Deal On Table: NHL, NHLPA pondering 6-year CBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,922
1,152
Winnipeg
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
A CAP guarentees the owners a profit, and WHY should they be guarenteed a profit? Every team should have their OWN budgets and figure out on their own what makes them money and what does not.

Well my friend you are pretty uninformed when it comes to how teh business world works I see! Do you have a job right now? If so I have a little task for you, go to the owner of your company and tell them you don't care if they are profitable as long as you are getting paid what your worth! I think you will find you are earning what your worth alright, right after they fire you.

In the business world if your company isn't making money someone loses their job, but right now there is no accountability for the players if the league loses money.

The biggest problem with these whole negotiations is that the players don't understand that hockey is a business and as such should be reasonably expexted to make profits for the owners. While some owners are profit driven like jacobs, others don't give a hoot about profit as they own their teams as hobby's. The problem with teh players idea of free market is they they take the contract offered by a hobby owner to his players and use it to hold the other owners in the league hostage with comparable players. Teh only way that a free market system envsioned by the players could work if they added confidentiallty agreements to keep big contract secret and the players would never want that either.

I think the easies way to solve the open market system would be to take away guarenteed contracts. If they want an open market fine, but owners can walk away from players who aren't performing. That way wages would be controlled by releasing unproductive players. This would system could work for all teams not just big payroll teams.

edm woud have released Salo and his 3.9 million last year
Calgary could dump turek
Philly could dump Leclaire
bost coud dump lapointe
NYI yahsin

The players are saying they don't want a system where it is idiot proof because they know that they would lose teh cash cow they have right now. If the 20% of owners who are driving up the market stopped being stupid then the other 80% of owner would make money and god knows the players don't want that.

The players need to understand they earn their living because the owner has invested hundreds of millions of dollars on company to employ them and if that company is unprofitable things have to change.
 
Last edited:

PeterSidorkiewicz

HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Apr 30, 2004
32,442
9,701
Lansing, MI
In the business world theres also a thing called a budget, and each ownership has a different budget. Take Ford, GM and Chrysler. Is there a cap in the auto-industry which says to these 3 companies, "you can only spend this much equally", no they can spend whatever they see fit. GM can spend something totally different to Chrysler. A government does not step in and say "hey you spend over 40 million dollars on employees, youre gonna have to fire some people here." But like I said I think the current system is also flawed and they should meet in the middle with a luxury tax system. And if THAT doesnt not work THEN you can attempt the cap. The owners are trying to bridge too wide of a gap too soon. If they put in a luxury tax system and that failed well there you go, now youve PROVEN that a salary cap needs to be tried. But jumping from one spectrum to the complete opposite in ONE labour dispute is ridiculuous. Of course if Bettman wasnt in charge there would probably already be a luxury tax system in place and in either there would be no lockout and everything would be hunky doory, or the owners would have LEGIT reasoning to wanting a salary cap cause its the next step past a luxury tax.
 

Dadof5boys

Registered User
May 25, 2003
1,596
61
Murfreesbo Tennessee
Visit site
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
In the business world theres also a thing called a budget, and each ownership has a different budget. Take Ford, GM and Chrysler. Is there a cap in the auto-industry which says to these 3 companies, "you can only spend this much equally", no they can spend whatever they see fit. GM can spend something totally different to Chrysler. A government does not step in and say "hey you spend over 40 million dollars on employees, youre gonna have to fire some people here." But like I said I think the current system is also flawed and they should meet in the middle with a luxury tax system. And if THAT doesnt not work THEN you can attempt the cap. The owners are trying to bridge too wide of a gap too soon. If they put in a luxury tax system and that failed well there you go, now youve PROVEN that a salary cap needs to be tried. But jumping from one spectrum to the complete opposite in ONE labour dispute is ridiculuous. Of course if Bettman wasnt in charge there would probably already be a luxury tax system in place and in either there would be no lockout and everything would be hunky doory, or the owners would have LEGIT reasoning to wanting a salary cap cause its the next step past a luxury tax.
Problem with this line of thinking is that Ford, GM and Crysler are not in a league. They are not financially linked, whereas, different NHL cities and owners are.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
Go Flames Go said:
Wether it be a soft cap, or a hard cap(payroll ranges) there needs to be tying of revenues and costs. These players have gone way too far and the owners need to throw there fist down.

