Step Back, Take a Deep Breath, and Look at the PA's Offer

[The Zetterberg Era]

Look at what? The Owners have never budged on 5-year contracts from Day 1 so why it is hard to believe that it is one of their top priorities for the CBA negotiation? You can't just go into a bubble and ignore that. The fact that the NHL "won" is immaterial since everyone knew from the start they would win and gain concessions from the NHLPA, it was just a matter of how much they'd "win". Saying that the owners should be happy that they "won" is rather hollow since they really never had any realistic scenario where they could "lose".

Owners want 5-year contracts. Owners have never budged one iota from demanding 5-year contracts. It seems unlikely the union will be able to negotiate any type of middle ground on this issue and should instead concede that point and try to get a concession in return for it. You can't just ignore that.

Not entirely true, they even allow for players to sign for seven years whether an RFA or UFA with their current team. That was the concession, but you're right that is probably all they are getting there. Maybe they will allow a 10% variance.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Not that it will really matter, but I am anti-union. That is across all walks. While a lot of people dislike the pro sports unions because of the wealth of the constituents at least they aren't trying to dictate policy for society as a whole like the UAW or CCPOA. I don't begrudge people for joining them but I rarely agree with a lot of positions taken by them.

I understand a lot of what they are asking for, 50/50 and to be honest a little north of 50 for the owners makes sense to me. They own the business. But pretty much I guess my anti-union feelings are bleeding over. So you see because I seem to more often than not think like the owner, agree with the owners, I must be pretty pro-owner. You see how that works? If almost everything you say is in complete agreement with the players you are pro NHLPA.

You are basically saying because you think they should actually want to break the cap and go even harder that makes you not pro PA. I guess but at this point that would be like me saying I see no problem with the first owners proposal in July (for the record I did). I am disappointed the owners didn't just keep after that offer so I am no longer pro-owner they are not smashing them hard enough. I was hoping they would do it in such a fashion the union would break altogether and sports unions would no longer be around.

Why does 50/50 make sense to you, except that the owners asked for it. To me, these just arbitrary numbers. Why do the owners want 50/50? Because its better than 57.43. 50 percent isn't magic. There's divine law that points to 50. Next time it will be the owners demanding 33 trying to settle at 40 or something.

I can say, reasonably that 50/50 is fair, Because what does that mean? What I can say is that the players were at 74. Then they were at 57. Now they are agreeing to get to 50/50 by year 5. That's victory for ownership.

What I can say is that there were NO contract limits. The owners want 5. The players have said they'll compromise and do 8. That's victory for ownership, even if they agreed to 8.

What I can say, as fact, is that there was no variable. The owners proposed 5 percent. The PA has compromised and gone from Having no variable to agreeing to 25 percent. That's victory for ownership.

THis has been capitulation and compromise from the PA in every meaningful area. The owners refuse to compromise. There are people here who think owners should never compromise. Fine. I'll ignore those people because that's an unreasonable position. You know what my hope is? I hope the NHL owners DIE on their Hill, and that the PA supports decertification. and that these crooks lose hundreds of millions of dollars

I am pro union. I do not believe sports associations are unions. Unions strive for equality. They don't have some workers making 20 times more than others. So I don't support the PA.

This isn't about being pro union.

For me, this is about Bettman getting slapped and the owners realizing that lockouts can work against you. Because if they don't learn that lesson, we're back here again.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Not that it will really matter, but I am anti-union. That is across all walks. While a lot of people dislike the pro sports unions because of the wealth of the constituents at least they aren't trying to dictate policy for society as a whole like the UAW or CCPOA. I don't begrudge people for joining them but I rarely agree with a lot of positions taken by them.

I understand a lot of what they are asking for, 50/50 and to be honest a little north of 50 for the owners makes sense to me. They own the business. But pretty much I guess my anti-union feelings are bleeding over. So you see because I seem to more often than not think like the owner, agree with the owners, I must be pretty pro-owner. You see how that works? If almost everything you say is in complete agreement with the players you are pro NHLPA.

