Players angry with proposal....

[txpd]

that is NOT true because those players now have to negotiate a new contract under the new market which is 24% lower

when a player goes into negotiations he says "i'm just as good as 'player A' who makes X and 'player B' who makes Y and i should be paid the same"

well if currently player A makes $5 mil and player B makes $4.5 mil, then under the new system, player A will make $3.8 mil and player B will make $3.42 mil

so using the same player comparision, that player is now asking for $3.4-3.8 mil instead of $4.5-5 mil. so his asking price has been reduced by 24% by the reduced market value...

if owners look at this scenario and say "we're going to pay based on the old market" than that owner is a friggin moron

I think this is where you are terribly mistaken. As I listened to Brian Burke talk about this 24% rollback he made it clear that the Detroit Red Wings would take that money saved and sink it right back into players and they wouldnt worry about the cost anymore than they did before.

its much more likely that there are going to be players like demetri yushkevich that are solid NHL defensemen at $2m a season that wont find a job than players like Mathieu Schneider taking big salary hits. Sergei Gonchar's next contract is not going to be under $4m a year. its just not going to happen that way.

anyway..this is really wasted energy because there will not be a cba based on this proposal.

 

[thinkwild]

Detroit could be claiming they are losing money and its all the systems fault? So they lower the system, set salaries where they want them, and now they will spend themselves right back to the point where they were losing money before? And we should care?


Owners wont be losing money anymore. They will offer what they can afford. We will find out what that is. IF they choose to offer more than they can afford using this system, they deserve no sympathy.

 

[jcpenny]

I agree with 100% of what you said. However, I think one of the "sacrifices" the owners will have to make to get the league playing again is some personal responsibility. They have to be able to hold the line with the players, or else what's the point.

Just seems a lot like raising a child. If they don't get their way, they scream. If you give in after they scream, anytime they don't get their way, they start screaming again. The big problem is that in this situation, small market teams are relying on the big market teams to raise their children properly, something they haven't been very successful at in the past.

I do agree that they have to beef up the luxury tax (or equivelant) or you will have the same issues with the "have's" vs. the "have-nots", and it'll be this year, not one or two years down the road.

I agree with your comments however tht personal responsibility is not the same example: Hurricanes VS NYR
Whats responsible for NYR my not be the same for the Hurricanes. U can't win at that. All those allegations from players accusing owners of not being responsible i call that IGNORANCE. They sure dont know whats its like to have that pressure to be an owner. Big market teams dont give a s*** about the small ones like in real life. Bring a stiff luxury tax and we have something.

 

[FLYLine27*]

I agree with your comments however tht personal responsibility is not the same example: Hurricanes VS NYR
Whats responsible for NYR my not be the same for the Hurricanes. U can't win at that. All those allegations from players accusing owners of not being responsible i call that IGNORANCE. They sure dont know whats its like to have that pressure to be an owner. Big market teams dont give a s*** about the small ones like in real life. Bring a stiff luxury tax and we have something.

Wont really matter about the Canes if Bettman decides to cancel the season..that will be one of the first teams to fold unforuntally. Which people dont seem to understand. A year long lockout will kill a team or 2 and will put a few others in deep deep deep trouble.

 

[Marconius]

Um the Proposal was finished the night before the meeting...do you think that Goodenow called up all 300+ players in the morning to tell them the proposal?

You think they reached the 24% rollback figure at the last possible moment, just decided to tack it on there?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Players would clearly be willing to take the paycut instead of sucumbing to the owners ridiculous Hard Cap.

You dont think that salaries would go even lower if they agreed to a bogus revenue-cost % number that the NHL wants?

Theres a meaning behind the fact that the owners dont want to share revenues, they dont want to help out other owners. The only way around that is to institute a hard cap that would guarantee that every team be profitable, no matter how poorly they run their busienss. Thats the point. the nhl wants to guarantee profits to all owners no matter the circumstances.

What are you talking about, a salary cap will not gaurntee the owners will mak ea profit. That is just a system to get things in order to keep from salaries rising to a point where its just not possible for franchises to put together a team that can win. The NHL has said many many times, and enhanced revenue sharing will be part a essential part of the new CBA.

 

[undraftedstlouis]

It'd only be fair to give all players with multi-year contracts an opt out after the next season if the 24% goes through. I think teams would spend the same money, it'd just mean distributing more to the guys who become free agents away from the guys with locked in contracts.

Does nothing for "cost certainty" so I agree with those who think this is just part of the negotiation process and not the basis for a final deal.

 

[colosilverado]

I agree with your comments however tht personal responsibility is not the same example: Hurricanes VS NYR
Whats responsible for NYR my not be the same for the Hurricanes. U can't win at that. All those allegations from players accusing owners of not being responsible i call that IGNORANCE. They sure dont know whats its like to have that pressure to be an owner. Big market teams dont give a s*** about the small ones like in real life. Bring a stiff luxury tax and we have something.