You people still don't get it. The owners were the ones that made a mockery of the last CBA and they ought to be slapped for allowing this mess to happen (though I don't believe the league is losing as much money as it says)!

By the way, I wouldn't bring up a sensitive issue during the funeral. But, I would be interested to know if you did scold him and would like to know what his repsonse was.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
AM said:
I'm not biting though.

Of course you're not. Because it runs counter to your propaganda, the "woe-is-us-persecuted-fans-of-a-non-contender" mantra. Guess what? I'm a fan of a mid-payroll, mediocre team. They spent more money on players than four of the last six Cup Finalists, including the current champs. They've gotten knocked out of the playoffs the last two years by teams with lower payrolls. But I can admit why they remain mediocre, instead of blaming it on "the system" or some whiny socialistic delusion of "competitive imbalance". Other franchises happen to have superior ownership, management and players. Get it? It doesn't hurt to admit it. Enough of the excuses!

Vast Ant Dioi said:
Riiiight. The only one of those players that the Rags developed was Leetch and I think when you trade a 36 year old you can't really make the argument that you're a farm team.

What to do when sarcasm (read: exaggeration to make a point) is lost on someone? :speechles

Sam I Am said:
Pointing to the occasional exception is a ridiculous form of argument....

That gem coming from one who goes on to say:

Frankly, I'm sick of Detroit, Colorado, Dallas and the like consistently stocking up on star players each season. Look at their combined records over the decade since the last CBA is signed--it's just plain unfair.

Translation: Waaaaaaaaaaaa! :innocent:

Being called "ridiculous" by one who goes on to convey the sentiment of a 10-year-old is flattering.
:joker:
 
Last edited:

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Hockey_Nut99 said:
I love how people avoid stanley cup winners and talk about the conference finalists when it comes to parity. Then they talk about Tampa when someone says the same teams wint he cup..Hmm lets see.

95-Devils
96-Colorado
97-Detroit
98-Detroit
99-Dallas
00-New Jersey
01-Colorado
02-Detroit
03-New Jersey

Yep, just like it was soooo terrible back in the 70s and 80s:

'76 - Montreal
'77 - Montreal
'78 - Montreal
'79 - Montreal
'80 - NYI
'81 - NYI
'82 - NYI
'83 - NYI
'84 - Edmonton
'85 - Edmonton
'86 - Montreal
'87 - Edmonton
'88 - Edmonton
'89 - Calgary
'90 - Edmonton

Wonder if fans of non-Cup teams back then simply accepted the fact that the Cup winners were the best organizations, instead of constantly whining about ficticious competitive imbalance. :cry: Or worse yet, the sore-loser, petty-jealousy suggestion that all it takes today to win a Cup is ca$h. :speechles (Yes, that was implied in a post on this thread.)
 
Last edited:

Coffey77

Registered User
Mar 12, 2002
3,340
0
Visit site
Trottier said:
Yep, just like it was soooo terrible back in the 70s and 80s:

'76 - Montreal
'77 - Montreal
'78 - Montreal
'79 - Montreal
'80 - NYI
'81 - NYI
'82 - NYI
'83 - NYI
'84 - Edmonton
'85 - Edmonton
'86 - Montreal
'87 - Edmonton
'88 - Edmonton
'89 - Calgary
'90 - Edmonton

Wonder if fans of non-Cup teams back then simply accepted the fact that the Cup winners were the best organizations, instead of constantly whining about ficticious competitive imbalance. :cry:

Well said.

The way the NHL is now, they are right in that some teams don't have much of a shot at winning a cup. However, more teams have a shot at winning than ever before. And if you look at 3 of those teams (Colorado, Detroit, and dallas), they aren't going to be dominant.

IMO, a team with a big budget can make more mistakes and get away with it than a small market team. That is true. But I think that teams that are well managed and have money are the truly dominant ones. Eg. Colorado and Detroit won't be as dominant as they were before but if anyone thinks that they will fall of the face of the earth just because they can spend $$$ will be mistaken. They both draft pretty well. And as a sidenote, Jimmy Devallano of Detroit said that the Wings were one of eight teams that voted not to come back to play hockey (the proposal that eventually became the CBA) in 1994.

