Lockout/CBA Discussion Thread

[BlueNGold]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

10 seasons before a player can become a UFA? WTF?

[jyoung]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

If true, that offer is horrible.

Gonna' be a long lockout.

[DJ]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

If true, that offer is horrible.

Gonna' be a long lockout.

The owners must want this sport to die. That offer is so bad, the only thing it is going to accomplish is angering the NHLPA, and then, look out.

I am a fan of the sport, love attending games live, but reading crap like this just infuriates me. The NHL should be on its hands and knees, thanking fans for coming back to the sport after the last Lockout.

Any type of labor strife is the absolute last thing the NHL needs, yet, the owners seem hell-bent on causing just that, yet again.

Baseball learned its lesson after the last strike. Football managed to avoid catastrophe and solved its labor issues.

If, and this is a big if, another season is lost due to stupidity, I will not come back to the sport.

[VanCitySportsGuy]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

I wonder if Fehr asked Bettman if he was joking after that first offer? I knew the NHL wouldn't offer anything decent in their first proposal but that offer is insulting.

How can you brag about how much money the NHL is making and than offer something like that?

The whole 5 year max contract length doesn't make any sense when you consider at least 1/3rd of the teams have offered a contract that has been at least 10 years.

Based on what Bettman has been telling the public (record revenues/overall health of the game), I don't see why there should be any major changes in the CBA. I would only tweak the welfare payments and make teams like the Leafs/Canucks/Wings/Rangers/Flyers/Habs/Bruins/Caps/Penguins/Blackhawks give more money to lower revenue teams and close the cap-hit loophole on long term contracts.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that the National TV deals in Canada are set to expire soon and the NHL is going to get big increase in rights fees.

[mercalnd]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

The whole 5 year max contract length doesn't make any sense when you consider at least 1/3rd of the teams have offered a contract that has been at least 10 years.

They're trying to close the loophole allowing teams to offer long contracts with the last years at a much lower salary to lower the cap hit that are essentially being used to circumvent the cap. However, they could achieve that by simply saying you cannot have more than say a 20% variation in salary between any 2 years of the same contract.

[VanCitySportsGuy]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

They're trying to close the loophole allowing teams to offer long contracts with the last years at a much lower salary to lower the cap hit that are essentially being used to circumvent the cap. However, they could achieve that by simply saying you cannot have more than say a 20% variation in salary between any 2 years of the same contract.

The %20 rule is a possible solution but I don't see it as a major problem for the league in the first place. Why would the Owners/GM's want to close the loophole? If you're a GM, isn't being able to "circumvent the cap" a good thing?

[Suntan Superman]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

The %20 rule is a possible solution but I don't see it as a major problem for the league in the first place. Why would the Owners/GM's want to close the loophole? If you're a GM, isn't being able to "circumvent the cap" a good thing?

But the question is if it's in the spirit of the game.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

The only one of those things I agree with is the contract limit, but I'd make the max either 6 or 7 years.

[Money99]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

No need to panic just yet.
This is only the first offer, and both sides know that if you want half of something you initially ask for all of it.
The owners would be absolutely ecstatic if they could get a 50/50 split so I expect the players to eventually come down from 57% to 53, which the owners would be happy for.

The PA will eventually counter with something as equally ridiculous, but near the end, they will meet in the middle on most of the pressing matters.

I still wouldn't be surprised if the season didn't begin until Decemeber 1st and while that would stink for us diehards, I have a sneaking suspicion that a great majority of fans wouldn't care because a lot of them are busy paying attention to the NFL, MLB playoffs and the start of the NBA season from October through November.

[Cletus]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

No need to panic just yet.
This is only the first offer, and both sides know that if you want half of something you initially ask for all of it.
The owners would be absolutely ecstatic if they could get a 50/50 split so I expect the players to eventually come down from 57% to 53, which the owners would be happy for.

The PA will eventually counter with something as equally ridiculous, but near the end, they will meet in the middle on most of the pressing matters.

I still wouldn't be surprised if the season didn't begin until Decemeber 1st and while that would stink for us diehards, I have a sneaking suspicion that a great majority of fans wouldn't care because a lot of them are busy paying attention to the NFL, MLB playoffs and the start of the NBA season from October through November.

That's how I feel about this. It's way too early to jump off the ledge. If the season doesn't start until December you have a couple of months to support local teams. That's what I will do, most likely.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

That's how I feel about this. It's way too early to jump off the ledge. If the season doesn't start until December you have a couple of months to support local teams. That's what I will do, most likely.

Yes, I'll still be getting my Saturday season tickets for UMD. But of course this has to happen when the Wild are actually interesting going into a season for a change.

