So Let Me Get This Right

[ATLANTARANGER*]

Gary Bettman said during his press conference that they couldn't do the $49M, or even the $45M, because history has shown in the NFL & NBA that once a cap in established all the teams are under/over by a million or two! So what he is saying that although the NHL wants a cap, in the long run it will actually be bad for the game?

I mean, right now there are teams that aren't anywhere near the 30-40M mark that was the NHL's cap. But under a cap these same teams, that can't afford to spend that kind of money, are all of a sudden going to be compelled by some mysical, compelling force to now spend millions more than they did without a cap?

Excuse me while I flush the smoke out of my butt!

Click to read more...

 

[GKJ]

Gary Bettman said during his press conference that they couldn't do the $49M, or even the $45M, because history has shown in the NFL & NBA that once a cap in established all the teams are under/over by a million or two! So what he is saying that although the NHL wants a cap, in the long run it will actually be bad for the game?

I mean, right now there are teams that aren't anywhere near the 30-40M mark that was the NHL's cap. But under a cap these same teams, that can't afford to spend that kind of money, are all of a sudden going to be compelled by some mysical, compelling force to now spend millions more than they did without a cap?

Excuse me while I flush the smoke out of my butt!

That's right. I feel bad for the people who think Gary Bettman is actually coherent and qualified to be have such a role, let alone think that he knows what he's doing.


For whatever reason he thinks all the teams who can't spend $32M are automatically spend whatever the cap number would be.

 

[oil slick]

Gary Bettman said during his press conference that they couldn't do the $49M, or even the $45M, because history has shown in the NFL & NBA that once a cap in established all the teams are under/over by a million or two! So what he is saying that although the NHL wants a cap, in the long run it will actually be bad for the game?

I mean, right now there are teams that aren't anywhere near the 30-40M mark that was the NHL's cap. But under a cap these same teams, that can't afford to spend that kind of money, are all of a sudden going to be compelled by some mysical, compelling force to now spend millions more than they did without a cap?

Excuse me while I flush the smoke out of my butt!

The players proposal was much worse than what you're making it out to be. The 49 million was the cap in 2005-2006. (when league revenues would be very low). They then would upward index the cap to league revenues based on the 2005-2006 season. This would make the cap virtually meaningless.

It was a crap proposal.

If you want to rag on Bettman, I'd say that not including revenue sharing in his proposal would be the way to go... but the players proposal was quite flawed.

 

[Bauer83]

That's right. I feel bad for the people who think Gary Bettman is actually coherent and qualified to be have such a role, let alone think that he knows what he's doing.


For whatever reason he thinks all the teams who can't spend $32M are automatically spend whatever the cap number would be.

No listen again to his clarification of comments. He said by the top 5 teams spending to the cap, it will cause the smaller teams to have to pay their players more due to arbirtration. So if 3rd line wingers get 1.5 million on the big market teams, pittsburg will have a hard time trying to convince someone of equal value that they can only have 1 million. That is how it will be 5 million by 30 teams. He did not say that all teams will spend the 49 million, its the arbitration and contracts based on other players that will bring everyone's bottom dollar up by roughly the same. 45 million would have been fine for the league, but both sides decided not to go there.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

If the players care so much about the game they should have taken the 42.5 million cap. Bravo for the commish for saying No to the $49 million pa cap. Get ready for the rebirth of the NHL. man its going to be awsome.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If the players care so much about the game they should have taken the 42.5 million cap. Bravo for the commish for saying No to the $49 million pa cap. Get ready for the rebirth of the NHL. man its going to be awsome.

E.J. Hradek reported on ESPN that Bettman went to the owners and askwed about moving it up to $45 million, and Wirtz/Jacobs told him no way, $42.5 million is already too high.

 

[jcpenny]

No listen again to his clarification of comments. He said by the top 5 teams spending to the cap, it will cause the smaller teams to have to pay their players more due to arbirtration. So if 3rd line wingers get 1.5 million on the big market teams, pittsburg will have a hard time trying to convince someone of equal value that they can only have 1 million. That is how it will be 5 million by 30 teams. He did not say that all teams will spend the 49 million, its the arbitration and contracts based on other players that will bring everyone's bottom dollar up by roughly the same. 45 million would have been fine for the league, but both sides decided not to go there.

Bright comment. Nobody here seem to be able to use logic like that, thank you.

 

[GKJ]

E.J. Hradek reported on ESPN that Bettman went to the owners and askwed about moving it up to $45 million, and Wirtz/Jacobs told him no way, $42.5 million is already too high.

Exactly. It should noted that Bettman was willing to neogeotiate that number. The people who he represents said no.

 

[GKJ]

No listen again to his clarification of comments. He said by the top 5 teams spending to the cap, it will cause the smaller teams to have to pay their players more due to arbirtration. So if 3rd line wingers get 1.5 million on the big market teams, pittsburg will have a hard time trying to convince someone of equal value that they can only have 1 million. That is how it will be 5 million by 30 teams. He did not say that all teams will spend the 49 million, its the arbitration and contracts based on other players that will bring everyone's bottom dollar up by roughly the same. 45 million would have been fine for the league, but both sides decided not to go there.

That's why there is a walk away clause. It has always been there. If they don't like it, see ya.


Arbitration has already brought salaries up, a salary cap was never needed for that. There is no correllation between a cap and arbitration because there was never any correllation when there wasn't a cap, only past signings (as past arbitration results can not be used in an arbitration case). That's why there was the walk away clause where if the team didn't like the number the player was going to get, they could tell him to walk.

What about a cap on arbitration is it was really that much of an issue. A player can not be awared more than X amount of money because of formula Y.

 

[Bauer83]

That's why there is a walk away clause. It has always been there. If they don't like it, see ya.