I don't mind some sort of luxury tax or cost certainty. But they will still be teams that are HAVES and HAVE NOTS. Some teams will always seem to suck and some that always seem to do well.

I still find it so funny some fans think that the owners really care about competitive balance or that they care about you, the fan. They don't. It's money (can't say I blame them).
 

two out of three*

Guest
Sorry.. I forgot to keep up with this thread.. Can I get an update?

1) Are the owners/players leaning towards accepting this deal? Or does anybody even know?

2) Has the deal been rejected? Or does anybody know?
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Yah right

Trottier said:
Of course you're not. Because it runs counter to your propaganda, the "woe-is-us-persecuted-fans-of-a-non-contender" mantra. Guess what? I'm a fan of a mid-payroll, mediocre team. They spent more money on players than four of the last six Cup Finalists, inclusing the current champs. They've gotten knocked out of the playoffs the last two years by teams with lower payrolls. But I can admit why they remain mediocre, instead of blaming it on "the system" or some whiny socialistic delusion of "competitive imbalance". Other franchises happen to have superior ownership, management and players. Get it? It doesn't hurt to admit it. Enough of the excuses!

Funny how you ignore my arguement entirely, you know, to spew what you spew.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
AM said:
The Edmonton books are more open then you might imagine.

First, there are alot of owners. If anything untoward were going on it would be found out.

I'm not saying that something untoward is going on, I'm saying that it's in their best interests to spin what's in their books a certain way. Everyone who has a right to see the books has an interest in forcing the players to make big concessions, and in keeping the fans satisfied that having no hockey for an indefinite period is worth it. Why would they say anything at all that undermines this?

Second, they get money from lottos.... basically from the government(people are watching them).

Is government auditing their books? I doubt it.

Thirdly, they cant go in the red, because the ownership group wont allow it.

Not sure how this is at all relevant.

Thats why they are the poster-franchise for whats wrong with the league.

They run a good ship but cant keep their players!

Thats why your belief they arnt full and frank, dosnt hold much water in my understanding.

They can't keep players at age 31? Who cares, and I'm a fan of the team. I wouldn't want the Oilers to pay Doug Weight $8 million a year anyway. It'd be a terrible move.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
Ties,

To answer your question:

1. Not really, because it's pretty certain that no deal was discussed, and this was just a rumor. Daly says the sides are still "philosophically separated"

2.. See above. Hopefully they meet again sometime early next week. The speculation is that MAYBE..the next meeting will include a proposal, hopefully based around whatever was talked about in the meetings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

two out of three*

Guest
nomorekids said:
Ties,

To answer your question:

1. Not really, because it's pretty certain that no deal was discussed, and this was just a rumor. Daly says the sides are still "philosophically separated"

2.. See above. Hopefully they meet again sometime early next week. The speculation is that MAYBE..the next meeting will include a proposal, hopefully based around whatever was talked about in the meetings.


Thanks.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
no comprehension whatsoever i see

mudcrutch79 said:
I'm not saying that something untoward is going on, I'm saying that it's in their best interests to spin what's in their books a certain way. Everyone who has a right to see the books has an interest in forcing the players to make big concessions, and in keeping the fans satisfied that having no hockey for an indefinite period is worth it. Why would they say anything at all that undermines this?



Is government auditing their books? I doubt it.



Not sure how this is at all relevant.



They can't keep players at age 31? Who cares, and I'm a fan of the team. I wouldn't want the Oilers to pay Doug Weight $8 million a year anyway. It'd be a terrible move.

Doug Weight at 4.5 million equals instant contender.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
AM said:
Doug Weight at 4.5 million equals instant contender.

I don't see how you figure that. His salary would be irrelevant in terms of what he brings to the team. Obviously the Oilers don't see it that way-they'd make huge dollars off the playoff runs from this instant contender, and chose to move him.

More importantly, the Blues sans Weight are likely at least as good as the Oilers sans Weight. Adding Weight to the Blues hasn't turned them into the instant contender you think he'd make the Oilers.
 

