NHLPA conditions for the next CBA to be 10 year. 1-option out after 7 years. 2-minimum salary at $800 000 at year 9. Still no deal on that.
More and more issues seem to pop up...
Honestly at this point I don't believe much of anything except for the most basic tweets about when and if they're actually meeting. There's been so much misinformation out there as everyone tries to break news. I'm tired from riding all the highs and lows.
I have a feeling it'll come out of nowhere if a deal is done or the season is cancelled.
The mods just want us not to point fingers at the commissioner or NHLPA head. If you have proof if any of the people involved do not care about the season being cancelled, I would like to read that. That would be very discouraging.
The mods don't want the incessant arguing over as to who is at fault for this whole mess of a CBA negotiation, including taking little pot shots at either side during a discussion of the cba. It has been beaten to death. Arguing over who cares or doesn't care about canceling the season is essentially the same thing.
I'm fairly certain there isn't going to be any reputable source establishing people saying they do not care if the season is cancelled.
As vladdy pointed out in one of her previous warnings, the discussion should be about details of the cba. It can also include updates from reputable sources, like Dreger or Lebrun's twitter.
No one really knows what their attitude was. There was a rumor that a handful of teams were unhappy with the lockout, and the Wings were rumored to be among them, but nothing to substantiate it.
Seeing as how it's a poor decision from a business standpoint and given the Wings constantly butting heads with Bettman, I doubt they were enthusiastic. I'm betting it was a case of "it's going to happen anyway, we need to present a united front" sort of thing more than Ilitch wanting a lockout.
I haven't seen anything substantiating the Wings position regarding the lockout, but you'd have to think they weren't happy about it.
Ilitch was running a successful franchise even in the pre-cap era. Then he continued to do so under this last CBA. The more restrictive the CBA gets regarding player contracts and cap, the harder it will be for the Wings to use that financial success as a competitive advantage.
I can't imagine Ilitch and Holland wanting a more level playing field, and certainly not losing half a season to get it.
The Penguins were not on a power play when they had too many men on the ice. It was at a vital juncture early in game 3.
And lol @ the "the better team always wins" argument. OK, fine, take L.A.'s Cup-winning team and remove Quick, Brown, Doughty, Richards and Carter to freak injuries. Were the Devils to win under those circumstances, would they have been the better team? Your argument makes literally no sense. It has no anchor in reality.
lol @ you thinking his argument has no anchor in reality when it is based on playing the actual games. Yours on the other hand has little anchor in reality as it is the one based primarily on your own opinion of who is better. So since his actually happened, it literally makes a lot of sense.
In your fictional example, yes the Devils were the better team. Because they won. On the ice. In reality. Where the game is actually played. As to why they won, of course injuries play a factor. Just like they do when the Wings win. It seems like the Kings would've been better if they were healthy, but who knows? We'll never know because that's not what happened. What we do know was the Devils won.
The Stanley Cup isn't won by who has the best team on paper or on your theories as to who is better. It's won on the ice.
Ever have a friend who's in a bad relationship? And every time you hang out with him all he does is complain about how awful things are, ask for advice that he never takes, and generally bring you down so you stop hanging out with him?
That's how the NHL has now become for me.
And as yet another reminder.No political discussion in this thread or on this site (no one really had yet but I wanted to head off any possibility from St. James' tweet) and no directing personal comments about the person making the post. Keep the discussion about this ridiculous lockout.
One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations.
For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play.
It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite and very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries.
That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie.
Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.
good article on the breakdown of the core economic issues and while those are the most important issues, there are some things that the owners have given the players. and while they aren't nearly as important as the big issues, i'm sure the players will be glad to have them. also, that article didn't mention the pension issues, which would be considered an owner's concession
legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.
I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.
My understanding is they tried a similar move in the NBA lockout (which isn't surprising since all 4 major sports are repped by the same law firm in CBA negotiations) and it got quickly shot down. While they NBA players agreed to 50/50, they play in a league with a soft cap and luxury tax and had the owners make a large increase in revenue sharing.
All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.
And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:
1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; That helps the owners just as much for teams to get under the cap. And I would hardly call that a benefit to players, other than things could have been much worse. They're having their salaries cut back and the cap further restricted. Not waiving players isn't a benefit offered to the players. It just means the owners didn't make things even worse for them.
This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%.
At best, this one's a wash.
2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); probably benefits owners more in that they can dump the awful deals they've made. At best, also a wash.
3) eliminate re-entry waivers; I'd say wash, but I may be missing something on how this benefits players more than owners because I don't know all the ins and outs. Teams being able to send players down without potentially losing them is a benefit.
4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); This helps the league and unlike anything the owners have proposed, actually addresses the fundamental problem in the league's economic structure. Definitely a wash.
5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish). This one I don't know much about but I initially read somewhere it would probably be a very rare circumstance.
Taken in total, none of those even come close to moving from 57 to 50% in salary and giving up all the contracting rights the players will need to in order to make a deal.
Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.
I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.
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.