You are basically saying because you think they should actually want to break the cap and go even harder that makes you not pro PA. I guess but at this point that would be like me saying I see no problem with the first owners proposal in July (for the record I did). I am disappointed the owners didn't just keep after that offer so I am no longer pro-owner they are not smashing them hard enough. I was hoping they would do it in such a fashion the union would break altogether and sports unions would no longer be around.

That is the Milwaukee property tax speaking...

 

[Vladdy84]

Who cares? The things I want like contraction/re-location, re-alignment, a soft cap and no cap floor won't happen. Teams will still lose money because they either refuse or are forced to live beyond their means. I just want this over. 10 year deal and meet in the middle on contract length. Players need to realize that the more money the league makes, the more money they will make. Unfortunately, after this lockout, I expect revenues to drop big time.

 

[ZDH]

Die on the Hill then.

Did you hear this phrase in the last week or so CB? You put it in almost every post.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Did you hear this phrase in the last week or so CB? You put it in almost every post.

I haven't seen him use it until Daly did it himself last night.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Did you hear this phrase in the last week or so CB? You put it in almost every post.

Billy Daly said the NHL was prepared to DIE ON THIS HILL when talking about 5 year contracts.

If the owners agreed to the PAs offer

in the span of 8 years they will have reduced the HRR share of the PA from 74 to 50 percent, reduced contracts from infinity to 8 years, eliminated cap circumvention (as we now know it).

If they decide to fight into January (which I don't think they are dumb enough to do).

They can risk losing the cap, the draft, and everything else.

 

[ZDH]

Today | 06:30 PMCaptain BobHopefully the NHL owners and the NHL dies on their hill
Today | 05:57 PMCaptain Bob Die on the hill then.
Today 4:26 PM Captain Bob You think the league should be prepared to DIE ON THAT HILL :
Today 4:09 PM "we are going to die on this hill."
Today 3:00 PM The owners are going to "die on this hill"

Got tired of looking after that.

 

[Fugu]

Today | 06:30 PMCaptain BobHopefully the NHL owners and the NHL dies on their hill
Today | 05:57 PMCaptain Bob Die on the hill then.
Today 4:26 PM Captain Bob You think the league should be prepared to DIE ON THAT HILL :
Today 4:09 PM "we are going to die on this hill."
Today 3:00 PM The owners are going to "die on this hill"

Got tired of looking after that.

Well, Daly did say something really dramatic and dumb.

 

[ChadS]

Seems like everyone's dying on the frk'n hill.

Don't worry, there will be a CBA in the next 10 days.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

The term limit for contracts is pretty important. One side is going to be losing a lot if they concede on that point.

 

[Run the Jewels]

The term limit for contracts is pretty important. One side is going to be losing a lot if they concede on that point.

You are absolutely 100% correct on this my friend!

However it's not going to be the players. It will be the crappy owners who have initiated the past three lockouts when they overpay for mediocre talent., Why will that be the case? Because the teams with money will always get the best talent. So the crappy franchises will overpay for mediocre talent then whine about how expensive it is to acquire mediocre NHL players!

Then they'll force a lockout after this CBA ends to limit contracts to 3 years. Because term is TOTALLY what is separating them from losing their shirts every single year. TERM!

Quick question: how did the Atlanta franchise do once they were moved to Winnipeg? Did they lose their shirts? And they didn't need a change in term or in revenue split!

 

[WingedWheel1987]

You are absolutely 100% correct on this my friend!

However it's not going to be the players. It will be the crappy owners who have initiated the past three lockouts when they overpay for mediocre talent., Why will that be the case? Because the teams with money will always get the best talent. So the crappy franchises will overpay for mediocre talent then whine about how expensive it is to acquire mediocre NHL players!

Then they'll force a lockout after this CBA ends to limit contracts to 3 years. Because term is TOTALLY what is separating them from losing their shirts every single year. TERM!

Quick question: how did the Atlanta franchise do once they were moved to Winnipeg? Did they lose their shirts? And they didn't need a change in term or in revenue split!

I completely agree the owners will win. It is a sad reality that the players never had a chance of winning anything. They could only "win" what the owners were already willing to give up.

 

[Run the Jewels]

I completely agree the owners will win. It is a sad reality that the players never had a chance of winning anything. They could only "win" what the owners were already willing to give up.