Loki

PK Specialist
Mar 24, 2004
586
0
Trottier said:
Yep, just like it was soooo terrible back in the 70s and 80s:

'76 - Montreal
'77 - Montreal
'78 - Montreal
'79 - Montreal
'80 - NYI
'81 - NYI
'82 - NYI
'83 - NYI
'84 - Edmonton
'85 - Edmonton
'86 - Montreal
'87 - Edmonton
'88 - Edmonton
'89 - Calgary
'90 - Edmonton

Wonder if fans of non-Cup teams back then simply accepted the fact that the Cup winners were the best organizations, instead of constantly whining about ficticious competitive imbalance. :cry: Or worse yet, the sore-loser, petty-jealousy suggestion that all it takes today to win a Cup is ca$h. :speechles (Yes, that was implied in a post on this thread.)

They were the best ran teams. They drafted well, they traded well and were coached well. None of these teams relied on the free agent market and the two-tiered economic system in the NHL to the extent that many of the recent winners (Detroit, Dallas and Colorado) have.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
talking about

mudcrutch79 said:
I don't see how you figure that. His salary would be irrelevant in terms of what he brings to the team. Obviously the Oilers don't see it that way-they'd make huge dollars off the playoff runs from this instant contender, and chose to move him.

More importantly, the Blues sans Weight are likely at least as good as the Oilers sans Weight. Adding Weight to the Blues hasn't turned them into the instant contender you think he'd make the Oilers.

When he got moved in the first place. With Weight on the team for the past few years the Oilers are just that little bit better. Plus the youmger players get the good leadership from Weight....

Yah, I think they could have easily made a couple long runs in the playoffs over the last few years, if only an affordable Weight wasnt poached out of the lineup by dough.
 

Tuggy

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 26, 2003
48,636
14,893
Saint John
markov` said:

:dunno: How does that look good? Did you even read the article?

Some quotes:

"The differences of opinion remain, and they're differences that are strongly felt between the respective sides," Ted Saskin, senior director of the NHL Players' Association, said after Thursday's 4.5 hour meeting.

"Two good days of discussion, but we still have very strong philosophical differences," (Daly)he told reporters after the meeting wrapped up at an airport hotel.

I mean I want there to be a season just as much as the next guy but really they only have till next Friday (IMO) to get some deal together and the ball rolling.
 

grego

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
2,390
97
Saskatchewan
I can't think of that many great draft picks for Colorado. A lot of it was good luck and timing.

I mean getting the best end of the Eric Lindros deal from Quebec days that brought Forsberg to a team that already had a star in Sakic.

Then Roy pretty much got forced out of Montreal, so they were looking to dump him. Take away to unique situations where stars that would normally not get traded were, and you have a team that have been much less dominant.

Colorado without Forsberg and Patrick Roy would not have been as dominant.
 

Ice Cream Man

$1 Oysters
Aug 22, 2002
5,079
0
Visit site
grego said:
I can't think of that many great draft picks for Colorado. A lot of it was good luck and timing.

I dunno.

The Avalanche organization were responsible for the drafting of such players like Chris Drury, Milan Hejduk, Alex Tanguay, Adam Deadmarsh, J.M. Liles, Marek Svatos, Mark Denis, Mark Parrish, David Aebischer, Martin Skoula, Robyn Regehr and Kurt Sauer - all within the last 12 drafts.... not to mention other useful players like Brian Willsie, Ville Neiminen, Dan Hinote, Brent Johnson, Scott Parker, Ramzi Abid, Riku Hahl, Vaclav Nedorost, Jared Aulin, Cody McCormick, Tomi Kallio and Branko Radivojevic.

All these players have played atleast some games in the NHL. I'd actually say that their drafting record is pretty impressive.
 

chara

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
894
0
No deal

There is no deal on the table --- not a 6 yr or a 8 yr one.

These 2 sides are so philosophically apart that this week's meetings might have been more about saving next season. There are at least 8 owners who are willing to sit out 2 years. The first one is the toughest. Next year will be a piece of cake. That's not rhetoric, that's business sense. The players are running on emotion. That will come to an end same time next year when a bunch of older hardliners careers will be all but over.

