HF Boards Proposal: Owners Proposal, PA Counter Proposal

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Uh... I really cannot enivision any subsequent CBA helping Ottawa. Ottawa will be the most hurt once this inane lockout is over, no matter the system.

Stop trying to destroy our team to push the league toward mediocrity.

This fight is about getting the big markets back on par if not better than the small markets that have all the future stars. Anyone who can't see that has been a victim of the NHL propagada machine.

Hold on players!

No cowboy, this is about stopping big market teams from signing whomever they want while they drive up the market price, that really doesn't work in Ottawa.

This deal will help the Sens, and that is not propoganda, but the reality of the situation.

 

[Jeffrey]

Buddy, for the 5th time.....THE OWNERS AGREED TO THOSE 7 YEARS

I think you should talk to Mr. Melnyk and raise your concerns with him

well.. i was again ...
but everybody was for ...

 

[OilerFan4Life]

well.. i was again ...
but everybody was for ...

Excuse me Mr. Owner, but I dont think you should be discussing these matters until an agreement is reached. We dont want Eklund getting his snoops from here

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Why?
Under a cap, all teams have nearly identical resources with which to build a team. The Sens are far more likely to be outbid for Hossa under an uncapped system than they are with a cap.

No, it means hossa has a choice. If he likes it in Ottawa, he can stay, or go to the Wild and play with Gaborik.

But that is life, and the players will get their choice, which they deserve. Players should be able to choose where they want to play. If it is for more money, than they sign there. If it is for a cup then there you go.

Either way, the Sens will have to be creative, like all the teams, and if they want Hossa, they will make it work.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

So what are peoples general thoughts on the PA's proposal?

 

[Coffey77]

So what are peoples general thoughts on the PA's proposal?

IMO, it's more workable than what the real NHLPA is doing because there's a cap (around $50 million I think). People may think it's too high but it is "cost certainty".

I like what the NHLPA and NHL hfboards.com posters have come up with. There's cost certainty but it's not too harsh on the players (eg. cap level and rookie limits).
Good work guys. Too bad you guys aren't working for the real NHLPA and NHL.

 

[two out of three*]

Thanks for the comments Biggest Canuck Fan, and Coffey.. In general.. What are everyone's thoughts on the PA's Counter and/or the Owners Proposal?

 

[two out of three*]

Oh.. by the way.. One the first link in the thread (which is the PA's Counter Proposal) under Revenue Distribution it sats $30M has been settled by both sides.. That $30M is just a salary floor. Not a hard cap, or anything like that.

 

[alecfromtherock]

You have to remember though, we're playing with monopoly money.

Monopoly money, come now the CDN$ is not THAT bad

 

[Coffey77]

Questions and comments:

What's the penalty of not meeting the $30 million floor?

I noticed that there wasn't any about revenue sharing (except for the luxury tax). I'm guessing that wasn't part of the deal. This is related to the first question. Some teams are operating at say $20 million right now and they are losing money. So with this deal in place they would have to spend more money. Wouldn't that hurt some teams?

Free agency. What are the qualifications for a goalie to be able to become a UFA?
under the Owner proposal, only number one goalies would be able to get UFA status after 7 years. Backups wouldn't get 60 games a year.

Guaranteed Contracts/buyouts. Can a team buyout a player at any point in the season?


I like both proposals. I would have preferred something that Stich proposed where the longer a player has been with a team, the less of his contract is counted towards a cap.

1 year of service with team- 100% of NHL contract counts towards cap
2 year with same team - 98%
3 years - 95%
4 years - 90%
5 years - 85%
6 years - 80%
7 years - 75%
8 years - 70%
9 years - 65%
10 years+ - 60%

I would want teams rewarded for keeping their own players (kind of like NBA where a team can resign their own guys for whatever $$$) and have a better chance of retaining their players once they reace FA status. Plus, a player might want to stay with their own team (if he's been there a while) since he knows that his own team can afford to pay him more.

 

[Other Dave]

The Sens are far more likely to be outbid for Hossa under an uncapped system than they are with a cap.

Under the previous uncapped system, it would be impossible for the Sens to be outbid for Hossa next year. Under the proposed system, he becomes one of the most valuable commodities in a new labor market.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Questions and comments:

What's the penalty of not meeting the $30 million floor?

I noticed that there wasn't any about revenue sharing (except for the luxury tax). I'm guessing that wasn't part of the deal. This is related to the first question. Some teams are operating at say $20 million right now and they are losing money. So with this deal in place they would have to spend more money. Wouldn't that hurt some teams?

Free agency. What are the qualifications for a goalie to be able to become a UFA?
under the Owner proposal, only number one goalies would be able to get UFA status after 7 years. Backups wouldn't get 60 games a year.

Guaranteed Contracts/buyouts. Can a team buyout a player at any point in the season?


I like both proposals. I would have preferred something that Stich proposed where the longer a player has been with a team, the less of his contract is counted towards a cap.

