haroldsnepsts

Very cool. It's nice to remember there's actually things to love about this sport and the people involved.

I thought he said the 5 year term was the hill they would die on, which is ridiculous. The variance I could completely understand, though I think they could move up a ways from 5% and still eliminate back diving. If the NHLPA offered 25% min of the maximum and not variance, then that's a terrible move on their part. It's one thing to negotiate the variance number, but that's miles away from what is clearly extremely important to the league and has been since day one. Bettman's irritation with backdiving contracts was clear well before the last CBA had even expired, and without doing the math it seems like 25% min of the max will not prevent it.

I would love that, but it seems extremely unlikely. I posted an article in the lockout thread that talks about how the 4 major sports are represented by the same law firm in these negotiations. These 3 lockouts in three different sports is not a coincidence. And both Bettman and Stern worked at this firm. So you're talking about one law firm that has major interests that have nothing to do with the sport itself and certainly not their fans. I'm fine with Fehr going. This lockout has gotten beyond absurd and he is partly to blame. But Bettman has had two lockouts without Fehr, so if he stays I don't think it matters who's head of the NHLPA. That's what makes this stupidest of all. This league can't seem to succeed in spite of itself. Every time it's poised to take another significant step, there's a lockout.

Dustin Penner tweeted about an article that's a pretty interesting read. It's in the Nation, which i don't really read or know a lot about so take it for what it's worth. But it points out how the same law firm Proskauer Rose is representing management in all 4 major sports for the first time in history. Since that has happened there has been lockout in 3 of the 4 sports. They assert that it's a unified strategy across leagues, in spite of the extremely different economic circumstances in each one. Oh, and know who used to be a lawyer at this law firm? Gary Bettman (David Stern did as well) He goes overboard towards the end relating it to corporations as a whole and the bias is pretty heavy, but the fact it's the same law firm makes for an interesting and depressing read. http://www.thenation...troying-sports# No, it's just that he overextrapolated from what one anonymous player who was not in the room was saying at a very emotional time. With over 700 players I'm sure they're not completely unified and some were questioning what happened and if it's the right move. But dater's comments completely overreached based on the context of when and what he was told. Basically, bad journalism. His twitter account reads more like a fans is all I'm saying. Even compared to Aaron Ward, who is pretty clearly favoring players in this lockout.

FWIW, @dater has since backtracked on all these comments and apologized. I know he apparently writes for the Denver Post and SI at times, but I don't really think he's a consistent and credible source (that's my opinion as a hockey fan, not a mod), especially when compared to guys like McKenzie, Dreger and Lebrun.

If Bettman is still commissioner, yes. Losing the entire season in 2005 didn't change his negotiating style, why would this lockout?

I don't disagree. But if the star players could potentially end up with a disproportionate amount of cap space, then I could see why more players than just that top 90 would care about the contract length. That's all I was saying. Not arguing the rightness or wrongness of that allocation.

McKenize tweeted a link to some guy who made an interesting argument. One he wasn't even necessarily completely sold on, but is an interesting point. The basic idea is that even though the 5 year contract length only involves a handful of players, it indirectly affects a lot of other players. The longer contracts are really only going to be with star players. And because of the cap and contract restrictions, it's more difficult for franchises to compete for star players. One way they can compete is by extending longer contracts. That means more job security for the player, but it also means a lower cap hit because of the longer term. That frees up more cap space for the lower line players. The thinking (as I understand it) is if there's 5% variance and 5 year contracts, contracts could just get maxed out for the star players and eat up a greater portion of the cap, thereby depressing salaries for the lower line players because there's less cap space left to split among several players. It's an interesting idea. And if the logic holds up is a counterargument to why the contracting issues affect more than just those 40 or 90 players. So I don't know what to think about it anymore. I just want hockey.

I meant specifically their final proposal. That it was essentially take it or leave it. Bob McKenzie is breaking down some interesting things about the 5 year contract limit on his twitter account. Here's my general summary of his thoughts: According to him and capgeek, about 89 players have contracts greater than 5 years. And about half of those are on 6 or 7 year deals signed as free agents by their club, which would still be allowable under the new CBA. So if all that is true and we're talking about 40 or 50 players that would potentially be affected, why does either side care so much? As he points out you could use the math to argue for either side, but either way it's certainly not an issue that should have blown up the whole negotiations. I don't think that's true at all. I'm betting the wealthy franchises don't. Someone had posted a video clip of Keenan talking about an incident in 2005 with Ilitch pointing a finger at a fellow owner and wondering why he has to give him money because that guy doesn't know how to run a franchise. If all the owners were in favor of it, it wouldn't have taken so long and been such a concession for them to increase it closer to what the NHLPA had offered in their proposal. From an owner's perspective, it's going to be better to reduce costs by reducing players salary than having to give up part of your revenue to support a struggling franchise. So they're always going to argue cost certainty before revenue sharing.