Oh good point, the players are so unhappy that they had to be locked out during the past three work stoppages. They were so unhappy that they extended the past CBA through 2012. They were so miserable they wanted to play this season under the last CBA until a new one was implemented.

 

[jkrx]

Yes, I am sure in return the owners would gladly:

1. Eliminate the draft so players would be free to sign wherever they like.
2. No contracts which would allow the player to sign elsewhere during any offseason at their liking. Unfettered free agency!
3. No salary cap! Let the free market decide how much a player is worth! (that worked so well, didn't it? the owners did such a good job that a salary cap wasn't necessary! such captains of industry!!)

You obviously do not understand that hockey is not a free market, like the larger economy. Players are tied to the team that drafts them. Then that team owns their professional hockey rights. In order for the team to maintain those rights they need to give something back to the players. Should Sid Crosby play for the Penguins if the Penguins owner decides he only wants to pay him $1 million per year? That's a heck of a lot of money! Shouldn't Sid be happy just to be so richly rewarded? Why on earth would he ever need more than that?

If the owners are as all knowing as you seem to think why are we on our third straight lockout? Once the owners realized the CBA didn't work, shouldn't they have simply locked the players out while the last CBA was still in effect?

Actually I was a bit harsh. What I meant were the players are employees of the owners. This is reality. Players are offering a service. Thowners however are risking their money. I wouldn't say I'm pro-owner and Im definitly not pro-free market. Im saying that the players should get fitting contracts where they get a salary. Not some revenue.

If owners wants to limit contracts to five years shouldnt that be a right for them to only offer 5 year contracts?

All the salary cap has done is forced teams who've built strong through the draft to remain less strong than before. Sure the bottom feeders doesnt suck as much as they used to and that might be good but I liked teams that were smart with their money and could draft players or do the right trades. I'm talking about Ottawa for example who had to lose stars because of the cap. Stars that became stars there.

How is the cap working out? Teams arent overpaying for players anymore, right?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Actually I was a bit harsh. What I meant were the players are employees of the owners. This is reality. Players are offering a service. Thowners however are risking their money. I wouldn't say I'm pro-owner and Im definitly not pro-free market. Im saying that the players should get fitting contracts where they get a salary. Not some revenue.

If owners wants to limit contracts to five years shouldnt that be a right for them to only offer 5 year contracts?

All the salary cap has done is forced teams who've built strong through the draft to remain less strong than before. Sure the bottom feeders doesnt suck as much as they used to and that might be good but I liked teams that were smart with their money and could draft players or do the right trades. I'm talking about Ottawa for example who had to lose stars because of the cap. Stars that became stars there.

How is the cap working out? Teams arent overpaying for players anymore, right?

If owners don't want to offer more than 5 years, they don't have to.
Why kill the season to put in the CBA?

Because if Mike Ilitch offers 8 years, then some loser non-market franchise will have to offer 8 years.

Of course, we know this is BS. Because not all team offer the 10-12 year deals the Wings and Hawks offered Zetterberg and Hossa. The Sharks, for example, don't offer those deals.

BY CHOICE.

I'm so sick of average Joes (and Joannes) lining up to defend billionaires who argue they need protection from themselves.

I

 

[FissionFire]

Oh good point, the players are so unhappy that they had to be locked out during the past three work stoppages. They were so unhappy that they extended the past CBA through 2012. They were so miserable they wanted to play this season under the last CBA until a new one was implemented.

Yeah, and owners have never heard that line of BS before from a Fehr-led union. The 1994 MLB strike pretty much made it impossible for any league to play without a CBA anymore. The players were so unhappy with that agreement they went on strike, only to go back to work in 1995 under THE SAME AGREEMENT until a new CBA was hammered out. Fehr's antics pretty much destroyed the Expos viability. MLB had a 20% attendance drop alone the season after the strike. It took close to a decade for MLB to just get back to where it was before the strike. Nope, no league will ever fall for Fehr's "we'll play under the old CBA while we negotiate" line ever again.