Arbitration has already brought salaries up, a salary cap was never needed for that. There is no correllation between a cap and arbitration because there was never any correllation when there wasn't a cap, only past signings (as past arbitration results can not be used in an arbitration case). That's why there was the walk away clause where if the team didn't like the number the player was going to get, they could tell him to walk.

What about a cap on arbitration is it was really that much of an issue. A player can not be awared more than X amount of money because of formula Y.

Coming from a big market fan, I understand where you are coming from. You enjoyed always being in contention for top spot. You enjoyed always taking high end players from small market teams, because they could no longer afford their players. With your logic, the league is heading right back to where they are today, and that is fine. It is your opinion. But I personally want a healthy nhl with 30 teams competing for the cup each year, not 30 teams, where 8 are guaranteed second round births, and small market teams have to make miracle runs where goalies make 60 saves a game to make it past the first round. Keep up the ignorant attitude that got us here.

 

[MLH]

Coming from a big market fan, I understand where you are coming from. You enjoyed always being in contention for top spot. You enjoyed always taking high end players from small market teams, because they could no longer afford their players. With your logic, the league is heading right back to where they are today, and that is fine. It is your opinion. But I personally want a healthy nhl with 30 teams competing for the cup each year, not 30 teams, where 8 are guaranteed second round births, and small market teams have to make miracle runs where goalies make 60 saves a game to make it past the first round. Keep up the ignorant attitude that got us here.

Well said.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Exactly. It should noted that Bettman was willing to neogeotiate that number. The people who he represents said no.

Is that not his job? To negotiate according to the wishes of the people who employ him?

 

[DropThePuck]

Could not have said it better myself! We need a healthy NHL. Period.

 

[chiavsfan]

Is that not his job? To negotiate according to the wishes of the people who employ him?

Shhhhhh, dont tell that to the PA people...they don't get it

 

[GKJ]

Is that not his job? To negotiate according to the wishes of the people who employ him?

Supposedly. That's why the owners are idiots. There are more than 8 owners in the NHL. In my opinion, if 24 owners agree to something, the other 8 should be thrown under the bus because they're holding this up. That should be the message sent. Sorry: Edmonton, Calgary, Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Carolina, Florida (maybe New Jersey, Pittsburgh, NY Isles, Anaheim, Montreal), but I know that wouldn't be plausable.


And at that point, other things have to be given up if you're not moving from the number. Bettman does represent the owners but he is also a neogeotiator.

 

[transplant99]

How do you rationalize it was only 8 teams that held this thing up.

I would suggest, and be much closer than you, that 23 teams didnt want that high a cap number.

 

[MLH]

Supposedly. That's why the owners are idiots. There are more than 8 owners in the NHL. In my opinion, if 24 owners agree to something, the other 8 should be thrown under the bus because they're holding this up. That should be the message sent. Sorry: Edmonton, Calgary, Boston, Chicago, Nashville, Carolina, Florida (maybe New Jersey, Pittsburgh, NY Isles, Anaheim, Montreal), but I know that wouldn't be plausable.


And at that point, other things have to be given up if you're not moving from the number. Bettman does represent the owners but he is also a neogeotiator.

It's not 8, it's 25 at least. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that league is in an economical mess. You don't think Buffalo and Ottawa, both recently bankrupt want a hard cap lower than 42.5? You don't think Tom Hicks, who's about to go through this mess again, doesn't wan't a hard cap? Which owners want hockey back with a broken sysytem? Philly? Toronto? NYR? Bettman says Dolan was supportive.

I think you're failing to realize how solidified the owners are.

 

[vanlady]

I listened to Dan Russell's show last night on CKNW.com He made an interesting comment (it should be in hour 2 in the audio vault). He commented that the NHL has retained a very large law firm in Vancouver to research the impact of impasse in BC. Someone tipped off the PA on Sunday. Later on Global Gallager eluded to the same thing and left the idea that it was an owner who tipped off the PA. Gallager also backed up Linden's statement that several owners had input to the PA proposal and agreed they would accept it. After a few calls, which I am sure Wetcoaster can verify with a few calls, I discovered the NHL made intial contact with this law firm at the beginning of December, before the Dec 9 proposal. These comments are coming from the 2 biggest John McCaw mouth pieces in Vancover.

So the question is, has this entire negotiation been about breaking the union?? And has Gary Bettman at any time planned on making a deal?

 

[Nightslyr]

I listened to Dan Russell's show last night on CKNW.com He made an interesting comment (it should be in hour 2 in the audio vault). He commented that the NHL has retained a very large law firm in Vancouver to research the impact of impasse in BC. Someone tipped off the PA on Sunday. Later on Global Gallager eluded to the same thing and left the idea that it was an owner who tipped off the PA. Gallager also backed up Linden's statement that several owners had input to the PA proposal and agreed they would accept it. After a few calls, which I am sure Wetcoaster can verify with a few calls, I discovered the NHL made intial contact with this law firm at the beginning of December, before the Dec 9 proposal. These comments are coming from the 2 biggest John McCaw mouth pieces in Vancover.

So the question is, has this entire negotiation been about breaking the union?? And has Gary Bettman at any time planned on making a deal?

Why wouldn't the league have lawyers researching on an impasse in Canada at a time when there weren't any real negotiations going on? Smart business people plan for every possible outcome.

 

[vanlady]

Why wouldn't the league have lawyers researching on an impasse in Canada at a time when there weren't any real negotiations going on? Smart business people plan for every possible outcome.

Not before they even give the union there first complete offer they don't

 

[Nightslyr]

Not before they even give the union there first complete offer they don't

Why not? Hadn't some players already jumped ship to Europe by that time?

 

[transplant99]

Not before they even give the union there first complete offer they don't

Huh?

Of course they do, its called a contingency plan, and every good business has one.