Bill & Ted AGREED on Cold Pizza [ESPN2]

[MePutPuckInNet]

Well, I sure as hell hope I didn't just hallucinate this discussion. On the morning news show on ESPN2, Cold Pizza - both Ted Saskin and Bill Daly were interviewed by Jay Crawford. Although I didn't get a word for word transcript, this was part of the discussion.

Jay Crawford to Bill Daly: Why wouldn't the league take the 24% rollback as a temporary measure, just to salvage this season...and have everyone do so under the agreement that this is only a short-term temporary piece of the puzzle only to get the players back on the ice.

Bill: Well, I don't know that that's an offer that's been put on the table, but it's something we would consider.

Jay Crawford to Ted Saskin: Why wouldn't the league take the 24% rollback as a temporary measure, just to salvage this season...and have everyone do so under the agreement that this is only a short-term temporary piece of the puzzle only to get the players back on the ice.

Ted: We'd be interested in doing that. We don't think the lockout is helping the game. The fans want to see hockey. Why not just try it and see how it goes?

--------------

It makes sense. Give it a whirl. It's not like hockey teams, fans or players are going to be any worse off, right? How bad could it be, just to try it for the rest of the season? Wouldn't it maybe take the pressure off everyone just a bit? Wouldn't it be likely that if everyone was in a little better mood, they may be a little more open to getting a real deal done?

Click to read more...

 

[Egil]

If the players are willing to accept the 24% rollback over a 2 year deal, then I suspect the Owners would byte. I also think the players need to offer it to the owners, and not the other way around.

 

[GKJ]

This is what happens when you allow to 2 people who aren't being controlled by a higher power to speak their mind. If Bettman and Goodenow were removed from ONE neogeotiating session, I believe we would get extremely close to an actual deal. Unfortunetaly that won't happen.

 

[Egil]

Ahh, but this isn't a "true" deal. This is a short term fix to avoid cancelling the season. I can see it happening, but it won't happen until the season is about to be canceled. It is the ONLY time this deal makes sense. Otherwise, you hold out until the end hoeping to get your "cost certainty" if your the owners, or a long term commitment to the status quo with rollback if you are the players.

 

[Digger12]

Ahh, but this isn't a "true" deal. This is a short term fix to avoid cancelling the season. I can see it happening, but it won't happen until the season is about to be canceled. It is the ONLY time this deal makes sense. Otherwise, you hold out until the end hoeping to get your "cost certainty" if your the owners, or a long term commitment to the status quo with rollback if you are the players.

Obviously a short term bandaid, but at least with a 2 year deal it would stop being dolled up as anything more than what it is.

If I was an owner, it'd be very tempting to go with this...especially since many of these guys only seem to think in the short term. But if I was Bettman, I wouldn't go for it because I'd be worried that some of my weaker-kneed owners would be seduced with this test drive. Ultimately this deal would favour the players' bargaining position IMO.

If I were the union, I would straight away reoffer my deal, but as a 2 year 'try before you buy' type of thing. Bettman says salaries would rise back to current levels within 1-2 years, so let's see if he'd put his money where his mouth is.

 

[Slats432]

I think it is a terrible idea. Save the season and then go through all this again in the fall?

I will take a pass. Fix it now.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If I were the union, I would straight away reoffer my deal, but as a 2 year 'try before you buy' type of thing. Bettman says salaries would rise back to current levels within 1-2 years, so let's see if he'd put his money where his mouth is.

And if I were the NHL I would say no thank you to your offer. The golden goose is dead. Come back when you want to talk about a real solution for the good of the game and not just one that satiates the greed of your elite "union" membership. At that point we can move forward.

Seriously, Bettman has a mandate and control to get this done. He needs to show resolve and watch the union fall a part. We're talking about (the majoirty) a bunch of high school drop outs who have had everything handed to them their whole lives. They are out of touch with reality and need a wake up call. They will slowly bleed themselves dry and come back when their bank accounts are empty (very shortly for the majority of the union).

 

[Brodeur]

I think it is a terrible idea. Save the season and then go through all this again in the fall?

I will take a pass. Fix it now.

Save the season.......but negotiate from now until September? Instead of waiting til after the season is over?

 

[Pepper]

Roll-back is a short-time fix, league doesn't want to lock-out the league 2 years from now!