Give me one frickin' reason why the bigger market teams should give a flip about the small market teams. Really. I don't give a crap if a small market team has a crappy, cheap owner who won't invest in his team and just treats it as a tax shelter.
Dont' all of these stadiums hold about the same amount of fans? Is it a large market team's fault that Mr. Tightwad small market owner cannot see the logic in putting something in so that you can get more out? I really don't see why any teams who actually draw some fans should be penalized while other teams play to half filled stadiums. Why the hell should I, as a sports fan in a larger market, have to pay the price because people in another town don't support their team? Why should my team's owner have to pay the price for some schmuck in the east not paying to keep the players that draw in the fans? If he can't afford them, bring in a partner or two. I dunno. Why the hell should we feel bad for these cheap arse owners? I say lock it out for 2 years and let a few of these small market teams die. Then there will be less roster spots and we won't have to worry about the crappy 4th line guys who really belong on the farm team grabbing and clutching the elite players. You will have teams in cities who truly deserve to have an NHL team because they draw and have owners who actually try to put a decent product on the ice AND make some money...instead of trying to make money and then not putting a product on the ice that brings them in. If you lose your team...sorry. It sucks to be you.

I say toss the whole thing. If a new league is created, tell the owners of the possible teams that you will have to be able to spend this much per season on players, tickers have to be at these prices, you have to have this much net worth so that you can pay the players what they deserve and if you don't, pound sand and get more owners or whatever. The players are the ones who puts the butts in the seats...bottom line. The owners are the dumb asses who don't get how to do things correctly and keep things within reason.

Either way, there will always be ways to exploit the system. That is the nature of business and of the law.

 

[PecaFan]

Under the players proposal, the Flames will be able to take Iginla to salary arbitration where he will be compared to other players who have had their salaries reduced by 24%.

He will probably be awarded 5 to 6 million dollars.

That's the thing about the new proposal, not only does it have the roll back but it also has specific tools that the owners can use to keep the salaries of players under 31 down.

And Iginla elects for a single year contract.

So, fast forward one more year. Iginla is once again a restricted free agent. Calgary will not be able to take him to arbitration, as they've used up his once per career option. Iginla doesn't choose arbitration, and holds out. He knows he's in a fantastic position, and can ask for the moon and the stars. In fact, he probably asks for a bit more than he actually wants, just to make up for the hit he took the previous year. And he'll get it. 'Cause Calgary can't afford to let him walk for nothing, like is usually suggested here.

All this deal does is delay things a year.

 

[Potatoe1]

And Iginla elects for a single year contract.

So, fast forward one more year. Iginla is once again a restricted free agent. Calgary will not be able to take him to arbitration, as they've used up his once per career option. Iginla doesn't choose arbitration, and holds out. He knows he's in a fantastic position, and can ask for the moon and the stars. In fact, he probably asks for a bit more than he actually wants, just to make up for the hit he took the previous year. And he'll get it. 'Cause Calgary can't afford to let him walk for nothing, like is usually suggested here.

All this deal does is delay things a year.

Fair point,,

These are the type of issues that the owners should negotiate further. I hardly think that removing the "once per career" clause is a deal breaker for the players.

The players offer is by no means, a completely workable CBA, but it is a great starting point and should be enough to move the owners off of their "salary cap only" position.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Like I should sit out and demand a new contract?

Cry into Carol Alt's fun bags?

I wouldn't mind crying into her funbags. Can someone here make that happen?

 

[thinkwild]

And Iginla elects for a single year contract.

So, fast forward one more year. Iginla is once again a restricted free agent. Calgary will not be able to take him to arbitration, as they've used up his once per career option. Iginla doesn't choose arbitration, and holds out. He knows he's in a fantastic position, and can ask for the moon and the stars. In fact, he probably asks for a bit more than he actually wants, just to make up for the hit he took the previous year. And he'll get it. 'Cause Calgary can't afford to let him walk for nothing, like is usually suggested here.

All this deal does is delay things a year.

This is ridiculous. Why would Iginla hold out for the moon and stars. He is going to hold out for his fair RFA value, which is quite clear under this proposal. If you are living in fear that your RFAs are going to hold you for ransom to unreasonable new numbers outside the established scale, then trade them. Or negotiate like a man. What if the owners say to Iginla we accept the holdout and we are going to make you sit for 3 years of not playing hockey, no matter how little you settle for. We dont want you and we're not trading your rights.

 

[quat]

I agree with 100% of what you said. However, I think one of the "sacrifices" the owners will have to make to get the league playing again is some personal responsibility. They have to be able to hold the line with the players, or else what's the point.

Just seems a lot like raising a child. If they don't get their way, they scream. If you give in after they scream, anytime they don't get their way, they start screaming again. The big problem is that in this situation, small market teams are relying on the big market teams to raise their children properly, something they haven't been very successful at in the past.

