Snag Alert...CBA not as close as some think??

[KOVALEV10*]

Look if there isn't hockey this October then that means that the players are full of ****, greedy ass holes. Sorry for swaring but that's what they are.

 

[NYR469]

Call me crazy, but don't the rollback and buy-out's benefit the majority of players? If the 04-05 contracts aren't going to be honored, there is something like 20% of the league under contract. The rollback and the buy-out's maximize the dollars available to pay the 80% of the players that don't currently have contracts.

buyouts will lower player salaries thru simple supply and demand...the more players that get bought out, the more ufas available. and the more players teams have to choose from the less they have to offer.

for example if jarome iginla is the only top forward available and 10 teams are looking for a top free agent, they will bid against each other to get him and someone will overpay. but if iginla, thornton, hedjuk, naslund, forsberg, st. louis, etc are all free agents then teams don't have to outbid each other because if you miss out on iginla there is still another superstar available.

as for the rollback, yes it frees up $$ but it would take a gm with the IQ of a mildly Pejorative Slured cucumber to offer contracts based on the old market. when a player goes into negotiations he doesn't simply say "I want $5 mil" he says "i'm better than players A & B and want to be paid accordingly" if those players make $5 mil that means that the player is asking for $5 mil. but after the rollback, players A & B are making $3.8 mil. so the market value for that player has been reduced by 24%. if that team is stupid enough to pay based on the old market then they are morons and deserve to get killed by the luxury tax and cap.

and most of the teams that throw around $$ don't have a ton of cap room to free up, it isn't like a team with a $50 mil payroll can say "we saved $12 mil on the rollback so we can sign $12 mil worth of additional players" because that rollback would leave them at $38 mil which is out or above the cap without adding anyone.

 

[Thresher]

"The two sides in the NHL negotiations, which met in New York for a second consecutive day Tuesday, have agreed to a framework for a salary cap linked to league revenue, believed to be 54%, with a 24% rollback on current salaries."

OK, I am in Los Angeles and am I the only one to notice this serious flaw in this article!

Arn't they currently in Toronto? So let's make up some more BS and print it shall we!

(I also believe 'second consecutive' is redundant as consecutive already means 'one after the other' - ie: at least two days...therefore, it should read 'for a consecutive day...' - then on to 'third consecutive day - etc.' - - - just as there's no such thing as 'first annual' ........bad editors! BAD.)

Carry on

 

[Leafer4Life]

Damn, I'm sick of all these rumors! I wish that a deal would just get ANNOUNCED already, so that we have hockey to look forward to in a few months!

 

[Kritter471]

"The two sides in the NHL negotiations, which met in New York for a second consecutive day Tuesday, have agreed to a framework for a salary cap linked to league revenue, believed to be 54%, with a 24% rollback on current salaries."



(I also believe 'second consecutive' is redundant as consecutive already means 'one after the other' - ie: at least two days...therefore, it should read 'for a consecutive day...' - then on to 'third consecutive day - etc.' - - - just as there's no such thing as 'first annual' ........bad editors! BAD.)

Carry on

Actually, "second consecutive" is not redundant. You can meet for on Tuesday and Friday, and the sentence in the story would say "The two sides met on Friday for the second day this week." But if they met Thursday and Friday, then "second consecutive" comes into place.

All in all, it's much clearer just to say "second straight day" though.

 

[nikolai19]

If these f'in guys don't get this done soon, it's not going to matter what kind of product they put on the ice. Can't they see what the NBA just did? They made the NHL look amateurish to the 100th degree. The CBA fiasco, if they continue to put it off will go down as the dumbest moves in sports management history. My kids will be reading about how these sides ran the sport into the ground and literally out of the public. This used to be a top 4 sport in NA. After these shenanigans, they'll be lucky to get a TV deal with the Reality Network.

Do yourselves a favor, management and labor, get this done and do whatever you can to repair the image you have left in the minds of hockey fans immediately. It's great that you will be okay "economically" however, the more this goes on, the less people will come to the arenas, watch TV, buy merchandise, etc. Right now, I'd be shocked if they project more than a $1billion in revenue next year. Suck it up and get it done and get a product on the ice so fans can get away from the daily grind and not have to watch a 2-1 baseball game, a 70-65 NBA Game 7 Final which has the excitement of doing your taxes, or any other sport.

July 1st isn't an option anymore, it's a deadline for the life of league. There will be plenty of blame to go around when this is all said and done. Figure it out after you sign the CBA.

 

[Larionov]

Aaah, Strachan is back... all is right in the world again.

THIS world, not Strachan's.

...yes, and he is STILL yammering on about the Dec. 9 offer. That was almost seven months ago, yet Al clings to it like a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic. It's actually quite telling, because as a 'PA cheerleader/insider, that was the offer his side was certain would split the owners and get this thing settled on largely status quo terms. So strong was the 'PA's own internal spin on this offer that Al is clearly still in shock and denial over its outright rejection.

