An even smaller group for meetings tomorrow..

[vanlady]

My point was that the players salary will only be reduced if it is deserved, this is still ARBITRATION, an arbitor (you know, these guys that repeatedly rule in favor of the players) makes the decision. Is the possibility of a 25% pay cut there? Absolutely. (and I say again, the player probably deserves it) Is it a given, as this moron is making it sound, not even close.

If Healy is correct, and contracts are a maximum 3 years under the new CBA the majority of contracts will be 1 and 2 year deals for average players. Under the current arbitration rules a player can only elect arbitration every 3 years. So if a player has 3 1 year contracts in a row he could see a 50% pay cut before he can elect for arbitration.

 

[speeds]

If the owners get a 75% QO, why would they need arbitration changed at all? the 75% QO system would pretty much reset the players who get a raise, and don't perform at the level of their comparables afterwards? They'll see a 25% cut, and if they play poorly again the year after they might well get another 25% cut.

 

[Egil]

If Healy is correct, and contracts are a maximum 3 years under the new CBA the majority of contracts will be 1 and 2 year deals for average players. Under the current arbitration rules a player can only elect arbitration every 3 years. So if a player has 3 1 year contracts in a row he could see a 50% pay cut before he can elect for arbitration.

Their was no max contract length, only that a 3 year deal could be handed out in arbitration. Also, currently, a player can go to arbitration as often as they want (every year in fact), and I don't believe the owners changed this.

 

[SENSfreak_03]

Their was no max contract length, only that a 3 year deal could be handed out in arbitration. Also, currently, a player can go to arbitration as often as they want (every year in fact), and I don't believe the owners changed this.

no, they also talked about capping the length of all contract to 3 years.

i think thats pretty crazy, but would bring some form of cost control.

 

[wazee]

TSN on from both Healy and Burke. As for near hysterical, sorry I am not hysterical, as a matter of fact I tend to be cool to the point of cold, it is what makes me great at my job. I am to the extreme, analytical. I have analized from a variety of sources, not just the media, and hysteria is not where I get my numbers. You seem to think that the world is rosie and there will be no drop in revenues, as a matter of fact under you predictions the NHL will have a new TV deal paying millions, no impact on merchandise sales and fans that will flock back at record levels in the US. That is the only way the cap will remain at 42 million.

Cool to the point of cold. Analytical to the extreme. Ok, whatever you say. From the way you have been carrying on about the impact of the unknown on your Canucks, I got the impression you were more the 'Chicken Little' type who is always running around shouting 'The Sky is Falling. The Sky is Falling'.

Based from what you wrote in this post, I must conclude that you have not read my posts at all. Something I have suspected over the past couple of days, and not the habit of one who is 'analytical to the extreme'.

Just for the record, I have not mentioned a TV deal, merchandise sales, nor attendance numbers. Unlike you, I do not claim to know what will happen under a new, yet undefined CBA. However, I do know what was happening under the old CBA and I believe the league could not go on without major changes. Salaries were escalating faster than revenues and that there was no way to stop it without changing the CBA. I favor a hard cap because, generally, it is too easy to find loopholes in a soft cap. I do not expect the new CBA to be perfect. It will be a compromise so no one will be happy with the whole thing. But it won't have to be great to be better than the last one...

BTW...it is 'analyzed' not 'analized'...an odd mistake for an analytical type to make...

 

[jcab2000]

How does a restricted free agent negotiate absent arbitration or the threat thereof?

By not signing a contract.

 

[PecaFan]

As for near hysterical, sorry I am not hysterical, as a matter of fact I tend to be cool to the point of cold, it is what makes me great at my job. I am to the extreme, analytical.

Oh, excuse me, I'm having trouble breathing here. Ooh, that's rich. This from the gal who quoted a year old article without realising it, and simultaneously argued that Chubarov wouldn't make enough money under a cap to stay in Vancouver, *AND* he'd make too much money and be over-taxed here.

If you want logically consistent, analytical postings, read some CarlRacki or Iconoclast. Wetcoaster to a degree, but he suffers from "more is better" disease, and doesn't maintain focus enough.

How does a restricted free agent negotiate absent arbitration or the threat thereof?

The same way the vast majority of contracts get signed *now*. By sitting down, and hammering out a deal. Most contracts are done without arbitration, folks make it sound like it's this "required element" to get a deal done.

 

[futurcorerock]

Did i read somewhere that arbitration would be expanded to both sides?

Meaning, Owners can file arbitration if they feel a player has underperformed???

I really would like this deal for my lowly BlueJackets who got the shaft with Marchant

 

[Taranis_24]

If the owners get a 75% QO, why would they need arbitration changed at all? the 75% QO system would pretty much reset the players who get a raise, and don't perform at the level of their comparables afterwards? They'll see a 25% cut, and if they play poorly again the year after they might well get another 25% cut.

More incentive not to play poorly. I mean if you don't produce you should suffer the consequences. That's the way it works in all other markets, except if you are the CEo's of the Enron's of the world.

 

[Isles72]

According to one league official privy to the contents of the most recent NHL offer, Bettman is offering a six-year pact which would omit 2004-05. However, the union would have the right to unilaterally stop the CBA after four full seasons.

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl

Does that mean the CBA will not kick in until this summer?So they would play the rest of this season under the old CBA rules

I'm not sure if thats the way to interpret it , but you would think the easiest way to get a mini season off the ground quickly would be to go with ''status quo'' until the mini 05 season is over , then fully implement new CBA over the summer months

 

[Reilly311]

I mean if you don't produce you should suffer the consequences.

exactly.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

So why are there still GMs in the league who have made it well known how incompetent they are, who cannot run their teams, and then the fans turn around and blame the CBA for their general manager's/organization's inability to run a winner? Seems stupid to me.