Ah. So it sounds more and more that the league really did make a take it or leave it offer. Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted. That's unrealistic. Keep talking and adjusting everything. Meet somewhere between 5% and 25%. Or reduce the make whole in exchange for longer contract length. Or adjust CBA length. I don't get why both variance AND term is worth blowing up the deal to ownership. Either a short term or a low variance (or some combination) will eliminate back diving. I'd be inclined to give them a little longer term for some job security for the stars, which as Richards points out, is good for the franchises when you know you'll have a star player for more years. 5% variance is extremely tight. I assumed (wrongly) that number was just a starting point and they'd move off of it. 10% would still eliminate backdiving pretty significantly, especially if you tied it to a 7 to 10 year term.

but haven't both sides already agreed to the 5% variance? If that's already agreed upon then contract length is a much smaller issue as the 5% eliminates backdiving. i can still understand wanting some term length for owners, at least small market owners, but to say 5 years is a hill worth dying for is pretty extreme. with the 5% variance, 6 or 7 year length would still be a huge win for owners compared to the last CBA.

That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good. Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want. Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.

According to Lebrun, it really did fall apart over max contract length (5 years NHL 8 NHLPA) and CBA length (10 years NHL 8 NHLPA). Are you kidding me?? The owners see the 5 year contract length as a hill worth dying for, which is idiotic. Yes, contracts need to be shorter, but are you really willing to lose a season rather than agree on 6 years? Especially with the re-signing of free agents getting longer term. Throwing in a year would make the deal something the players need to absolutely accept. And they already have the 5% variance to eliminate back diving, which is much more important. And as has been mentioned, I don't get why the 8 year CBA would be worth trashing a deal over on the NHLPA side. Bettman is only going to lock them out in 8 years anyway and the CBA will likely get worse for players no matter how the league recovers. Why not enjoy a decade of contract certainty? Or as I mentioned before, there's this thing called 9, anyone heard of it? it's right between 8 and 10. Unbelievable. Exactly. Enough with the tantrums on both sides. They're so friggin close. I don't get why Bettman is pretending they're not. And Fehr needs to knock of his passive aggressive crap. Both sides needed to take a 30 minutes timeout so that their bottom lip stops quivering and they get rid of the sniffles, then get back in there and finish this deal like grown ass men.

Talk about cherry picking details. I do agree with Dreger though that the players may have missed their best window. I hope Dreger is wrong about the hawks taking over on the league side. More than anything I agree with Lebrun on how ridiculous it is that we're at this point on what should have been a relatively easy negotiation of splitting up such a massive increase in revenue.

Your worries were not unfounded.

That's what I don't get. According to TSN: That makes it sound like it came from the players themselves, not some unilateral decision by the Fehrs. There's just so much misinformation out there right now as each side blames the other.

Bettman's response to essentially that very question: So he keeps claiming the NHLPA isn't interested in negotiating, but then follows it by what sounds like take it or leave it demands by the league.

That's the thing, it's just so friggin hard to tell. From what I read on TSN it sounds like the league made a pretty good offer, one that should be able to get worked into a final deal. Then it sounds like the union comes back closer to their demands but not accepting them outright, so the league bolts again. Could it possibly be true they rejected the offer via voicemail?? But it's all so much conjecture I can't really even tell how far apart they are. I know the league wants 10 year CBA, didn't the union propose 8 years? Have both sides not heard of the number 9? And while I think not honoring existing contracts is a screw job, it seems like something the owners are willing to sacrifice at least one season for. And the league apparently did increase make whole money. but it gets convoluted so friggin fast. Though it is pretty funny Bettman saying the NHLPA offer was insulting to the owners, given what the owners first offer in this whole mess was.

No kidding. My favorite parts of Bettman's speech: So he claims the NHLPA doesn't want to make a deal, but the owners basically said "take it or leave it" regarding the pension plan. Makes sense. I'm glad Bettman looks rattled. Hopefully because he's worried about losing his job. Lebrun: There's so much b.s. and spin going on I can't even tell what they actually are still disagreeing on.

It seems fitting somehow. They probably notified the players of the work stoppage in September by changing their facebook status to "locked out."

No kidding. I think I'm in an abusive relationship with the NHL. Fehr has had his doomsday speech, then cue Bettman whining about not having a willing negotiating partner and we're back right where we started. again. and again.

unbelievable. I've seen thirteen year olds have more mature and productive communication than this.

So much for that. Lebrun:

Dreger: Ward: That part I bolded sounds promising.

I guess it's been a few pages since we've talked about not replying to each others posts so do I really have to say it yet again? Especially since your reply contains several assumptions, there's no point in discussing your unsubstantiated version of events.