Owners know that if they can't get a good deal now, they never will. So they will continue to tell NHLPA that until PA realizes that league needs a SYSTEM, not a one-time fix, there won't be hockey. And the moment PA realizes it, there will be hockey in very short time. It's very easy actually.

 

[SENSible1*]

The only way the players agree to a cap in any form is when they are 100% convinced the owners will cancel the season. If they cave in, even to sign a favourable short term deal, they will lose their leverage and we'll be right back where we started next fall.

 

[jacketracket*]

I think it is a terrible idea. Save the season and then go through all this again in the fall?

I will take a pass. Fix it now.

Agreed.

The damage that has already been done would be magnified if these guys settled on some short-term fix, only to be back in the same predicament --- arguing the same issues --- a year or two later.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Slats and JacketRacket are right. They do this and we're right back in the same spot two years from now.

We might be in even worse shape if this short-term fix were to pass because the league should be profitable over that two-year period and the players will have a lot more leverage in keeping the current system in place. Right now, we're closer to a deal because the owners have all the leverage - they can afford to sit out because they lose out big time if the current system continues.

 

[Slats432]

Save the season.......but negotiate from now until September? Instead of waiting til after the season is over?

Yeah...that sure worked this offseason......or the last 18 months or so that we were being told this would happen.

You think that they would come to an agreement with hockey going on?

The only way this is going to get fixed is if there is enough pressure on one side or another to change their philosophy. No hockey, no paycheques means severe economic pressure means doing whatever it takes to get a deal done.

I will go so far as to say I would be willing to delay the start of next season to insure that this is settled once and for all.

 

[jacketracket*]

Slats and JacketRacket are right. They do this and we're right back in the same spot two years from now.

We might be in even worse shape if this short-term fix were to pass because the league should be profitable over that two-year period and the players will have a lot more leverage in keeping the current system in place. Right now, we're closer to a deal because the owners have all the leverage - they can afford to sit out because they lose out big time if the current system continues.

Exactly.

Imagine what happens to the league's credibility if they somehow manage to string together 2 or 3 strife-shortened seasons in a span of 5 or 6 years.

 

[Egil]

I still don't understand this "worse off" argument, so if someone can explain it to me, that would be terrific.

Basically, the way I see it, cancelling the season (and by doing so not awarding the Stanley cup) would be disasterous. Future Revenue will go WAYY down (in Baseball's case I believe it was in the 15% range), and BOTH sides will lose. By agreeing to a short term compromise solution (that is easily spinnable as a "test of the modified system"), you avoid the massive future revenue reductions. I fail to see how this makes the owners "worse off".

So, basically, Goodenowe would stand up and say:

"Since the Owners do not believe that this modified system will control salaries, we are willing to offer, with the rollback included, our modified current system for a 2 year period."

The Bettman comes back and says:

"To save the season, and in the interest of proving to the members of the NHLPA that the current system will not work, we are willing to accept the players modified proposal over a 2 year period. Should the modified system proposed by the PA not work over this 2 year period, we will have no choice but to negotiate for linkage at that time."

Done and Done, and, IMHO at least, infinately better than cancelling the season, for BOTH sides. The key is in the spin, this wouldn't just be a stop gap solution, it would be a "test" of the Unions ideas. This needs to be made clear by both sides, and that should the test fail, the NHLPA would be willing to negotiate "linkage", which also should be a public statement. The PA, as it would be in their interests to do so, should also make more drastic modifications to the system they proposed last week, in order to make a better "test".

Also possible is a 6 year deal with exit clauses for the owners if player salaries exceed a set % of revenue, but I think the shorter deal would work better than that.

 

[pacde]

Its not a true test that you can base any long term deal and hope for peaceful negotiations in the future. The problem is that its artificial and the owners would act a lot like they acted this past season just because they know in two years the clock expires. Having said that, we could just continue it year by year until it doesnt work... but then we are back where we started. It will work for the players but not for the owners so they will disagree on whether it works or not.

 

[Isles72]

Slats and JacketRacket are right. They do this and we're right back in the same spot two years from now.

We might be in even worse shape if this short-term fix were to pass because the league should be profitable over that two-year period and the players will have a lot more leverage in keeping the current system in place. Right now, we're closer to a deal because the owners have all the leverage - they can afford to sit out because they lose out big time if the current system continues.

but if the owners know that a cap would be coming down the pipe in two years they would hopefully keep the spending curbed .

I'd prefer to get it right the first time , but , as I mention above , maybe the owners behave themselves for a few years IF this bandaid solution is sought and agreed upon by both sides.

