Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

[thinkwild]

I won't give Goodenow credit for anything. He could have made this proposal back when he made that joke of an offer - or anytime between then and now. We would be way farther along in negotiations (and closer to a season) if the NHLPA had not rocked its heels while members were stealing jobs from European players.

He did make this offer back in September. It is precisely the same framework. Except, even though the owners did no negotiating, they put their best offer on the table. If the owners think they can say, nice start, they are in a dreamworld.

Back when he made the same offer and said lets negotiate the numbers, Bettman said they werent speaking the same language. The same language is there.

And that's exactly what this offer is, a PR move - nothing more. A bribe to keep the current system going. If Bettman proposes a $30-$40 million hard cap with a 5% salary boost, it will prove to the public that for the players, it's not about the salary but all about the system. The players will fold like a cheap tent.

Now how do you propose a $30mil hard cap with a 5% pay boost? Make the top 50 players play in Europe?

A bribe to keep the current system going? Well duh! Thats what the players have said along. Correct the market and provide new mechanisms to maintain it. THis is their framework. It is the same one on the table now. There are lots of small areas not decided upon. The owners have lots of room to tweak things like number of times in arbitration or the rules of it, or the tax numbers, but the framework for a properly designed market, corrected to their desired level is put forth. If the owners cant find a way to negotiate something in this framework that works for them, they dont want to.

 

[thinkwild]

ire to win.

As for the Flyers why would the be prepared to spend $65m this year but not next year? Whether that $65m is all salary or $55m salary + $10m tax it is still $65m.

I dunno, how about the fact they were complaining that spending that money was causing them to lose money? Why wouldnt they voluntarily go back to losing that money again you ask? I guess if they are lying, they would.

If Sather, Clarke or Holland felt the difference between winning the cup and not was paying $4m in tax, then they'd pay it.

Good for them. So what?

 

[SENSible1*]

A bribe to keep the current system going? Well duh! Thats what the players have said along. Correct the market and provide new mechanisms to maintain it. THis is their framework. It is the same one on the table now. There are lots of small areas not decided upon. The owners have lots of room to tweak things like number of times in arbitration or the rules of it, or the tax numbers, but the framework for a properly designed market, corrected to their desired level is put forth. If the owners cant find a way to negotiate something in this framework that works for them, they dont want to.

They don't want this framework and realistically, why would they?

The fact that the players are desperate enough to offer up a $600M dollar bribe to maintain it tells the owners the should avoid it like the plague.

 

[Shane]

Now how do you propose a $30mil hard cap with a 5% pay boost? Make the top 50 players play in Europe?

Obviously clubs would not need to be under $30 million right away. Contracts would be grandfathered in with a goal to be under $30 million within a few years.

 

[thinkwild]

It's not about specific players, it's about salaries in general. Teams in better financial markets can bear to pay higher salaries. Players and agents will always push for the most they can get. I don't blame them one bit. I want to get paid as much as I can for what I do, too. Over time this has the effect of driving up salaries for all players beyond what they would be if all financial markets were average-sized, though. I have no idea how best to solve that problem. Revenue sharing and a beefy luxury tax might do it, who knows?

Temas in big markets can afford to pay more for their RFAs but why would they? Detroit can afford to pay Datsyuk $6mil, but why would they? Because he asked to be paid more than the value the current schedule of comparable creates? I dont think you need a rule to prevent stupid. The owners want the arbitrations system because it helps keep the salaries in check. Over time, there is no reason that RFA salaries will go up unless revenues go up.

UFAs are a different ball game. Under this system, they are more expensive for large payroll teams than small ones, they get an advantage that way. If Toronto wants to offer $30mil a year for Iginla, they are free to. It affects no one.

 

[thinkwild]

They don't want this framework and realistically, why would they?

The fact that the players are desperate enough to offer up a $600M dollar bribe to maintain it tells the owners the should avoid it like the plague.

Why would the owners want a system that makes them money, increases their franchise values, provides a workable market, and resets the market to their best hope scenario? Gee, tough question. It must be because they dont get to shut down hockey in an attempt to ram "partnership" down their employees throat. While resisting revenue sharing because they dont want to be partners. Yes, people in the real world would surely see that as a better idea.

A bribe? Oh you are parroting Burke. Well duh! Of course they want the current system. Have you not been following along?

 

[Pepper]

UFAs are a different ball game. Under this system, they are more expensive for large payroll teams than small ones, they get an advantage that way. If Toronto wants to offer $30mil a year for Iginla, they are free to. It affects no one.

You really believe that do you?? If Leafs were to offer $30M a year for Iginla it would most certainly affect tens of other players.

Wake up.

 

[Pepper]

Why would the owners want a system that makes them money, increases their franchise values, provides a workable market, and resets the market to their best hope scenario? Gee, tough question. It must be because they dont get to shut down hockey in an attempt to ram "partnership" down their employees throat. While resisting revenue sharing because they dont want to be partners. Yes, people in the real world would surely see that as a better idea.

