haroldsnepsts

Well I think they're still looking at it from the position of why they should have to take a major paycut when revenue has increased so much and the league hasn't presented great evidence that it's necessary. The arguments are basically that 50/50 seems fair and it's what other league's are doing. Eventually though I'm guessing they'll realize they're going to lose no matter what. This is their best chance to limit how much.

Agreed. It's hard not to think that a lot of this was due to the consultation. Bettman's idea of diplomacy is to lock players out, insult them with a first offer and show force. Whereas 50/50 is a very easy phrase for people to remember. Simple. Sounds fair. Same goes for "no salary rollbacks" even if it's not true. They just finagled it so they could call it something else, but the players will still be taking a significant paycut from year one. But in a fairly complicated proposal if fans walk away remembering "50/50 and no salary rollbacks," then it sounds like the deal everyone's been waiting for. It's also probably not a coincidence that in spite of Bettman's catch phrase "we don't negotiate publicly" they released the details on the NHL website, which is unprecedented. Basically none of how this is presented seems like the Bettman we know. It was much more nuanced. Don't get me wrong, wether it was the consultants or not, I'm happy Bettman and the owners finally put together a reasonable deal to negotiate from and presented it in a fashion that wasn't the equivalent of "F-you!" I wish they'd hired these guys sooner. Though honestly a lot of this change may have been a result of the info they got on how pissed fans were about this lockout and how unnecessary it seems. If they're using the existing form of HRR, then the owners movement to 50% is significant. Most everything else sounds like the old deal with new fancier packaging.

They already do that under the current system. They have part of their paycheck held in escrow for the season and then once revenue for the year is assessed, then they get some or all of it back depending on where they are relative to the 57%. As Fehr has pointed out, more often than not the escrow results in them not receiving the face value of their contracts. It's a massive part of the 2004 CBA that often gets overlooked. If you're a player, you've got a signed contract for a certain amount of money each year. During the course of that year, the league holds on to over 10% of your paycheck, and then if it doesn't meet its revenue projections you never see it again. So you getting the value of your contract is dependent in part on some of these owners who have shown themselves to be pretty big idiots. Add to that the seemingly cloudy definition of what constitutes HRR. There's already been paychecks held in the past while the union and league disputed the revenue amount. It's why having your salary tied to revenue is so tricky. It can take a lot of accounting research to track down all the actual revenue. One source I found said in 2011 the amount held from players was 12.5%. So imagine 12.5% of all the players salary in the league held for the season. That's quite a chunk of change. And accrued interest isn't part of HRR.

I don't think they are. That's the confusing part in all of this. They're not calling it a rollback but I still don't quite understand how the player will be paid out their full contract because it sounds like they're going to take a definite hit in the first few years.

People remember Yzerman's bum knee in 2002 but you have to remember that injury first occurred in 1988 when he slid into a goalpost. It's something that bothered him most of his career. Had that not happened, or had they had moorings like they do now, Stevie would've been an even better player later into his career.

This.

I wouldn't want to lose the season, but what're the odds the next commissioner would be worse? What are they going to do, lock players out every time a CBA expires? Come off as a condescending d-bag every time they speak publicly? ignore massive clutching and grabbing for years before finally doing something about it? Not really even like hockey? I know there's the possibility they could somehow find someone even worse than Bettman, but it seems pretty unlikely.

As was mentioned, none are pure goal scorers. But I'd have to go with Z. He's clutch. I don't know if the stat is still true but since the lockout didn't he have the most playoff goals?

I think the wording of the last choice is off. In no scenario are the players ever going to get a bigger payday. Everything about this new CBA will be worse than what they had. They'd be holding out to lose less, not to get more.

Agreed. I don't know if it's because he felt like there was no point since the sides were so far apart and not talking economic issues or if he still feels like the players shouldn't have to concede anything yet or what. But while the NHL and union were not discussing economic issues, the league was crafting this proposal. I'd have to guess this proposal was a surprise to Fehr. The league put themselves in the position of looking like they're saving the hockey season when they're the ones who took it away. That's a very savvy move. The reality is that the players are going to lose in any new CBA. I'm not saying it's right, because I haven't seen a ton of evidence that makes me think these are the right moves for a healthy NHL, but it's the inevitable outcome. If Fehr and the union accept that and work to limit their losses, we could have hockey soon. There's likely a lot of negotiations between the various owners before they even negotiate with the NHLPA. The interests of someone like Ilitch are not the same as the owner of the Preds or the nutjob that runs the Bruins. So they have to make various agreements and concessions to get unified before approaching the union. If the goal was actually to make it more equitable between small and large franchises (which I don't think is the ultimate goal for the owners), this should help. I think it's harder for smaller franchises to fund these huge money long term deals. EDIT: said league when i meant union.

It's a brilliant PR move by the league. They made the deal look like they're conceding more than they actually are, tied it to salvaging the entire season, and put the ball in Fehr's court. They got their money's worth from that consultant. Like I said in my last post, Fehr is right that everything about this deal is worse for the players. And there's not really irrefutable evidence like there was in 2004. The reality is though people don't care. We just want hockey. 50/50 sounds simple and easy, even if that's not the actual percentage because of adjusting HRR. I've read that over, read Fehr's explanation to players, and I still don't really understand how it works. It sounds like even though they're not calling it a rollback, the players ultimately will end up with less money than the value of their signed contract.

