Helene Elliott- Today's talks could pivotal

[Mess]

i guarantee that if the league were to accept a deal that did not include the 24% rollback on existing contracts all QO and Arbitration numbers would view those contacts as if the 24% rollback had occured. there is no way the league is going to let those contracts come in and set the bar going forward.

neverminding that it simply wouldn't make sense to use those contracts in QO and Arbitration underneath of a cap because they wouldn't reflect the cap environment at all.

Okay ..

Arbitration is a player right to take the team to determine his fair market price as a RFA.

Why would and independent arbitrator take 24% off if the NHL itself did not as part of its own CBA in the first place ??

 

[Mess]

Why should their current career status matter? Nobody was bringing it up back in September, seemed like a non-issue then...

I thought they were fighting the good fight for the future players anyway...right?

Or not?

That's easy ..

The shorter your NHL career you have the greater the incentive/motivation to take a deal and get a CBA in place for you to take advantage of what little time you have left. While if you are Sidney Crosby you would want them to fight for the best deal for you starting with ELS and on up ..

A CBA should not just look at today but needs to focus on the future as well .. I firmly believe that and it hasn't changed ..

Also Linden is the kind of guy that I think may continue on in the hockey world post NHL career ..Coaching, scouting , player development etc .. So if you are about to flip from a player to the management side and hope to get employed in the future, does it serve your long term goals to become as hated as Goodenow to the owners group or might you expect that what happens here might be returned in the future..

Gretzky and Lemieux interests have changed post hockey and you are now on the other side of the fence..

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Okay ..

Arbitration is a player right to take the team to determine his fair market price as a RFA.

Why would and independent arbitrator take 24% off if the NHL itself did not as part of its own CBA in the first place ??

Wow, I agree with the SpinMaster TM on something.

An arbitrator would not take the 24% into consideration unless the 24% had been agreed to and was in application. And I don't think the NHL would expect the arbitrator to either. What I suspect the NHL would do is to do exactly what the NHLPA demanded they do through out this whole mess and stick to their guns. I suspect that the teams would walk away from a player and let him twist in the wind until he agreed to take the adjusted contract offer presented to him by his team. I think that teams would not offer much abover that and be able to defend this colusive action through the salary cap mechanism. The 24% adjustment will happen, one way or another. It all depends whether the owners want to be tied to the big ticket contracts that some of them stupidly signed in the past few seasons (Yashin, Jagr, etc.).

 

[Hoss]

Also Linden is the kind of guy that I think may continue on in the hockey world post NHL career ..Coaching, scouting , player development etc .. So if you are about to flip from a player to the management side and hope to get employed in the future, does it serve your long term goals to become as hated as Goodenow to the owners group or might you expect that what happens here might be returned in the future..

Linden is motivated to act on the wishes of the players he was elected to represent. To suggest he would temper his actions for personal gain indicates you know nothing about his character.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

PA membership ??

How about the PA committee ??..

We know Gartner is retired .. What about Linden, Klatt, Irbe, Boughner, maybe even Damphousse..that have played their last NHL games ..Perhaps only Guerin and his guaranteed contract remain post lockout, that is if his isn't bought out for restrictive Cap reasons of course..

Looks like the committee might be down to anti-dealer Alfredsson as NHLers, but he enjoyed his time in back home last year, heck he even bowed out of the negotiating process to play in the SEL and World Championships so he doesn't seem all that interested in the proceedings anyways. .

Can someone say conflict of interest here .. As these players may not have the best interest of the rank and file in mind based on their current very tentative and precarious NHL existence themselves ..

Question, I've seen this in a couple of threads. Why are people implying Klatt's (and the rest of the players mentioned) career is going to be over? Is it that people think he's going to be blackballed for being part of the PA's executive committee or you just don't think he's good enough to play in the NHL anymore? Klatt put up 43 points last season, not bad at all for a 3rd line player. Plus because of the season he had, LA had to pick up a 2 year option on his contract. So its not like he's a UFA. And if you are implying that the members of the executive committee are going to be blackballed for their union activity, I'm guessing Linden, Klatt, Boughner and Damphousse would sue if they suddenly couldn't find work.

