New CBA discussion thread

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,532
21,073
Ideally they would have a say in some of these decisions. Whether they did or not though I would bet dimes to dollars very few would be calling for the elimination of all those jobs, even if they have to pay a share of the cost of the investment. Players hate the loss of jobs through the elimination of markets more than anything.

But they didn't have a say, Jaded. The NHL wanted it, so they should pay for it with their share of league revenues, not force the players to fund their pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
But they didn't have a say, Jaded. The NHL wanted it, so they should pay for it with their share of league revenues, not force the players to fund their pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams.

Like I said though, if you put it to a vote, continue as is or eliminate 22 jobs, which is something like 3% of the jobs available, I am not sure if the players would not vote to keep things as they are. In cases like this in the real world most vote to give some salary back rather than eliminate jobs. And if the market does develope it does benefit the players. Even if it does not the team likely then gets moved which preserves those jobs.
 

MtlPenFan

Registered User
Apr 14, 2010
15,629
754
But they didn't have a say, Jaded. The NHL wanted it, so they should pay for it with their share of league revenues, not force the players to fund their pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams.

I don't like that argument in the least.

Their pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams are responsible for quite a few added player jobs to begin with. Nothing wrong with asking some of the guys who'd never be in the league to begin with without those "extra" teams to give a little back to grow the game (regardless of what the League's intent is)

If it weren't for expansion way back when, you wouldn't have guys born and bred in LA like Bennett being drafted in the first round. Unfortunately, these things take generations to come to fruition, so the argument to get a bunch of teams out of the league is incredibly short sighted.
 

M0NTY26

Force from Ma'gorsk
Feb 27, 2010
4,789
1
As an aside, here is another reason why anyone who claims that the Pens have a bad fan base who be kicked in the nuts with a rusty skate. According to an ESPN poll PA and Minn. are the only states at all excited about hockey returning:

http://imgur.com/zTKhV

Very excited actually as opposed to 'not interested'

Dont be stupid... its obviously all the Giroux fans. Remember, their fans go out and vote for things, such as this. Case and point.

250px-NHL_13_Cover.png



No way the fair weather Pittsburgh fans could be excited about this breaking news. Word that the lockout is over probably hasn't even reached Pittsburgh yet. Have the Pens even released an official statement yet?
 

MetalheadPenguinsFan

Registered User
Sep 17, 2009
63,702
16,749
Canada
This might be a silly question and I wholeheartedly apologize if it is but with this 7 year term thing...how long do we have Sid for??

Seven years??? Or for the full 12 year contract he signed last June???

I assumed all those contracts were grandfathered.

And in English this means...how many years??? :)

Sorry I'm sleepy and haven't paid attention to the business side of the NHL for ages.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
12 :yo:
Just a shame we didn't get Malkin committed to eternity terms at the same time. But of course that doesn't matter as long as he just takes a shorter deal at 8.7 per.... as he must and will :).

We could not negotiate with him until a year before his contract ended if I am remembering right. If we could have I am sure we would have.
 

Alesle

Registered User
Jan 5, 2008
532
0
Oslo, Norway
12 :yo:
Just a shame we didn't get Malkin committed to eternity terms at the same time. But of course that doesn't matter as long as he just takes a shorter deal at 8.7 per.... as he must and will :).

I'm not sure he'll take 8.7. In order to match Crosby's salary the first 8 years of his contract Malkin would have a cap hit of 10.8. I don't think he'll ask for that much, but I would be pleasantly surprised if he "only" asked for 8.7.
 

Tender Rip

Wears long pants
Feb 12, 2007
17,972
5,171
Shanghai, China
We could not negotiate with him until a year before his contract ended if I am remembering right. If we could have I am sure we would have.

I know - and agree.
I am just saying that whereas some teams have gotten their most significant guys signed while the loophole was there, we have only Crosby (and Neal I suppose, but there's nothing loophole about his deal).

So relatively speaking the timing of this wasn't that good, although it is big that we did get Crosby covered.
 

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
A big WTF. :shakehead


Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris

A ratification vote schedule hasn't been set for the players. Earliest it would likely be completed is Saturday.
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris

With player vote through Sat, training camps likely won't open before Sun. Bill Daly says they can still start Jan. 19. "Barely, but yes."
 

stefanh

Registered User
Aug 13, 2006
1,319
0
Gothenburg
James Mirtle is the best for news about the details and calculations of the consequences.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle
Keeping salary in trades: Teams can have up to three contracts at one time that they are retaining the salary of.

The max teams can keep is 15% of the salary cap. Only 50% of a deal can be kept. A contract can have salary retained in a trade only twice.
 

