Are we heading towards another lockout?

[iamjs]

Meanwhile the NBA is just about to finalize their deal without even a whisper of a lockout. Great job Bettman.

that's not Bettman's doing.

You might want to look over Donald Fehr's body of work. Dude is a walking lockout waiting to happen.

 

[me2]

I know there is still a few seasons left on the deal, but it does seems as though it's inevitable.

The amount of huge, 7-8 year contracts handed out lately is nuts. Players in their prime years are already set to be massively overpaid when they reach 35+ years old.

Bettman would love nothing more than watching those teams with bad old long contracts suffer, it did more to encourage smart behaviour than anything else.

Historically we have compliance buyouts for a reason: buyouts to help teams over the new cap become compliance (2004 introduce the cap, the next lockout lower the cap by $4-5m). If the revenue split stays the same their will be no need for compliance buyouts. You can't just give it to the over teams, but that was the point of it.

 

[me2]

They allow for "buyout proof" contracts. 3 big ones were handed out this year (Ladd, Okposo, and Lucic) and I wouldn't be surprised if every big name UFA demands one from now on. This might lead to more clarkson type of situations where a team has a crappy contract that they cant get any relief from.

I think that we've entered an era where teams wont be able to sign a good 30+ UFA unless they offer a long-term buyout proof contract.

Edit: Stamkos' contract is also super buyout-proof

So let them suffer, they signed them. Bettman probably thinks the same way. The best way to stop this is to wait for it to blow up on the teams signing them.

 

[sayheykid]

This is the NHL. The only time we aren't headed towards another lockout is during a lockout.

 

[PanthersHockey1]

Why can't we lock the decision makers in a room now for the next 3-4 years before the CBA expires so the fans don't get ****ed?

Or would that be too smart and too good for business?

 

[FrankAbagnale]

NHL needs to get rid of guaranteed contracts; it will help with fluidity of the league roster moves.

Putting the genie back in the bottle on that will be almost impossible. You would have all NHL players this is in their best interest well knowing that once they ratify the new CBA they would instantly lose their job. I just can't see how the players would agree to that.

 

[pierre gagnon*]

When I see Chia sign Sekera to 6 million last year I think it is needed again

 

[FrankAbagnale]

that's not Bettman's doing.

You might want to look over Donald Fehr's body of work. Dude is a walking lockout waiting to happen.

NHL is having greater issues because their sport isn't growing like the NBA/MLB/NFL, which means you can't provide a "carrot" for both sides. For example, revenues are exploding for the NBA, so they can easily raise the cap, which provides the players significantly higher salaries, and still reap even greater revenues for the ownership side. Bettman and the rest of the NHL administration have done very little to grow the game and revenue stream of the league in almost a decade. Maybe they see a greater chance for revenue growth by negotiating with the NHLPA on more amenable terms.

Everyone loves blaming Fehr for wanting to strike and support the players, but that's his job. He represents the players and executes a strike if the players support it. They could fire him immediately if they felt he wasn't representing their best interests. Since he is still employed, they obviously feel he is achieving their goals.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

Does any other professional league have this many lockouts?

 

[JaegerDice]

I know there is still a few seasons left on the deal, but it does seems as though it's inevitable.

The amount of huge, 7-8 year contracts handed out lately is nuts. Players in their prime years are already set to be massively overpaid when they reach 35+ years old.

Actually, the problem with the NHL is that the owers have lobbied so hard to control and basically bend-over players as they're in their prime years. 24-26 is the offensive prime for forwards, slightly later for defensemen.

But given the current CBA rules, players are essentially forced to eat **** and accept less than their true value through their prime years. At the tail end of their prime, when they're finally UFA, teams are essentially back-paying the players for all the saved value they've accrued, even as they start entering their leaner years.

As a Blackhawks fan, I'll use Toews and Kane as an example? Are they worth 10.5 million purely by on-ice performance career to date? Nope. They're worth Getzlaf/Perry/Stamkos money. Were they worth more than 6.5 million between 2010 and 2015? Hell yes. When it comes time to cash in at UFA and they've got trophies falling out of their pockets, they're obviously going to look recoup the money that was left on the table by virtue of having zero leverage back in 2009.