I do agree that they have to beef up the luxury tax (or equivelant) or you will have the same issues with the "have's" vs. the "have-nots", and it'll be this year, not one or two years down the road.

I think the biggest problem with this is, you are asking the ownership of some teams to NOT do everything possible to produce a winner. If I were a fan of a large market team, I would be pissed off at the thought I had to choose a higher moral ground by not using all available stratagies to win.

That's why it's just not an intelligent expectation.

Teams have to be forced by rules or penalties to share the same playing field. There are obviously different approaches to this end, but the 24% give back does not address the heart of the problem. It is a big number for sure, but one the Owners would be wrong to accept along with the rest of this proposal.

As others have pointed out, players barking in the media serves a strong PR point. Heck, some were complaining that 5% was too much. Go figure. Anyway, if one ignores the posturing, there certainly is some chance for movement, and solution.

 

[Potatoe1]

This is ridiculous. Why would Iginla hold out for the moon and stars. He is going to hold out for his fair RFA value, which is quite clear under this proposal. If you are living in fear that your RFAs are going to hold you for ransom to unreasonable new numbers outside the established scale, then trade them. Or negotiate like a man. What if the owners say to Iginla we accept the holdout and we are going to make you sit for 3 years of not playing hockey, no matter how little you settle for. We dont want you and we're not trading your rights.

No it's not ridiculous.

PecaFans point is quite valid. Under the players proposal Iginla could sign for a year and then hold out forcing the Flames to give him a contract similar to what the Flames would have paid prior to the roll back.

Then all of a sudden the market gets reset around Iginlas new contract.

That is exactly the type of thing that caused such drastic inflation under the previous CBA.

 

[quat]

This is ridiculous. Why would Iginla hold out for the moon and stars. He is going to hold out for his fair RFA value, which is quite clear under this proposal. If you are living in fear that your RFAs are going to hold you for ransom to unreasonable new numbers outside the established scale, then trade them. Or negotiate like a man. What if the owners say to Iginla we accept the holdout and we are going to make you sit for 3 years of not playing hockey, no matter how little you settle for. We dont want you and we're not trading your rights.

And in what place on earth do you see something like that actually happening? Three years? Since we can agree that this offer doesn't really address how the initial inflation of player salaries took place, why would everything suddenly change?

You are suggesting that If Iginla held out for more money that Calgary fans would agree to that happening for three years, never mind just a coule of months? Losing their best player and captain just to try and stem the tide of the rest of the league? Mean while, the bigger markets are once again only happy to spend again because... well they can, and therefore really should, as they do owe it to their fans to do what they can to win.

 

[PecaFan]

This is ridiculous. Why would Iginla hold out for the moon and stars. He is going to hold out for his fair RFA value, which is quite clear under this proposal. If you are living in fear that your RFAs are going to hold you for ransom to unreasonable new numbers outside the established scale, then trade them. Or negotiate like a man. What if the owners say to Iginla we accept the holdout and we are going to make you sit for 3 years of not playing hockey, no matter how little you settle for. We dont want you and we're not trading your rights.

Nobody is saying anything about "fear" or "unreasonable contract demands". Nobody is passing judgment. The question put forward was "how would contracts rise back up to their old levels"?

Well, I'm showing you how.

In a year, Iginla can demand to be paid as one of the best players in the league, which he arguably is. He will have all the bargaining power on his side, and the Flames will have none. None of this 24% business will matter, because it will all be in the past, and arbitration won't be involved. It will be entirely up to what Jarome is willing to play for, and what's he's willing to do to make sure he gets what he feels he's worth. You know, that free market stuff.

If Calgary plays hardball, they *will* suffer. Let him sit for months? They'll surely miss the playoffs. Not qualify him and cutting him loose completely is hardly a solution. Trading him for some prospects? Then they're just starting all over again.

And that's how salaries rise. Players with clout apply the screws to the owners, (as is their right to do). Jarome will get a great contract in his second year, and it'll almost surely be well over the 24% cut he had to take.

And in the process, he sets a lovely comparable to be used in future arbitrations by the rest of the players.

 

[Freudian]

The problem with claiming that it would be up to the owners to keep wages down is that NHL is not a free market. Every team has a limited supply of player resources (ie, players they have the right to). If they can't agree with them, the team is in trouble. The players know this so they can push up salaries by increasing demands. Which is of course why they are scared to death about any kind of cap. With a cap it would be impossible to escalate demands again.

And claiming that the teams should just have the players sit out is pretty shortsighted. There is a competitive demand on all teams and there is a fan demand to see the good players. Not signing the best players the team has access to is poor buisiness. Not only may you miss the playoffs, but the fans will also be less inclined to support the team financially. The players also know this of course.