 

[Mess]

Question, I've seen this in a couple of threads. Why are people implying Klatt's (and the rest of the players mentioned) career is going to be over? Is it that people think he's going to be blackballed for being part of the PA's executive committee or you just don't think he's good enough to play in the NHL anymore? Klatt put up 43 points last season, not bad at all for a 3rd line player. Plus because of the season he had, LA had to pick up a 2 year option on his contract. So its not like he's a UFA. And if you are implying that the members of the executive committee are going to be blackballed for their union activity, I'm guessing Linden, Klatt, Boughner and Damphousse would sue if they suddenly couldn't find work.

It was just an observation of the make-up of the committee .. No Dany Heatley I got my whole career ahead of me type guys ..

However I was interested in who you think they would sue ??

You can't force the NHL to employ you by law. IMO

 

[thinkwild]

Sue for collusion to not offer them a contract?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Sue for collusion to not offer them a contract?

Ahhhhh, so if the owners do decide to set a budget and stick by it, its collusion! Gotcha. And you wonder why the players are locked out and the owners are standing firm? This is the only time the owners can legally collude to establish a marketplace to their liking. This prevents those lawsuits that you and your buddy Spinmaster TM seem to be so fond of.

 

[thinkwild]

THis has nothing to do with setting a budget, its determining that all teams agree not to hire these guys at their fair market value, if the unlikely case occurred where no one hired them even though it was in their best interest. They will have a cap. There is no need to budget. Brains are no longer required.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Also Linden is the kind of guy that I think may continue on in the hockey world post NHL career ..Coaching, scouting , player development etc .. So if you are about to flip from a player to the management side and hope to get employed in the future, does it serve your long term goals to become as hated as Goodenow to the owners group or might you expect that what happens here might be returned in the future..

Gretzky and Lemieux interests have changed post hockey and you are now on the other side of the fence..

Wow. You have been trumpeting the good fight that the NHLPA has been fighting, in the immortal words of another recent poster, till your fingers were bloody stumps. I am pretty sure I can dig up some posts lauding Linden in particular.

And now you turn on him like a vicious rotweiler!

Wow. I mean, like, "wow".

 

[danaluvsthekings]

I posted because I was curious if people were implying there was going to be blackballing against the members of the exec committee or just saying that they thought their careers are on the downside and might be over. I'm not a labor expert but I believe employers aren't supposed to be able to fire employees for their union activities. So yes, I think if members of the NHLPA executive committee found themselves unemployed next season, especially ones that are supposed to have contracts, they would at least attempt to sue saying they were blackballed. Using Klatt as an example because I know he's under contract, if he was bought out by LA after putting up 43 points, the 2nd best season of his career statistically, and suddenly could not find a job anywhere, don't you think he'd figure he couldn't get a job because of the owners colluding to keep him out of work because of the union activities? And no, I understand that legally there's nothing that guarantees these players a job in the NHL, but the way I remember it employers are not supposed to fire employees for union activities. I don't know who exactly they'd sue, my guess is they would file a grievance with the NLRB and go about it that way. Anyhow, I was really asking the Messenger for clarification on his post and since he said he was referring to age and not blackballing, it really isn't an issue nor I doubt it would become one. I don't think the owners would feel like paying millions in damages.

 

[Mess]

Sue for collusion to not offer them a contract?

Can you sue for collusion if you are a washed up bum..??

Great now every Reichel, Renberg, Hoglund that does not get a new contract is sueing !!!!!!!!!

Now I understand why the owners need such a low cap .. All these lawsuits have to come from somewhere . .

Pretty sneaky of the owners taking law suit rewards out of the NHLPA pockets ..