But yes, generally speaking, the NHL is always moving towards a lockout.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Putting the genie back in the bottle on that will be almost impossible. You would have all NHL players this is in their best interest well knowing that once they ratify the new CBA they would instantly lose their job. I just can't see how the players would agree to that.

If the owners went after the contracts, the PA would go after the cap, and it would be a longer fight than 04-05, since the players would have less to lose. It might only go a year and a half, but it would be a fight.

NHL is having greater issues because their sport isn't growing like the NBA/MLB/NFL, which means you can't provide a "carrot" for both sides. For example, revenues are exploding for the NBA, so they can easily raise the cap, which provides the players significantly higher salaries, and still reap even greater revenues for the ownership side. Bettman and the rest of the NHL administration have done very little to grow the game and revenue stream of the league in almost a decade. Maybe they see a greater chance for revenue growth by negotiating with the NHLPA on more amenable terms.

Everyone loves blaming Fehr for wanting to strike and support the players, but that's his job. He represents the players and executes a strike if the players support it. They could fire him immediately if they felt he wasn't representing their best interests. Since he is still employed, they obviously feel he is achieving their goals.

Replace Bettman for Fehr, owners for players, and lockout for strike, and it's the same paragraph.

You can't really compare any of the leagues to each other. They're all different in their owns ways. The cap in the NBA is big, but they also have 12-14 players or whatever on the roster. A lot of money for far fewer people. Plus if you have 2 really good players, you're a contender, because the best players can play for over 70% of a game. In the NHL, the best forwards play 35% of the time.

Does any other professional league have this many lockouts?

How many labor issues did the NHL have before the mid 90's? How many did the other leagues have before the mid 90's? The NHL has been catching up because for decades there were no labor issues, and not because each side liked each other so much. And it's working with the smallest pot of money, which isn't simply because Bettman is evil.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

If the owners went after the contracts, the PA would go after the cap, and it would be a longer fight than 04-05, since the players would have less to lose. It might only go a year and a half, but it would be a fight.



Replace Bettman for Fehr, owners for players, and lockout for strike, and it's the same paragraph.

You can't really compare any of the leagues to each other. They're all different in their owns ways. The cap in the NBA is big, but they also have 12-14 players or whatever on the roster. A lot of money for far fewer people. Plus if you have 2 really good players, you're a contender, because the best players can play for over 70% of a game. In the NHL, the best forwards play 35% of the time.



How many labor issues did the NHL have before the mid 90's? How many did the other leagues have before the mid 90's? The NHL has been catching up because for decades there were no labor issues, and not because each side liked each other so much. And it's working with the smallest pot of money, which isn't simply because Bettman is evil.

It just seems to me that because they are working with the smallest about of money they should be doing everything they can to avoid these stoppages. I'm actually a Bettman fan. I think his kids or grandkids are Devils fans so he's not all that bad. Sure he threatened to move us to Tennessee a while back but I think it was just posturing.

 

[KingsFan7824]

It just seems to me that because they are working with the smallest about of money they should be doing everything they can to avoid these stoppages. I'm actually a Bettman fan. I think his kids or grandkids are Devils fans so he's not all that bad. Sure he threatened to move us to Tennessee a while back but I think it was just posturing.

Too many different interests. Big markets, small markets, star players, role players, rookies, veterans, the list can go on. Look at what life does when there's a drought somewhere, and too many animals are around needing water. It can get precarious. Hardly the exact same scenario, but you know what I mean.

I might even say that because both sides are probably doing everything they can do, it results in pushing the envelope to the edge, and by that point, if it's a couple more months to get the best deal either side can get, it's worth the risk.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

And the players' first proposal involved scrapping the salary cap, eliminating RFA completely in favor of universal UFA, elimination of ELCs, and the threat of litigation to eliminate the entry draft completely.

That's absolutely not true.