 

[JWhelan]

...Seriously, Bettman has a mandate and control to get this done....

If there is a mandate, then why are the owners not allowed to speak their minds without fear of being fined?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

So, basically, Goodenowe would stand up and say:

"Since the Owners do not believe that this modified system will control salaries, we are willing to offer, with the rollback included, our modified current system for a 2 year period."

The Bettman comes back and says:

This isn't about saving the season. This is about saving the game an insuring that we have hockey in 30 markets that are stable and have an opportunity to be competitive. If we have to sacrafice a season to make this happen, so be it. The long term health of the NHL comes before the short term happiness of a few players. Ownership is finally standing on the same side of the fight. We are not going to allow that historic event go by the way side just so we can get back to playing hockey. This is a fine example of the NHLPA not understanding the dire situation of the game and thinking that a band-aid solution will fix anything. The NHL clubs will not accept anything short of cost certainty before play begins again.

 

[Brodeur]

Yeah...that sure worked this offseason......or the last 18 months or so that we were being told this would happen.

You think that they would come to an agreement with hockey going on?

The only way this is going to get fixed is if there is enough pressure on one side or another to change their philosophy. No hockey, no paycheques means severe economic pressure means doing whatever it takes to get a deal done.

I will go so far as to say I would be willing to delay the start of next season to insure that this is settled once and for all.

I agree, I forgot to add a snide remark about "That would seem like common sense, but then again Bob and Gary seem to be lacking that."

 

[kerrly]

This will never happen. We accept this deal only to bring hockey back for a half season. And then guess what, we're right back where we left off. Sorry fans, but if you're getting your hopes up that hockey might be played this year without a new CBA, you're kidding yourself. Bettman and his crew have come this far and will not stop until they get cost-certainty.

 

[I in the Eye]

I still don't understand this "worse off" argument, so if someone can explain it to me, that would be terrific.

Basically, the way I see it, cancelling the season (and by doing so not awarding the Stanley cup) would be disasterous. Future Revenue will go WAYY down (in Baseball's case I believe it was in the 15% range), and BOTH sides will lose. By agreeing to a short term compromise solution (that is easily spinnable as a "test of the modified system"), you avoid the massive future revenue reductions. I fail to see how this makes the owners "worse off".

So, basically, Goodenowe would stand up and say:

"Since the Owners do not believe that this modified system will control salaries, we are willing to offer, with the rollback included, our modified current system for a 2 year period."

The Bettman comes back and says:

"To save the season, and in the interest of proving to the members of the NHLPA that the current system will not work, we are willing to accept the players modified proposal over a 2 year period. Should the modified system proposed by the PA not work over this 2 year period, we will have no choice but to negotiate for linkage at that time."

Done and Done, and, IMHO at least, infinately better than cancelling the season, for BOTH sides. The key is in the spin, this wouldn't just be a stop gap solution, it would be a "test" of the Unions ideas. This needs to be made clear by both sides, and that should the test fail, the NHLPA would be willing to negotiate "linkage", which also should be a public statement. The PA, as it would be in their interests to do so, should also make more drastic modifications to the system they proposed last week, in order to make a better "test".

Also possible is a 6 year deal with exit clauses for the owners if player salaries exceed a set % of revenue, but I think the shorter deal would work better than that.

Agreed... Prove that the NHLPA's proposal doesn't work with real results... not with hypotheticals...

 

[SENSible1*]

Agreed... Prove that the NHLPA's proposal doesn't work with real results... not with hypotheticals...

Of course this allows the NHL to spend like crazy just to prove the system doensn't work. Start the bidding war with Kovalev go throught the rest of the UFA's and don't stop until you've spent the 24%.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Of course this allows the NHL to spend like crazy just to prove the system doensn't work. Start the bidding war with Kovalev go throught the rest of the UFA's and don't stop until you've spent the 24%.

Of course this also allows the NHLPA to allow every player to be signed to low two year contracts that expire at the end of the agreement just so they get a crack at the longer term deal with their terms.

 

[SENSible1*]

Of course this also allows the NHLPA to allow every player to be signed to low two year contracts that expire at the end of the agreement just so they get a crack at the longer term deal with their terms.

Can you imagine that scenario?

Habs to Kovalev: We'll give you two years at 7.5M per.

Kovalev to Habs: No thanks, I'll take 1.5M per.

Welcome to bizarro world!