Around The League 2020-21 offseason part II

[HBK27]

You seem to think I am concerned about players being infected with the disease and I am not, not really, although there has been at least one athlete whose season was ended by COVID; this is rare. I am concerned about how COVID affects a season and the difficulty it causes. But as for people, I am more concerned about literally everyone else - whether it be coaches or support staff of NHL teams, or people working on planes and in hotels, and so on. The spread of the disease.

Seems it would be fair to let these people make the decision for themselves rather than have it be made for them though. NFL players were given the option to opt-out of the season. I would hope the NHL has something similar for its players and staff if they have safety concerns. I believe for the NFL, players were able to receive a portion of there salary that would come out of the following year.

I would think that the support staff wouldn't get paid if there were no season. A lot of those individuals probably want to get back to work even knowing the risk. People working on planes and in hotels are separate from the NHL and those industries will go on (at least at a severely reduced capacity) with or without the NHL back in action. A lot of these service industries and jobs have been decimated this year and there are surely many workers within them that want or (unfortunately) need to get back to work.

 

[BurntToast]

It seems to me the NHL is in a pickle. The definition of a lose-lose situation. They need the best T.V deal they can get, because their exposure sucks. Unfortunately, they might also need to get additional sponsorship. (the Jerseys? The NBA did it in a tasteful manner.) They let contracts get out of control and are asking players to fork over almost 50% because they didn’t think Covid-19 would be here in December?! Maybe they need to create a sliding scale if you make more you pay more in escrow. Guys making under 2 million losing half their salaries before taxes is wild.

Let’s not forget our ownership group tried to furlough regular employees as well. While this is a business. I am sure there are better investments than purchasing a sports franchise. While the value of the team might rise, there is very little revenue/cash flow, “apparently”. Shouldn’t that be expected to some degree regardless of Covid-19? “We have no wiggle room and didn’t have a emergency fund but my new lambo looks nice” that’s my view of ownership. Hockey is an expensive sport and the players get paid the least.

 

[NJDevs26]

You seem to think I am concerned about players being infected with the disease and I am not, not really, although there has been at least one athlete whose season was ended by COVID; this is rare. I am concerned about how COVID affects a season and the difficulty it causes. But as for people, I am more concerned about literally everyone else - whether it be coaches or support staff of NHL teams, or people working on planes and in hotels, and so on. The spread of the disease.

Not to mention there are more than two true outcomes to getting the virus besides asymptomatic/recovery within two weeks and death. We don’t know all the potential long term effects yet because there hasn’t been a long term to study.

 

[Patrik26]

It seems to me the NHL is in a pickle. The definition of a lose-lose situation. They need the best T.V deal they can get, because their exposure sucks. Unfortunately, they might also need to get additional sponsorship. (the Jerseys? The NBA did it in a tasteful manner.) They let contracts get out of control and are asking players to fork over almost 50% because they didn’t think Covid-19 would be here in December?! Maybe they need to create a sliding scale if you make more you pay more in escrow. Guys making under 2 million losing half their salaries before taxes is wild.

Let’s not forget our ownership group tried to furlough regular employees as well. While this is a business. I am sure there are better investments than purchasing a sports franchise. While the value of the team might rise, there is very little revenue/cash flow, “apparently”. Shouldn’t that be expected to some degree regardless of Covid-19? “We have no wiggle room and didn’t have a emergency fund but my new lambo looks nice” that’s my view of ownership. Hockey is an expensive sport and the players get paid the least.

First highlighted point - I think both sides were guilty of this. It was like a big circle j when the CBA was extended with no regard to what they would face AFTER the bubble.

Second highlighted point - I have a very hard time believing any owner(s) who bring up the lack of revenue. Not with gate receipts, concession price gouging, TV revenue, jersey sales, etc.).

Both sides are tone deaf - there are millions of people out of work and these assholes are fighting over millions of dollars.

 

[Devils731]

 

[SpeakingOfTheDevils]

You seem to think I am concerned about players being infected with the disease and I am not, not really, although there has been at least one athlete whose season was ended by COVID; this is rare. I am concerned about how COVID affects a season and the difficulty it causes. But as for people, I am more concerned about literally everyone else - whether it be coaches or support staff of NHL teams, or people working on planes and in hotels, and so on. The spread of the disease.

The coaching staff will be subject to the same air-tight protocol as the players. Same with the support staff, assuming you're talking about hockey support and not service industry workers.

Plane and hotel workers currently serve hundreds (if not, thousands) of patrons per day, many of whom are not intensively monitored for virus transmission. Traveling NHL teams do not pose any risk beyond what already exists on a daily basis, especially if teams fly private.