Why would the owners want a system which does nothing but buy them 2-3 years back while keeping basicly the same system in place??

Better wake up and smell the coffee dude, otherwise you're in for a rude surprise next week when owners give the counterproposal.

 

[thinkwild]

So it is a given that owners will spend themselves into bankruptcy. This is an acceptable premise for designing a CBA? Time to put away the video games.

 

[Pepper]

So it is a given that owners will spend themselves into bankruptcy. This is an acceptable premise for designing a CBA? Time to put away the video games.

You fail to see & understand the fundamental problem small teams are facing. In order to keep their star players, they have to either trade away other star players or spend more than they can financially sustain. If they fail to do that, they will have to trade them away for prospects, picks and marginal players. Just like the Oilers have done in the last 5 years.

Big teams don't have to do that and that creates an automatic disadvantage for the small teams. Big teams set the salary levels so high that small teams can't afford them. And unless there's a system which prevents owners like Dolan and Ilitch from throwing their money around (which they WILL do if they can) as recklessy as they have done, no rollback is going to help at all since the 24% WILL be eaten in 2-3 years.

Owners want and will propose a system where the mentioned disadvantage is reduced (not totally eliminated mind you) to 'acceptable' levels meaning that teams like Oilers don't have to be in a never-ending rebuild mode because they have to trade away their best players every year.

Until you manage to grasp that basic problem you can't understand why PA's offer isn't even near being acceptable to owners and there most certainly are 8 GMs/owners who tell Goodenow to piss off.

 

[thinkwild]

I understand that you still have this confusion despite our best attempts at relieving you of it. Luckily, the men who run these businesses dont see things in that light. However, I do recognize you think what you are proposing is in the best interests of the game. So in that we are all fans and want the same thing Im not bothered by it. Frustrated a little, but not angry.

 

[Pepper]

I understand that you still have this confusion despite our best attempts at relieving you of it. Luckily, the men who run these businesses dont see things in that light.

Fortunately fans like you are a small minority and even your fanatical approach to this issue can't deny common sense win in the end.

You will find this out next week first when NHL presents the counter-offer and the resulting deal somewhere in the next 7 to 300 days after it.

 

[thinkwild]

Common sense tells me the world is flat

 

[YellHockey*]

Fortunately fans like you are a small minority and even your fanatical approach to this issue can't deny common sense win in the end.

Common sense? At least the "small minority" can get its facts straight.

There are an awful lot of owner apologists who seem to think that Holik can be used in arbitration and that every player gets a mandatory 110% qualifying offer.

How come the "small minority" doesn't seem to be as ignorant about simple CBA facts as the majority?

 

[djhn579]

Common sense? At least the "small minority" can get its facts straight.

There are an awful lot of owner apologists who seem to think that Holik can be used in arbitration and that every player gets a mandatory 110% qualifying offer.

How come the "small minority" doesn't seem to be as ignorant about simple CBA facts as the majority?

Us owner apologists also realise that players don't have to go to arbitration. All you need is one player to say "I think I'm the equal of, or nearly equal of, Holik, and I'm going to sit out until I get a reasonable deal. I'm not going to try to get this through arbitration because no arbitrator will agree, so I will just sit out..."

Now, this player probably won't get as much as Holik, but he will get more than average and now his salary can be used in arbitration.

How come the small minority likes to put blinders on and pretend things like this don't go on, especially when the NHLPA is using their SCORE system and directing players when to holdout or not, and when to go to arbitration or not?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Us owner apologists also realise that players don't have to go to arbitration. All you need is one player to say "I think I'm the equal of, or nearly equal of, Holik, and I'm going to sit out until I get a reasonable deal. I'm not going to try to get this through arbitration because no arbitrator will agree, so I will just sit out..."

Now, this player probably won't get as much as Holik, but he will get more than average and now his salary can be used in arbitration.

How come the small minority likes to put blinders on and pretend things like this don't go on, especially when the NHLPA is using their SCORE system and directing players when to holdout or not, and when to go to arbitration or not?

ok, so, speaking for myself, will admit that agents use leverage. why dont the owners ? seems they are able to when they need to (last season and now with the CBA).

as a fan, i would have supported VAN telling Bertuzzi AND Naslund to play for 4m or not play at all, if i was given the choice (over the lockout.)

DR

 

[djhn579]

ok, so, speaking for myself, will admit that agents use leverage. why dont the owners ? seems they are able to when they need to (last season and now with the CBA).

as a fan, i would have supported VAN telling Bertuzzi AND Naslund to play for 4m or not play at all, if i was given the choice (over the lockout.)

DR

The owners do try to use the leverage they have, but when a player that made $2-$4M the last few years sits out, he doesn't lose much and is hoping to make up for it when he gets his contract. For the gm (and owner) though, when a player sits out because you won't meet his demands, you have to worry about losing games, fan opinion, and player opinion. You can discount the effect this has, but it all will effect the teams play and revenues.