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
CapGeek ‏@capgeek

Under the new CBA, teams can retain salary/cap hit in a trade. Conditions to follow. #NHL

Teams can retain salary/cap hit for up to three SPCs, to a maximum aggregate cap hit of 15 per cent of upper limit

Up to 50% of SPC can be retained in trade. An SPC can be traded twice with salary/cap hit retained

The dirty details begin to trickle out


ETA Beat to it :p:
 

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
So they retain the salary (as in pay it) AND the cap hit (as in it counts towards the cap)? I'm just a little confused how it works.
That's the way I read it. So hypothetically we could trade Martin and both teams would be on the hook for $2.5m in salary and cap.
 

Shrimper

Trick or ruddy treat
Feb 20, 2010
104,169
5,248
Essex
I feel this is the right thread to put this:

I'm quite shocked at how crazy Pittsburgh went today w/ the lockout signing. I know I have a hockey family so it meant a lot here, but people on the streets, in the mall, etc. were all talking about it. It was the buzz around the city. I'm proud of that. I thought it'd take awhile to get the newer fans of casual fans back in it.

I'm glad this **** is over.

Let's hope there hasn't been a negative effect in Pittsburgh because it needs a lot of work to do to catch up to the NFL or at least improve it's image and fanbase and lockouts don't help.

I'm liking a lot of info coming out for the new CBA but I'll think I'll wait until it's ratified and everything;s released.
 

M0NTY26

Force from Ma'gorsk
Feb 27, 2010
4,789
1
Datsyuk wants to stay in Russia!? That really threw me for a loop. With his contract expiring soon, we could be seeing the last of Dats in the NHL :(
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Datsyuk wants to stay in Russia!? That really threw me for a loop. With his contract expiring soon, we could be seeing the last of Dats in the NHL :(

Lots of change, and maybe some down years, coming in Detroit. Not a surprise, nor will it make much of a difference to that team, but Tomas Holmstrom is retiring as well.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8823199/tomas-holmstrom-detroit-red-wings-veteran-retire-report

Lubomir Visnovsky of the Isles is staying in Russia also.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/sto...snovsky-staying-khl-return-new-york-islanders
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,532
21,073
I don't like that argument in the least.

Their pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams are responsible for quite a few added player jobs to begin with. Nothing wrong with asking some of the guys who'd never be in the league to begin with without those "extra" teams to give a little back to grow the game (regardless of what the League's intent is)

If it weren't for expansion way back when, you wouldn't have guys born and bred in LA like Bennett being drafted in the first round. Unfortunately, these things take generations to come to fruition, so the argument to get a bunch of teams out of the league is incredibly short sighted.

Players weren't paying for expansion out of their cap share "way back when". The idea that players should have to fund these money pits in perpetuity - for something that may take generations to take effect, if ever - is what's ridiculous.

The NHL should keep hockey where it's sustainable on its own merits, and where it's not, they should fund it their damn selves if it's such a priority. Stating record revenues and then crying poor because their ill-advised expansion teams are losing money is bogus.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Players weren't paying for expansion out of their cap share "way back when". The idea that players should have to fund these money pits in perpetuity - for something that may take generations to take effect, if ever - is what's ridiculous.

The NHL should keep hockey where it's sustainable on its own merits, and where it's not, they should fund it their damn selves if it's such a priority. Stating record revenues and then crying poor because their ill-advised expansion teams are losing money is bogus.

Out of the entire universe of people who could play hockey, only 704 get to play NHL hockey in any given year. You are proposing sending 22 of those to the minors, permanently, leaving ony 682 jobs in a perverse sort of musical chairs. I doubt that the players are going to be thrilled with the idea of losing those 22 jobs permanently. That does not even include the minor league affiliates and all of those jobs. You may be leading a charge and look behind you and find that you have no soldiers following in this case. Yeah the players lose some revenue if the team loses revenue. But I still think that most would prefer preserving the jobs.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,532
21,073
Out of the entire universe of people who could play hockey, only 704 get to play NHL hockey in any given year. You are proposing sending 22 of those to the minors, permanently, leaving ony 682 jobs in a perverse sort of musical chairs. I doubt that the players are going to be thrilled with the idea of losing those 22 jobs permanently. That does not even include the minor league affiliates and all of those jobs. You may be leading a charge and look behind you and find that you have no soldiers following in this case. Yeah the players lose some revenue if the team loses revenue. But I still think that most would prefer preserving the jobs.

I don't believe I ever said contraction is the only option, Jaded.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
I don't believe I ever said contraction is the only option, Jaded.

Well moving the team they would be fine with, as the jobs would remain. It is not the best thing for the sport, the sport has to expand or always will be second tier, which is not what I want. But yeah they might be retired many years over by the time it pays dividends so the players might be less likely to sloe some paycheck for that.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->