, from a couple months back. Having 32 teams is optimal from a scheduling/division perspective. Quebec would get one team for the 2015 season when their arena is finished or near finished. Not sure where the other team would go, but I'd imagine somewhere in the US.
I think Portland or Seattle would be the US Team. There was somebody that has shown interest in buying a franchise for one of those cities I forget which one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)