The players proposal reflects this. They refuse to agree to anything that will keep salaries down. They will agree to take a bit less of the current contracts for the simple reason that they know they can escalate demands in the future.

Now I don't find it particularly immoral of them. They are a union and are supposed to protect their members interests. And with a proposal like this they make sure the players (as a collective) have every opportunity to recoup whatever they give up now. The only losers with the NHLPA:s offers are the older stars with huge long term contracts. And because they have huge long term contracts, they will cry all the way to the bank.

 

[djhn579]

No it's not ridiculous.

PecaFans point is quite valid. Under the players proposal Iginla could sign for a year and then hold out forcing the Flames to give him a contract similar to what the Flames would have paid prior to the roll back.

Then all of a sudden the market gets reset around Iginlas new contract.

That is exactly the type of thing that caused such drastic inflation under the previous CBA.

And don't forget, the NHLPA is making decisions on which players should be holding out and for how much money, and using their SCORE system to continue to jack up salaries.

 

[Big Phil]

How would you feel if you were Alexei Yashin?

Ouch.

Hmmm, well I'd be able to buy that $300,000 house I've been wanting to buy and not have to spend 25 years paying it off! Yeah I think I'd still feel pretty rich!

 

[CREW99AW]

How would you feel if you were Alexei Yashin?

Ouch.

If you were a player with a large guaranteed contract and were told that you weren't getting 24% of that contract,would you be happy about it?


http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/ny-spnhl104078314dec10,0,3663067.story?coll=ny-sports-print

"For me, it's difficult to react," Yashin said last night. "I didn't really see [the proposal]. I can't tell you right away what I think because I have to think about it."

Yashin did add that he supports the Players Association's position 100 percent.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Nobody is saying anything about "fear" or "unreasonable contract demands". Nobody is passing judgment. The question put forward was "how would contracts rise back up to their old levels"?

Well, I'm showing you how.

In a year, Iginla can demand to be paid as one of the best players in the league, which he arguably is. He will have all the bargaining power on his side, and the Flames will have none. None of this 24% business will matter, because it will all be in the past, and arbitration won't be involved. It will be entirely up to what Jarome is willing to play for, and what's he's willing to do to make sure he gets what he feels he's worth. You know, that free market stuff.

If Calgary plays hardball, they *will* suffer. Let him sit for months? They'll surely miss the playoffs. Not qualify him and cutting him loose completely is hardly a solution. Trading him for some prospects? Then they're just starting all over again.

And that's how salaries rise. Players with clout apply the screws to the owners, (as is their right to do). Jarome will get a great contract in his second year, and it'll almost surely be well over the 24% cut he had to take.

And in the process, he sets a lovely comparable to be used in future arbitrations by the rest of the players.

Quick question, even if the owners magically get a $40 million hard cap, what prevents Iginla from holding out ???

 

[dkrause1971]

Quick question, even if the owners magically get a $40 million hard cap, what prevents Iginla from holding out ???

Nothing would, I assume he means that it would be harder for other teams to overpay the Flames by alot (unless the Flames were close to the cap without Jerome) which would make holding out pointless, unless he just held out to be traded.

Don

 

[rwilson99]

Nobody is saying anything about "fear" or "unreasonable contract demands". Nobody is passing judgment. The question put forward was "how would contracts rise back up to their old levels"?

Well, I'm showing you how.

In a year, Iginla can demand to be paid as one of the best players in the league, which he arguably is. He will have all the bargaining power on his side, and the Flames will have none. None of this 24% business will matter, because it will all be in the past, and arbitration won't be involved. It will be entirely up to what Jarome is willing to play for, and what's he's willing to do to make sure he gets what he feels he's worth. You know, that free market stuff.

All Calgary has to do to negotiate with Iginla is play Game 6 of the finals (0 Shots) and Game 7 (0 Shots and a tirade against Kerry Fraser's as Martin St. Louis lay bleeding on the ice).

If a guy can't show up for the two biggest games of his life... how much can he really be worth.

 

[se7en*]

Bull****, all the players knew about this 24% rollback, this is PR stunts to make it seem like the players are giving up too much, nice try...Let's see what the Owners next move is in all this charade

Thats what I thought too.

 

[se7en*]

Give me one frickin' reason why the bigger market teams should give a flip about the small market teams. Really. I don't give a crap if a small market team has a crappy, cheap owner who won't invest in his team and just treats it as a tax shelter.

Why should large markets care? Because we're the ones getting screwed by teams like yours! If the large markets have to pay out of their ass for their mistakes then I'm all for it! If anything, fold the large markets because this league is a mess and the fault lies almost all on the shoulders of the big spenders.

Why the hell should I, as a sports fan in a larger market, have to pay the price because people in another town don't support their team?

Interesting you mentioning that - my team is small market and we know the game and support our team better than your fanbase ever could.