 

[Mess]

I posted because I was curious if people were implying there was going to be blackballing against the members of the exec committee or just saying that they thought their careers are on the downside and might be over. I'm not a labor expert but I believe employers aren't supposed to be able to fire employees for their union activities. So yes, I think if members of the NHLPA executive committee found themselves unemployed next season, especially ones that are supposed to have contracts, they would at least attempt to sue saying they were blackballed. Using Klatt as an example because I know he's under contract, if he was bought out by LA after putting up 43 points, the 2nd best season of his career statistically, and suddenly could not find a job anywhere, don't you think he'd figure he couldn't get a job because of the owners colluding to keep him out of work because of the union activities? And no, I understand that legally there's nothing that guarantees these players a job in the NHL, but the way I remember it employers are not supposed to fire employees for union activities. I don't know who exactly they'd sue, my guess is they would file a grievance with the NLRB and go about it that way. Anyhow, I was really asking the Messenger for clarification on his post and since he said he was referring to age and not blackballing, it really isn't an issue nor I doubt it would become one. I don't think the owners would feel like paying millions in damages.

You make a point about blacklisting ..

Denis Beyak on mojo reported .. Linden, Guerin on the Deal side and Irbe, Damphousse, Klatt as hard line NO-DEAL guys ..

Will Damphouse get another NHL contract as a result of his actions in the negotiating room ??

You called black listed .. but how could you prove that ??.. Its out in the open now .. So a GM says those guys are costing me money I am not interested in signing them .

In regard to Klatt , what would happed if the Kings bought him out and released him .. Lots of UFA to replace him with .. Including making room for Palffy again ..

 

[danaluvsthekings]

I never said the players would have an easy case to prove but if Klatt's contract is bought out, the other memebers of the exec committee that have contracts have their deals bought out or if they're free agents and no one offers them anything the case would be easier to prove. Plus if some of those guys were free agents last summer and had some offers and suddenly now they have no offers, it would look suspicious. I don't think they'd all be unemployed because of Alfredsson and Guerin, but you can't tell me Linden or Klatt wouldn't still have something to offer a team in a 3rd or 4th line role. They know that.

As for LA and what if buying out Klatt gave them room to resign more players, Klatt would only be making about $900,000 assuming the 24% rollback is in place (assuming his deal is for about $1.2 mil, I know it's not for much more than that). That's not freeing up a whole lot of contract space. Plus LA offered Palffy $19.5 mil and Ziggy decided to test the market looking for more money. But LA should have plenty of room to resign Palffy if he wanted to come back without buying out someone like Klatt. Plus Klatt provides intangibles with leadership for guys like Brown and Frolov.

 

[Jester]

Okay ..

Arbitration is a player right to take the team to determine his fair market price as a RFA.

Why would and independent arbitrator take 24% off if the NHL itself did not as part of its own CBA in the first place ??

because they would agree IN this CBA that in arbitration hearings the salary numbers that would be used to determine the players contractual value would be based on either contracts signed AFTER the CBA was determined, or in the case of a contract that was signed PRIOR to the CBA that contract would be viewed with the 24% rollback for arbitration purposes.

this isn't that complicated, and it is a point that the NHLPA has basically given in on when they offered up the 24% rollback in the first place. if everyone is in agreement that the market place was completely screwed up, then you gotta create an environment where the contracts are corrected (and fit) to the new system.

that way the players get to keep the cash they were making under the previous system, but any new contract signed/arbitrated in the new system would reflect the necessity of the market correction, not be based on anything that reflected the previous CBA's problems (w/out correction being done).

simply put, you can't have an arbitrator handing out a 10 M contract to someone in arbitration based on contracts that were grandfathered in... a) that creates a huge problem for everyone in terms of the cap; b) the player wouldn't sign for that amount on the open market under the cap; c) it's simply stupid to allow an arbitrator to view documents that have been agreed upon as obselete, which is basically what happened here, in reaching a decision on a contract.