Agreed. The union has to go through all the details of this proposal, explain it to their hundreds of constituents, let them mull it over, then gauge their reaction before even starting to craft a response. There's no way that could happen overnight. Bettman just has to talk to 30 owners who are businessmen and have plenty of lawyers and administrative staff to help them. Fehr has to talk to hundreds of hockey players. Not quite the same. Though they don't have weeks. The league structured it so they have 9 days to salvage the season. Smart on their part because it's essentially an ultimatum without calling it such. In the light of day the league's offer doesn't sound as rosy as it first did so I'm a little less optimistic. It sounds like they're screwing with HRR again and the form of arbitration they put back isn't really helpful. Fehr is right in pointing out that everything in this deal is worse for the players. And unlike 2004 the NHL hasn't provided compelling evidence why the players should take another big paycut. But the reality for the players is they're going to end up worse off no matter what the deal is. That's just the way it is. Public sentiment won't support them holding out and quibbling over complicated matters like HRR and what percentage split makes financial sense for franchises. The owners hold the cards and this is the players best window for playing hockey this season. As I think McKenzie said on his twitter, Fehr needs to grind out the best deal possible in this window.

One interesting aspect that's relevant to the Wings: That would effect Z and Franzen's contract if they don't play out the full length. Their contracts aren't as ridiculous as Luongo's, but they're a stretch. I'm also surprised by this a bit: It seems like being able to bail out of bad contracts like that will help player movement, but also give GM's an out when they grossly overpay players. And I thought that's what we're trying to clamp down on here. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8513156/nhl-league-proposal-bold-step-save-season

per Aaron Ward's twitter: Some sources were originally reporting it was using the same HRR as the last CBA. If they're opening that can of worms and using a different definition then it's going to be an intense 9 days of negotiations still.

I love how Bettman always says "I don't negotiate publicly" but then goes on to talk about the deal and spin things the owners way. The spin is understandable but no need to keep lying about it first. It's like when someone says "I'm not racist but..." You know what's coming next. That aside, this is a very smart move by the NHL. They finally made a reasonable offer to negotiate from and included a timetable that would preserve an 82 game season. That way if a deal doesn't happen it's going to look more like the union's fault for costing games. It's what I was getting at when I said long ago that the league is always bargaining from a position of greater power. It's ultimately their league. The players union could never have done something like this because they can't control the schedules and games like ownership. The league has positioned themselves to look like heroes for saving the season they were taking away. A little more info about the deal from McKenzie's and Dreger's twitter:

Well if a deal is getting done, obviously not many. Most people said if they're gonna lose the season anyway, it'd be nice to get rid of Bettman too. But we can take a poll again when he locks the players out at the end of this coming CBA.

Per Dreger's twitter:

McKenzie's twitter: It seems like the broad strokes are there. Now they can hopefully start pulling some marathon negotiating sessions over the next several days to get this done. Honestly if I were the players I'd think about wanting an 78-80 game season instead of trying to cram in the full 82. The season is too long as it is. I can't see the owners giving that up though.

Agreed. I think this is the first time we'll really get a sense for Fehr's intentions, because it's the first decent offer from the league. There's a lot of details to be worked out but if there truly is salary protection for players and the NHL backed off it's contract demands, we should be watching hockey very soon.

Which probably means we're not going to hear "We'll take it!" for several days. I'm guessing there's going to be a ton of number crunching and lawyering the details.

Hopefully. It depends on what they're doing to HRR at the same time but this sounds like a very realistic offer from the NHL. Finally. Details are sketchy but Dreger and McKenzie are making it sound like the players full contracts will be honored, it's just going to be paid out over longer time. Without that sort of protection by McKenzie's figuring the NHLPA is going to have to swallow an 11% decrease in salary. And as you mention, hopefully the NHL has moved off its idiotic contract demands as well. This sounds very promising.

I'm not terribly familiar with the site Deadspin but McKenzie retweeted this link, so that's an endorsement. Either way this story seems credible. The NHL hired a Republican strategist and is holding rushed focus groups of fans to test pro-ownership messages and spin the PR back in their favor. http://deadspin.com/...dium=socialflow And this is a pre-emptive warning. This thread is about the lockout, not politics.

I'm basing it more on the sum total of his career than any PR attempts by Fehr. 3 CBA negotiations. 3 lockouts. 1st major North American pro sport to lose a season due to a labor dispute. Other leagues have similar issues and problems but have managed to solve them without losing an entire season. 1,780 games lost to lockout under his watch and counting. That is by far more than any of the big pro sports. How is that not a failure? The NHL commissioner is not just a shill for ownership, part of his job is to protect the integrity and public confidence in the league. The commissioners of other leagues have to deal with owners just like Bettman does. 7 years after losing an entire season to implement a hard cap, with an increase in revenue of 50% since the last CBA, there's no way there should be a lockout right now. Bettman and his hardliners want too much too fast. And unlike in 1995, the owners aren't going to be able to overrule him and salvage the season.

Well, Bettman got hockey back on ESPN. Just not the way I would've hoped. Anyone know who the players of note are on those teams?

The Tigers should just hurry up and lose so I can really focus on hating Valverde. Well, him and the lockout. Because I normally could care less about baseball...