The reason you see the 5-years as a sticking point isn't because some/most owners don't want it, it's because to compete for the best talent or to retain your own stars you have to follow the market and all it takes is one stupid contract to establish the baseline for what you need to offer to retain them. Do you think Detroit or New York or Philly would sign a star like, for example, Suter or Parise if they would only offer 5 years but Minnesota or Edmonton or Calgary was willing to plop down a 12 year megadeal? You can't compete unless you are willing to play the game of big contracts. The only to reign it in is to put it in the CBA. If the owners all get together and make an agreement to only offer max 5 year deals you can bet Fehr would be in court the next day filing collusion charges, and he'd be right because that would totally be collusion. That's why stuff like that hasto be collectively bargained and not worked out amongst themselves.

 

[Run the Jewels]

Yeah, and owners have never heard that line of BS before from a Fehr-led union. The 1994 MLB strike pretty much made it impossible for any league to play without a CBA anymore. The players were so unhappy with that agreement they went on strike, only to go back to work in 1995 under THE SAME AGREEMENT until a new CBA was hammered out. Fehr's antics pretty much destroyed the Expos viability. MLB had a 20% attendance drop alone the season after the strike. It took close to a decade for MLB to just get back to where it was before the strike. Nope, no league will ever fall for Fehr's "we'll play under the old CBA while we negotiate" line ever again.

The reason you see the 5-years as a sticking point isn't because some/most owners don't want it, it's because to compete for the best talent or to retain your own stars you have to follow the market and all it takes is one stupid contract to establish the baseline for what you need to offer to retain them. Do you think Detroit or New York or Philly would sign a star like, for example, Suter or Parise if they would only offer 5 years but Minnesota or Edmonton or Calgary was willing to plop down a 12 year megadeal? You can't compete unless you are willing to play the game of big contracts. The only to reign it in is to put it in the CBA. If the owners all get together and make an agreement to only offer max 5 year deals you can bet Fehr would be in court the next day filing collusion charges, and he'd be right because that would totally be collusion. That's why stuff like that hasto be collectively bargained and not worked out amongst themselves.

Hmmm, baseball hasn't had a works stoppage in close to 20 years. The Yankees do not dominate baseball as was feared without a salary cap. The weakest franchises do receive significant revenue sharing but have been forced to actually use that revenue to improve their franchises. We all know there are a few NHL franchises that need to go the way of the Expos, just in the opposite direction. Say, how are the Washington Nationals doing?

So yes, big bad Donald Fehr. A lockout prevented a strike you say? Well since the players knew the owners would lock them out prior to this season (isn't that what happened when the last two CBAs ended?), why not grab the bull by the horns and strike prior to the 2012 playoffs? Why agree to play this season under the current CBA until a new one is agreed upon?

I generally appreciate your viewpoint but I have to be honest and say you are out to lunch on this issue. Donald Fehr isn't a bogeyman. Just look at baseball's labor negotiations over the past 17-18 years. Gary Bettman on the other hand...

 

[Run the Jewels]

If owners wants to limit contracts to five years shouldnt that be a right for them to only offer 5 year contracts?

No one has ever held a gun to an owner's head and forced them to sign a player to a contract longer than 5 years. Gary Bettman would never allow that to happen.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Oh good point, the players are so unhappy that they had to be locked out during the past three work stoppages. They were so unhappy that they extended the past CBA through 2012. They were so miserable they wanted to play this season under the last CBA until a new one was implemented.

You are laying the sarcasm on pretty thick so i am having a tough time figuring out if any of that post wasnt sarcastic.

MOD Unfortunately, they think because Fehr won in 1994, he will do it again. Today on Twitter one player basically said that. He ignores the circumstances which led to Fehr beating the MLB owners during the 1994 strike and that they cannot be replicated. It's also why the players keep saying, "Lets keep playing under the old CBA until a new one is ratified." It's comical to think that the owners would put themselves in that position with Fehr at the helm of the PA.

Oh well, I always pegged the players as losers well before this lockout started, but the only unknown was how much the players lost. Now that the entire season is more than likely lost, the owners will get their pound of flesh and some extra on the side. Fehr can try and go after the cap, but he will soon realize his one trick pony 1994 wont mean jack **** to the owners once the players start going bankrupt and they accept whatever offer the owners have on the table. Fortunately, that offer will still end up having NHL players making millions of dollars. A victory for the owners, a PR loss for the players, but real world win and finally the Fans............lose outright with nothing to show for it except a nice, "Thank You Fans" written in the ice.