That is why the owners will probably hold out for cost certainty. No matter what leverage they have, it does not effect the player more than it effects the team.

 

[YellHockey*]

when a player sits out because you won't meet his demands, you have to worry about losing games, fan opinion, and player opinion. You can discount the effect this has, but it all will effect the teams play and revenues.

Except that one player doesn't make a big difference on a team's performance. There might be a handful of players that do but no one begrudges those players for making the big money.

And how many times do the fans back the players in a holdout these days? Tell me what players have held out in the past five years and had the fans demanding the team do whatever it takes to sign them.

 

[djhn579]

Except that one player doesn't make a big difference on a team's performance. There might be a handful of players that do but no one begrudges those players for making the big money.

And how many times do the fans back the players in a holdout these days? Tell me what players have held out in the past five years and had the fans demanding the team do whatever it takes to sign them.

If, the player holding out was the teams best player, like Satan, Hasek (when he was here) or Peca(when he was here), there could be a huge effect on the team. Consider also that when Peca was holding out, the Sabres were working hard to keep salaries down. All the players wanted more, and when the Sabres wouldn't pay Peca, there were articles in the paper and discussion on FanTV(Empire) that were talking about how the players were complaining that the owners were not willing to spend what it takes to build a winner.

That is a big reason why I hold the views I do. The Sabres tried to be financially responsible, and it hurt the team more than it helped even considering that the majority of the trades the team made were considered "wins" for the Sabres.

 

[YellHockey*]

If, the player holding out was the teams best player, like Satan, Hasek (when he was here) or Peca(when he was here), there could be a huge effect on the team. Consider also that when Peca was holding out, the Sabres were working hard to keep salaries down. All the players wanted more, and when the Sabres wouldn't pay Peca, there were articles in the paper and discussion on FanTV(Empire) that were talking about how the players were complaining that the owners were not willing to spend what it takes to build a winner.

That is a big reason why I hold the views I do. The Sabres tried to be financially responsible, and it hurt the team more than it helped even considering that the majority of the trades the team made were considered "wins" for the Sabres.

Peca holding out sure hurt the Sabres. They went from 85 points losing in the first round to 98 points and losing in the second round. Peca sure left a huge void in the Sabres lineup by holding out!

As for Hasek, he's one of the most dominating players to ever play in the NHL. He is one of the few that would affect a team by holding out. And that's why he deserved big money. Unlike 99% of the players in the NHL, when he was in his prime he made big money for his owner.

 

[jcpenny]

I wouldnt be surprised if this week we hear that Brian Burke has mysteriously dissapeared...Kidnapped by the players cause he Killing their strategies!!

 

[PecaFan]

Peca holding out sure hurt the Sabres. They went from 85 points losing in the first round to 98 points and losing in the second round. Peca sure left a huge void in the Sabres lineup by holding out!

Ah, but we don't know how well they would have done if he was there helping them. Maybe they would have had more points, shut down Pittsburgh in game 7, and go on to the Cup finals. And maybe even win. And maybe Hasek decides not to leave. Or maybe it made hardly any difference.

We'll never know just how much that hold out affected Buffalo.

 

[me2]

Common sense? At least the "small minority" can get its facts straight.

There are an awful lot of owner apologists who seem to think that Holik can be used in arbitration and that every player gets a mandatory 110% qualifying offer.

If Holik isn't a perfect example of what can and does go wrong when grown men get egos then I don't know what is. Grown men, even men as experience as Sather and as wise as Lou getting into a tug-o-war match over 2nd or 3rd line 2-way checking center.

And people suggest that GMs and owners always act in a rational manner because they are "smart".

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Ah, but we don't know how well they would have done if he was there helping them. Maybe they would have had more points, shut down Pittsburgh in game 7, and go on to the Cup finals. And maybe even win. And maybe Hasek decides not to leave. Or maybe it made hardly any difference.

We'll never know just how much that hold out affected Buffalo.

maybe's ? this is what its come to ?

who cares about maybe's, it wasnt. why cant we accept teams are always in evolution and sometimes take forks in the road that dont work out as they would like.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If Holik isn't a perfect example of what can and does go wrong when grown men get egos then I don't know what is. Grown men, even men as experience as Sather and as wise as Lou getting into a tug-o-war match over 2nd or 3rd line 2-way checking center.

And people suggest that GMs and owners always act in a rational manner because they are "smart".

and this stupid signing affected exactly what in the NHL ? i have not seen one NHL team affected by this signing, other than NYR of course.

it has had zero affect, and its one case. why care ?

nobody uses Holik as a comparable in negotiations. secondly, even if holik didnt get this contract, the league average salary would hardly be affected, really 9m on 1.5b is nothing.

so holiks contract means nothing.

dr