I know your "concern" is well-intentioned, but as was mentioned above, personal choice and assumption of the risk matters. We are now armed with much more information - and increased testing capability, improved therapeutics, and now an imminent vaccine. Adults must be allowed to make adult decisions. Holding out for an environment where "the spread" is no longer a "concern" is impractical - and also indefinite.

Not to mention there are more than two true outcomes to getting the virus besides asymptomatic/recovery within two weeks and death. We don’t know all the potential long term effects yet because there hasn’t been a long term to study.

This is also indefinite. It will take years to gather this information and draw credible conclusions. And there is a possibility that the adverse long-term effects are overstated. There is a possibility that they're not. In the interim, do we continue to paralyze industries and destroy careers because we're handwringing over unknowns?

 

[My3Sons]

The coaching staff will be subject to the same air-tight protocol as the players. Same with the support staff, assuming you're talking about hockey support and not service industry workers.

Plane and hotel workers currently serve hundreds (if not, thousands) of patrons per day, many of whom are not intensively monitored for virus transmission. Traveling NHL teams do not pose any risk beyond what already exists on a daily basis, especially if teams fly private.

I know your "concern" is well-intentioned, but as was mentioned above, personal choice and assumption of the risk matters. We are now armed with much more information - and increased testing capability, improved therapeutics, and now an imminent vaccine. Adults must be allowed to make adult decisions. Holding out for an environment where "the spread" is no longer a "concern" is impractical - and also indefinite.



This is also indefinite. It will take years to gather this information and draw credible conclusions. And there is a possibility that the adverse long-term effects are overstated. There is a possibility that they're not. In the interim, do we continue to paralyze industries and destroy careers because we're handwringing over unknowns?

Obviously a large number of NHL players are from outside the US. When will vaccines become available in other countries. I know in the US the vaccine won't become widely available for the general population before the spring at the earliest but my guess is that with additional vaccines almost ready to submit to the FDA we will see a better than expected roll out than they can project right now. I also think they will need fewer vaccines than they expect. At this point, the total number of folks who have had it combined with the total number of folks who won't get a vaccine for whatever reason coupled with the folks that will continue to get it until the vaccine is available will reduce the number needed a fair amount. I'm cautiously optimistic the light is at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Triumph]

The coaching staff will be subject to the same air-tight protocol as the players. Same with the support staff, assuming you're talking about hockey support and not service industry workers.

Plane and hotel workers currently serve hundreds (if not, thousands) of patrons per day, many of whom are not intensively monitored for virus transmission. Traveling NHL teams do not pose any risk beyond what already exists on a daily basis, especially if teams fly private.

I know your "concern" is well-intentioned, but as was mentioned above, personal choice and assumption of the risk matters. We are now armed with much more information - and increased testing capability, improved therapeutics, and now an imminent vaccine. Adults must be allowed to make adult decisions. Holding out for an environment where "the spread" is no longer a "concern" is impractical - and also indefinite.

Hundreds of thousands of people are going to die of the disease between now and when the vaccine is available to the general population. That's the information we're armed with. Most of them will be elderly. Some of them will not be. Some of them will be doctors and nurses.

I am not arguing against an NHL season, and I'm not quite sure how I backed into possibly saying that. I am saying there are legitimate concerns with having the season under these conditions, unbubbled.

This is also indefinite. It will take years to gather this information and draw credible conclusions. And there is a possibility that the adverse long-term effects are overstated. There is a possibility that they're not. In the interim, do we continue to paralyze industries and destroy careers because we're handwringing over unknowns?

This is getting political so I'll stop here, but I object to this framing of the question. The difficult solution is not, and has never been, inside industries or careers.

 

[Ripshot 43]

If the NHL season gets cancelled, the Lightning are never allowed to win the Cup again.

 

[NJDevs26]

This is getting political so I'll stop here, but I object to this framing of the question. The difficult solution is not, and has never been, inside industries or careers.

Especially since few have said the NHL shouldn’t play at all. But there’s a clear medium between open everything up unrestricted and close everything indefinitely. It’s more like let’s shorten the season, cut down travel and restrict fans in arenas in 2021.

Plus by all indications there are vaccines that will be widely distributed by the time the 2021-22 season rolls around and hopefully we will be ‘back to normal’ by then. But right now we’re still in 2020 and cases are rising at an alarming rate around the globe months before the vaccine. There needs to be some more temporary adjustments by players, owners and fans alike.

 

[ScottyK]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

 

[Darkauron]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

yep gg

 

[glenwo2]

^^^

 

[NJDevs26]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

What on earth does that mean, escrow bull crap?