1 year of service with team- 100% of NHL contract counts towards cap
2 year with same team - 98%
3 years - 95%
4 years - 90%
5 years - 85%
6 years - 80%
7 years - 75%
8 years - 70%
9 years - 65%
10 years+ - 60%

I would want teams rewarded for keeping their own players (kind of like NBA where a team can resign their own guys for whatever $$$) and have a better chance of retaining their players once they reace FA status. Plus, a player might want to stay with their own team (if he's been there a while) since he knows that his own team can afford to pay him more.

Sorry Coffey, we must have forgot to add that in.

The penalty for going under 30 million is a 1st round pick.....or if youvs stupidly traded your 1st rounder away then its a 3rd round pick that season plus a first rounder next season.

Also 80% of luxury tax money goes to the poor teams...So there shouldnt be a problem with spending over 30 million on the poor scale. Its pretty much a lock that the luxury tax pool will be more then enough to help the less spending teams such as Nashville.

 

[Other Dave]

What incentive is there in your proposal to discourage teams from spending the bare minimum to qualify for a luxury tax, and farm all of their developed high draft picks to the big market?

 

[s7ark]

What incentive is there in your proposal to discourage teams from spending the bare minimum to qualify for a luxury tax, and farm all of their developed high draft picks to the big market?

Maybe it is still too early in the morning, but I don't understand your question at all.

 

[Slats432]

Was there cost certainty?

 

[i am dave]

I think that's a terrible idea. The only way to ensure parity top to bottom is to increase player movement to the point where teams will be unrecognizable year to year.

And I resent that you seem to be willing to sell the Sens down the river in order to fit your utopian agenda.

I sat through Troy Mallette and Evgeny Davydov playing hockey and now I get to watch Hossa and Chara. Under your proposal, the Sens will get to be a farm team for the bigs starting at the end of next season.

The purpose of a new CBA is to ensure cost certainty, not parity.

 

[i am dave]

I like both proposals. I would have preferred something that Stich proposed where the longer a player has been with a team, the less of his contract is counted towards a cap.

1 year of service with team- 100% of NHL contract counts towards cap
2 year with same team - 98%
3 years - 95%
4 years - 90%
5 years - 85%
6 years - 80%
7 years - 75%
8 years - 70%
9 years - 65%
10 years+ - 60%

Problems may arise with rear-loaded contracts in that scenario. I like your idea if it included an "average salary" stipulation.

 

[two out of three*]

Was there cost certainty?

Yes there was.

 

[Other Dave]

The purpose of a new CBA is to ensure cost certainty, not parity.

Why is this a goal that fans should support?

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Why is this a goal that fans should support?

Dont wanna be rude dude, but get over it. Your making it sound like the sens are losers in this proposal while everone else is a winner. Maybe its a good thing you lose some of your star players. Last time I checked your stars seem to dissapear in the playoffs....oh ya and how bout beating Toronto once in a blue moon.

 

[Other Dave]

Dont wanna be rude dude

Clearly this is also incorrect!

 

[two out of three*]

Dont wanna be rude dude, but get over it. Your making it sound like the sens are losers in this proposal while everone else is a winner. Maybe its a good thing you lose some of your star players. Last time I checked your stars seem to dissapear in the playoffs....oh ya and how bout beating Toronto once in a blue moon.

O4L dont turn this into a team rivalry b*tch fest. Talk about the proposal, or other things, but don't get the thread closed.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

O4L dont turn this into a team rivalry b*tch fest. Talk about the proposal, or other things, but don't get the thread closed.

Hey hey hey, I cheered every year for Ottawa to beat the leafs, but this guy just keeps on repeating the same thing.

"Hossa's gone, Ottawa's done. blahblah"

I told the guy to talk to one of the owners about it. He seems to think the PA wants Ottaw screwed.

 

[Coffey77]

Problems may arise with rear-loaded contracts in that scenario. I like your idea if it included an "average salary" stipulation.

Wouldn't bother me if that was added in. I see your point where a team could really exploit that rule, assuming they keep the player for a while. i just want teams to have at least some continuity to it and to give teams a better chance at retaining their players.

 

[Other Dave]

"Hossa's gone, Ottawa's done. blahblah"

Think it through. Next year Hossa's contract is up. Under the previous CBA he could score big through arbitration or the threat thereof, but at least Ottawa has a chance to keep him. I say that if Ottawa can generate playoff revenues they'll have the money to sign him, and if they can't then it's their own damn fault for losing him.

Under your suggestion, so gratefully offered and accepted, Hossa will be one of the most sought-after free agents in the entire league. Think it through. How many currently low revenue teams will be able to justify a large offer sheet based on the increased revenue a marquee player will bring? How many big market teams (who can currently afford a much higher payroll than the $65 million maximum player salary you're proposing) will have the cap room to sign one of the best young free agents in the game?

Under your proposal Ottawa fans will have to suck up losing Hossa for nothing. As fans you should be trying to find a way out that's good for all 30 teams.

I told the guy to talk to one of the owners about it. He seems to think the PA wants Ottaw screwed.

I think that you fans coming up with the player proposal in this game either haven't thought through the ramifications for Ottawa, or you have and you don't care what happens to Ottawa.