 

[FissionFire]

Hmmm, baseball hasn't had a works stoppage in close to 20 years. The Yankees do not dominate baseball as was feared without a salary cap. The weakest franchises do receive significant revenue sharing but have been forced to actually use that revenue to improve their franchises. We all know there are a few NHL franchises that need to go the way of the Expos, just in the opposite direction. Say, how are the Washington Nationals doing?

So yes, big bad Donald Fehr. A lockout prevented a strike you say? Well since the players knew the owners would lock them out prior to this season (isn't that what happened when the last two CBAs ended?), why not grab the bull by the horns and strike prior to the 2012 playoffs? Why agree to play this season under the current CBA until a new one is agreed upon?

I generally appreciate your viewpoint but I have to be honest and say you are out to lunch on this issue. Donald Fehr isn't a bogeyman. Just look at baseball's labor negotiations over the past 17-18 years. Gary Bettman on the other hand...

You aren't very well versed on the current issues with MLB or you'd never say that. Dominance is measured by more than just World Series wins. And teams most certainly are not forced to spend revenue sharing money. In fact, the biggest gripe the deep pocket teams have right now is that many of the small teams simply maintain a low payroll and pocket huge profits from revenue sharing. I'd have to go look for it, but there a wonderful article not long ago detailing how for smaller teams increasing payroll actually decreases profits, even if you go from a crappy team to a title contender. Baseball's version of labor peace is essentially a system that no other league will ever adopt. The owners wanted (and overall still want) a salary cap but right now the system makes everyone tons of money so nobody is rocking the boat. I can promise you that MLB owners would take the last NHL CBA in a heartbeat and laugh all the way to the bank. To say that a system in which one player can earn more in a single season than an entire team (yes, that happened very recently) is a fair system for all teams is ignoring reality.

 

[Bench]

Man, when our boy Captain Bob isn't talking about Lidstrom or drunk driving, I agree with him A LOT.

 

[JackieTreehorn]

You aren't very well versed on the current issues with MLB or you'd never say that. Dominance is measured by more than just World Series wins. And teams most certainly are not forced to spend revenue sharing money. In fact, the biggest gripe the deep pocket teams have right now is that many of the small teams simply maintain a low payroll and pocket huge profits from revenue sharing. I'd have to go look for it, but there a wonderful article not long ago detailing how for smaller teams increasing payroll actually decreases profits, even if you go from a crappy team to a title contender. Baseball's version of labor peace is essentially a system that no other league will ever adopt. The owners wanted (and overall still want) a salary cap but right now the system makes everyone tons of money so nobody is rocking the boat. I can promise you that MLB owners would take the last NHL CBA in a heartbeat and laugh all the way to the bank. To say that a system in which one player can earn more in a single season than an entire team (yes, that happened very recently) is a fair system for all teams is ignoring reality.

I dont think ths is quite right. Until the MLB draft rules were changed this year the Royals and Pirates were probably 2 of the 5 biggest spenders in the draft over the past 5 or so years. They choose to use RS on amateur talent not an over the hill star who wont get another contract from a desirable franchise.

 

[probertrules24]

Why don't the owners just concede to the 8-10 year contracts hell give them 20. They ultimately have the power on how long they sign a player for. If all the owners collectively agreed not to sign any UFA player for more then 3-5 years they've won. Only problem is every single owner knows that this summer the other owners will not play by the agreement and sign the next top UFA to a 12-20 year deal.

The owners could of implemented the number of years at anytime but the fact that no owner would trust the majority of the other guys it would never happen.

 

[Actual Thought*]

Personally I think real issue is that the seeds are already planted for the next lockout. As long as the business of the NHL is supporting teams in stupid markets the product will suffer. 8 years, 5 years blah, blah, blah... I just don't care any more. This process has damaged any hope for labor peace or quality hockey going forward. The league has went to the well too many times. I have zero interest in hearing Bettman telling us how much better the NHL is as a result of yet another lockout. The facts just don't support the argument. Short of decertification and contraction/relocation I for one won't be back as a fan. I have exactly as much respect for the owners as they do for me. I really hope this debacle convinces many others to reconsider their support as well.