Timing is everything. The owners chose this time for a reason. Goodenow, Saskin and Linden (who may not even play again) have all got to know that. If the owners present an offer next week, submit some minor changes and accept it or you'll be waiting for a long while.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
chara said:
There is no deal on the table --- not a 6 yr or a 8 yr one.

These 2 sides are so philosophically apart that this week's meetings might have been more about saving next season. There are at least 8 owners who are willing to sit out 2 years. The first one is the toughest. Next year will be a piece of cake. That's not rhetoric, that's business sense. The players are running on emotion. That will come to an end same time next year when a bunch of older hardliners careers will be all but over.

Timing is everything. The owners chose this time for a reason. Goodenow, Saskin and Linden (who may not even play again) have all got to know that. If the owners present an offer next week, submit some minor changes and accept it or you'll be waiting for a long while.

Ok first and foremost... who knows if there is ANY type of deal being discussed. It is pure speculation on anybodies part (including the medias who seem to have some sources) so for you to completely rule it out is foolish. Is it unlikely that a 6 or 8 year proposal has been tabled? More than likely but it can't be ruled out unless you are in the room with these guys negotiating.

So philosopically apart? What are you a TSN writer? TSN vs. Sportsnet it's like the democrats vs. the republicans. Yes, that's what these guys said but please sit and think about what everybody is truly saying.

The owners chose this time? Trevor Linden organized and requested this meeting. The ownership group had absolutely nothing to do with "choosing this time".

Regarding Linden never playing again... who knows what happens with him. His role is much like a political role... if he can be the driving force to "saving the season", he will forever be remembered as a "savior" and his potential in this game off the ice will sky rocket. You can't deny the fact Trevor is a very intelligent individual and a great choice for NHLPA President.

One thing I'd like to note... as many others here have said, one of the most positive things to come out of these meetings is the lack of blasting each other. For Saskin to be bouncing back and forth between his mothers visiting hours/funeral and the meeting, this is not to save next year but to save this year. They have months to save next year, the guy wouldn't be bouncing around his mothers funeral if these discussions were not about the 2004/05 season being "life-and-death" for the NHL.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
Tuggy said:
:dunno: How does that look good? Did you even read the article?

Some quotes:

"The differences of opinion remain, and they're differences that are strongly felt between the respective sides," Ted Saskin, senior director of the NHL Players' Association, said after Thursday's 4.5 hour meeting.

"Two good days of discussion, but we still have very strong philosophical differences," (Daly)he told reporters after the meeting wrapped up at an airport hotel.

I mean I want there to be a season just as much as the next guy but really they only have till next Friday (IMO) to get some deal together and the ball rolling.

These quotes are too expertly crafted for me to take them for what is being said.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Schlep Rock said:
These quotes are too expertly crafted for me to take them for what is being said.


yup, It's pretty much the same quotes we heard all along. I suspect both sides went back to their respective camps to talk it over the head way that was made, and what each side was willing to offer. Besides did anyone really expect to see a news conference after these two days of talks saying they reached a deal? I know i didn't.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Tuggy said:
:dunno: How does that look good? Did you even read the article?

Some quotes:

"The differences of opinion remain, and they're differences that are strongly felt between the respective sides," Ted Saskin, senior director of the NHL Players' Association, said after Thursday's 4.5 hour meeting.

"Two good days of discussion, but we still have very strong philosophical differences," (Daly)he told reporters after the meeting wrapped up at an airport hotel.

I mean I want there to be a season just as much as the next guy but really they only have till next Friday (IMO) to get some deal together and the ball rolling.

What I get out of those quotes is...

1.Nothing that hasn't been said already, which is exactly that nothing everybody is so caught up on that "philosophical differences" issue, well these two sides will never be on the same page philosophically, it's impossible, if that was the case there would be no NHLPA and everyone would be happy...it's like men vs. women, we will always have philosophical differences, dosen't mean we can't get along...

The only thing I get out of these quotes is them using fancy words and sly sentence structures to say " we're talking, we've got issues we'll never agree on, but we're working things out" some will say, i'm just being optimist, I just think i'm being level-headed, and seeing through this smoke screen the owners and NHLPA are putting everyone through...here's hoping i'm right

I spend half my day reading through Minister's speeches, it's not even funny how things can be slipped in statements without the average person noticing it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->