 

[ScottyK]

 

[njdevils1982]

If the NHL season gets cancelled, the Lightning are never allowed to win the Cup again.

and f*** pavel kubina while were at it

 

[TrufleShufle]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

Way to leave out the very important "IF," changes the entire sentence. I'm not saying who is right, wrong, evil or victim. But doing this doesn't help anything.

 

[Billdo]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

Come on man, that's not the context of what he said. Things like this will cause more harm than good.

 

[Jabs102501]

Guess I'm a Dinamo Minsk fan this season

 

[SpeakingOfTheDevils]

Bettman says #NHL is "not seeking to renegotiate" the CBA with #NHLPA. Rather, he says there are "stresses on the system" - and it's "stressed for both of us" - with "players owe us more than anyone imagined."

Pack it in boys see ya next fall

You're misrepresenting what was said.

 

[Blackjack]

Here's what I don't understand (and someone please correct me if I have the structure of the CBA arrangement wrong)

The owners and players get a 50/50 split of revenue, and this is accomplished in two ways: #1 is escrow where the players deposit a share of their earnings, and in a season like the upcoming season, they are essentially guaranteed to lose that money. #2 is the "long term" that bettman referred to, where if the escrow give-back is not enough, the owners are made whole by leaving the cap flat as projected revenues in the future increase. Eventually, the deficit is made up down the road as the players receive less than 50% of revenues based on the reduced cap. Right?

But now, what's essentially happening, is that current players are stealing from future players since revenues will be well below what the cap is based on, so the players will give some back but still be well over 50%, and then the guys like Joe Thornton that retire just get to keep that, and the guys like Jack and Alex who are on ELCs get peanuts now and also suffer from a deflated cap in the future.

In this scenario, the incentives are all screwed up. Of course players will want to minimize escrow, since they're not the ones who are going to have to make up the difference.

 

[Ripshot 43]

and f*** pavel kubina while were at it

Im trying to understand this reference... was he responsible for when the Lightning made the playoffs and the Devils missed?

 

[Triumph]

Here's what I don't understand (and someone please correct me if I have the structure of the CBA arrangement wrong)

The owners and players get a 50/50 split of revenue, and this is accomplished in two ways: #1 is escrow where the players deposit a share of their earnings, and in a season like the upcoming season, they are essentially guaranteed to lose that money. #2 is the "long term" that bettman referred to, where if the escrow give-back is not enough, the owners are made whole by leaving the cap flat as projected revenues in the future increase. Eventually, the deficit is made up down the road as the players receive less than 50% of revenues based on the reduced cap. Right?

But now, what's essentially happening, is that current players are stealing from future players since revenues will be well below what the cap is based on, so the players will give some back but still be well over 50%, and then the guys like Joe Thornton that retire just get to keep that, and the guys like Jack and Alex who are on ELCs get peanuts now and also suffer from a deflated cap in the future.

In this scenario, the incentives are all screwed up. Of course players will want to minimize escrow, since they're not the ones who are going to have to make up the difference.

I don't recall #2 being part of it, but I've never fully understood this either. The escrow giveback has historically always been enough.

What I had taken the agreement of the Return to Play to mean was that escrow would be capped at a certain amount beyond which the owners could not clawback revenue to make things 50/50. That's the whole point of escrow is so that players don't have to go into their own savings to pay back the owners. I thought there was also salary deferral by the players to compensate for the expected shortfalls.

 

[Devils731]

I don't recall #2 being part of it, but I've never fully understood this either. The escrow giveback has historically always been enough.

What I had taken the agreement of the Return to Play to mean was that escrow would be capped at a certain amount beyond which the owners could not clawback revenue to make things 50/50. That's the whole point of escrow is so that players don't have to go into their own savings to pay back the owners. I thought there was also salary deferral by the players to compensate for the expected shortfalls.

My understanding matched Blackjack on #2, that the cap could stay flat for many years if revenue doesn’t recover or if the early revenues crater worse than expected.

The players are likely to a receive larger than 50/50 split in the early years. Then the owners will receive a greater than 50/50 split in the later years as the cap stays artificially low to balance it the pre-payments out.

An issue is if early revenues are horrific or revenues don’t recover then future players end up financing current players earnings. It’s not equitable that Shane Wright may take a hit to his share of earnings in 6 years to make sure Kevin Shattenkirk gets more than his expected share now.

 

[The Devil In I]

Im trying to understand this reference... was he responsible for when the Lightning made the playoffs and the Devils missed?

I want to say he's the guy that blasted Stevens in the head with a dump in in 2003?