[DrJones]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/

This sums things up pretty well.

[Money99]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4429817/

This sums things up pretty well.

Nice article.
In my younger days, I was really pushing for equal sharing so that every team was on equal footing. Not anymore.
If the smaller market teams can't make it, then move, sell, or contract.

I still find it hilarious that teams such as the Avalanche are considered 'small market' while Winnipeg is a big one.

If you can't get enough fans and corporate sponsors then you shouldn't be in the NHL.
Let the big dogs spend. The NHL is a healthier league if teams like Philly, Det, Tor and NY are in the playoffs and finals every year.
There's a reason why MLB likes it's system. Everyone's sick of the Yankees, and yet they pull in crazy ratings in the postseason.

This is an entertainment BUSINESS. If your team can't entertain and generate dollars, then it's your own fault.

[DrJones]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

Nice article.
In my younger days, I was really pushing for equal sharing so that every team was on equal footing. Not anymore.
If the smaller market teams can't make it, then move, sell, or contract.

I still find it hilarious that teams such as the Avalanche are considered 'small market' while Winnipeg is a big one.

If you can't get enough fans and corporate sponsors then you shouldn't be in the NHL.
Let the big dogs spend. The NHL is a healthier league if teams like Philly, Det, Tor and NY are in the playoffs and finals every year.

This is an entertainment BUSINESS. If your team can't entertain and generate dollars, then it's your own fault.

"Letting the big dogs spend" was a big reason why the Dead Puck Era happened. The rich teams bought everyone, the poor teams reacted by trapping. I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that philosophy now just because my team is now one of the big dogs. Pass.

I propose a compromise. Relocate/contract 4-6 of the league's weakest sisters, then increase revenue sharing among the teams remaining.

There's a reason why MLB likes it's system. Everyone's sick of the Yankees, and yet they pull in crazy ratings in the postseason.

The only reason MLB's system "works" is that randomness is more prevalent in baseball than the other three sports, preventing the Yankees and Red Sox from winning every year. And NFL ratings (and profits) dwarf MLB's, regardless of markets involved.

Regardless, it's clear that the NHL can't have it both ways. If teams are struggling, either cut bait, share the wealth, or do both. Further restricting player movement and salaries to address these issues is nonsense.

[Money99]

Re: Potential Issues with the CBA

"Letting the big dogs spend" was a big reason why the Dead Puck Era happened. The rich teams bought everyone, the poor teams reacted by trapping. I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that philosophy now just because my team is now one of the big dogs. Pass.

I propose a compromise. Relocate/contract 4-6 of the league's weakest sisters, then increase revenue sharing among the teams remaining.

Agree to some extent. But with a more stern approach to calling obstruction, I think the era of hooking and holding is gone.
Besides, since 08, the NHL has slowly degraded back into a dead-puck era. Scoring totals are the exact same now as they were back then.
The only difference is there's more flow through the neutral zone. But as far as quantity AND quality of goals, there's no difference now compared to pre-lockout hockey.

The only reason MLB's system "works" is that randomness is more prevalent in baseball than the other three sports, preventing the Yankees and Red Sox from winning every year. And NFL ratings (and profits) dwarf MLB's, regardless of markets involved.

Regardless, it's clear that the NHL can't have it both ways. If teams are struggling, either cut bait, share the wealth, or do both. Further restricting player movement and salaries to address these issues is nonsense.

There is far more randomness in hockey than baseball.
In hockey, it's literally a game of bounces. How many goals do you see where you need several replays from multiple different angles to figure out who scored the goal ("Did it go off his butt, or that guys skate, OR that other guys shin-guard?").
Hockey is nothing but 'shoot at the net and hope for a lucky bounce'.

Over 162 games, the cream always rises to the top in baseball. The same cannot always be said for hockey.
However, I do agree that in MLB playoffs, luck plays a greater role based on pitching oddities. But with only 4 (now 5) teams in the postseason for each league, most of the time, you have a great collection of large, popular, sexy markets.

That's why I stand by my thoughts that the NHL would be far more popular if you could guarantee top markets in the final 4 as opposed to the silliness that happens now.

There's a reason why the first 2 rounds of the NHL playoffs are better than the final 2. Because people know and expect upsets and randomness to take place.
But suddenly, when the dust clears and you have a number of no-name, unpopular Cinderella teams with no star power in the Conference finals, the luster is lost.

But that in itself is a debate for another day.
I'm sure most hockey fans wouldn't have a problem watching the Coyotes and Panthers in the Finals if both teams featured a number of stars and played an entertaining style of hockey.