The players counterproposal kept the salary cap and actually offered to reduce their share of HRR from 57% to 54%. It kept existing contract rules from the previous CBA, and expanded revenue sharing.

 

[Butch 19]

They allow for "buyout proof" contracts. 3 big ones were handed out this year (Ladd, Okposo, and Lucic) and I wouldn't be surprised if every big name UFA demands one from now on. This might lead to more clarkson type of situations where a team has a crappy contract that they cant get any relief from.

I think that we've entered an era where teams wont be able to sign a good 30+ UFA unless they offer a long-term buyout proof contract.

Edit: Stamkos' contract is also super buyout-proof

You list 3 players that may have a minor impact (or major - who cares?) on their own team let alone an impact on the entire league. You think this is adds to the possibility of a lockout? It's way too minor of an issue.

 

[Butch 19]

Does any other professional league have this many lockouts?

The main problem here is that the NHLPA thinks they should be paid like the NFLPA.

(be careful what you wish for, the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts - you can get cut at anytime.)

 

[Menzinger]

If teams want shorter contacts stop offering them.

Teams already are able to constrain players earning through most of their prime years via RFA status - but no, let's blame the players for another lockouts

Edit:typos

 

[Satastic]

The lockout is an NHL tradition, just as sacred as the cup

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

The main problem here is that the NHLPA thinks they should be paid like the NFLPA.

(be careful what you wish for, the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts - you can get cut at anytime.)

In what way or ways has the NHLPA indicated it wants to be paid like the NFLPA?

 

[TOGuy14]

that's not Bettman's doing.

You might want to look over Donald Fehr's body of work. Dude is a walking lockout waiting to happen.

What?

Under Gary Bettman the NHL has had three lockouts including one cancelled season.

How is this a Donald Fehr related issue?

 

[Nalens Oga]

Why are people always so hung up on the contract thing? Bad contracts are not what led to the last two lockouts. Players will get a certain amount of money regardless, it's up to them how they split it up.

The whole fight is mainly over the pie itself and which side gets how much. The NBA has done a good job of marketing and growing the game since the 90s so they have a huge pie and neither side needs to worry as much, they can proceed with the status quo. NHL revenues are relatively stagnant and just not as big so of course both sides are gonna fight over who gets what percentage. The stuff about individual contracts and whatnot is a ruse to gain public sympathy usually.

Also, the PA made far more concessions in both the previous two lockouts to the point where they're basically at the limit. If they try to reclaim some of that or the owners demand even more then it'll be worse than 2012 for sure. If both sides smarten up and go with the status quo as it basically is after 50/50 then they'll be fine.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

What?

Under Gary Bettman the NHL has had three lockouts including one cancelled season.

How is this a Donald Fehr related issue?

Because Donald Fehr invented going on strike and killing playoffs when he was in baseball, NHL players copying that strategy led to where we are.

Six of the eight contract negotiations he has been involved in have resulted in work stoppages, including five consecutive negotiations between the MLBPA and Major League Baseball.

 

[weastern bias]

Yes, we have a regular scheduled lockout upon the conclusion of every CBA now

The only question is whether or not there will be any hockey games in that particular year, but there's still a good chance we'll get a 40+ game regular season

 

[Anton Babchuk]

How do people still not understand that players/owners get a fixed percentage of revenue? It doesn't matter how many huge contracts get handed out or how many players get "overpaid." Whether Andrew Ladd got a retirement contract or signed for one year at league minimum is entirely irrelevant to whether there will be a lockout.

It's ridiculous how many so-called credible members of the media constantly spout the "lol, so many bad contracts, headed for another lockout!!!" line, leading to threads like this filled with so many uninformed comments.

 

[rojac]

Why can't we lock the decision makers in a room now for the next 3-4 years before the CBA expires so the fans don't get ****ed?

Or would that be too smart and too good for business?

Why can't fans just accept that there may be a lockout and if it happens, spend their hockey-watching time doing something else they like then when hockey returns, watch it again?

It's always worked for me.