Now, like pro-PA blogger Tom Benjamin, Al is reduced to name-calling and personal invective when it comes to referencing management. Hey Al, bitter much?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Look if there isn't hockey this October then that means that the players are full of ****, greedy ass holes. Sorry for swaring but that's what they are.

Swaring isn't the worst thing about your post.

 

[rabi]

(I also believe 'second consecutive' is redundant as consecutive already means 'one after the other' - ie: at least two days...therefore, it should read 'for a consecutive day...' - then on to 'third consecutive day - etc.' - - - just as there's no such thing as 'first annual' ........bad editors! BAD.)

There is such a thing as "First annual"...

It implies that it will happen every year and that this was the first occurance...

 

[SENSible1*]

...yes, and he is STILL yammering on about the Dec. 9 offer. That was almost seven months ago, yet Al clings to it like a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic. It's actually quite telling, because as a 'PA cheerleader/insider, that was the offer his side was certain would split the owners and get this thing settled on largely status quo terms. So strong was the 'PA's own internal spin on this offer that Al is clearly still in shock and denial over its outright rejection.

Now, like pro-PA blogger Tom Benjamin, Al is reduced to name-calling and personal invective when it comes to referencing management. Hey Al, bitter much?

Reading Tom's whiny little *****-fest has become quite amusing. Guess it's tough to watch the side you support take it dry.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

buyouts will lower player salaries thru simple supply and demand...the more players that get bought out, the more ufas available. and the more players teams have to choose from the less they have to offer.

for example if jarome iginla is the only top forward available and 10 teams are looking for a top free agent, they will bid against each other to get him and someone will overpay. but if iginla, thornton, hedjuk, naslund, forsberg, st. louis, etc are all free agents then teams don't have to outbid each other because if you miss out on iginla there is still another superstar available.

as for the rollback, yes it frees up $$ but it would take a gm with the IQ of a mildly Pejorative Slured cucumber to offer contracts based on the old market. when a player goes into negotiations he doesn't simply say "I want $5 mil" he says "i'm better than players A & B and want to be paid accordingly" if those players make $5 mil that means that the player is asking for $5 mil. but after the rollback, players A & B are making $3.8 mil. so the market value for that player has been reduced by 24%. if that team is stupid enough to pay based on the old market then they are morons and deserve to get killed by the luxury tax and cap.

and most of the teams that throw around $$ don't have a ton of cap room to free up, it isn't like a team with a $50 mil payroll can say "we saved $12 mil on the rollback so we can sign $12 mil worth of additional players" because that rollback would leave them at $38 mil which is out or above the cap without adding anyone.

I understand your what you are saying, but you are missing my point. It's obvious that new contracts will be on a whole different pay-scale, and the players are going to be making less money. The "market value" of players is going to be reset. But without the rollback and buy-out options, only the players that are not under contract bear those costs.

IMO, your Iginla example is a bad one. There will always be more teams looking for those types of players than there are available. The issue is going to be who has the cap room, and $'s available in the budget to go after them.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you have a salary cap, it's all about allocating those $'s to your players. The rollback and buy-out options will free up $'s to pay players that don't have current contracts. Since 80% of the players don't have current contracts, it is in their best interest to make sure that the teams have as much flexibility as possible to sign NEW contracts.

 

[Thresher]

Actually, "second consecutive" is not redundant. You can meet for on Tuesday and Friday, and the sentence in the story would say "The two sides met on Friday for the second day this week." But if they met Thursday and Friday, then "second consecutive" comes into place.

Consecutive is defined as *two* days - side-by-side, one after the other

actually, 'second consecutive' would make more sense if referring to meetings that took place on Mon/Tues and theeen say on Thurs/Fri....So to say 'met for a consecutive time on Tuesday' - we already know Monday is *implied*.

And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.

I'm a journalism student - these technical trivialities get pounded into our brains...such as - 'more than' should be used w/ numbers - not 'over' - - - but no one ever follows that rule.

All in all - I suppose it's like obeying all the rules of the road when you first get your license to drive...and then eventually you ease up on making complete stops, slowing down for yellow lights or watching the speed limit.

 

[Jack Canuck]

And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.

Are you sure you cannot say first annual even if there is clear intention to make it an annual event?

 

[Kritter471]

Consecutive is defined as *two* days - side-by-side, one after the other

actually, 'second consecutive' would make more sense if referring to meetings that took place on Mon/Tues and theeen say on Thurs/Fri....So to say 'met for a consecutive time on Tuesday' - we already know Monday is *implied*.

And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.

I'm a journalism student - these technical trivialities get pounded into our brains...such as - 'more than' should be used w/ numbers - not 'over' - - - but no one ever follows that rule.

All in all - I suppose it's like obeying all the rules of the road when you first get your license to drive...and then eventually you ease up on making complete stops, slowing down for yellow lights or watching the speed limit.

I'm a journalism major as well, so I know my stuff. And the 2003 AP stylebook has nothing on the word "consecutive," but this is how it's taught in Dallas.

Dictionary.com definition - "Following one after another without interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days; won five consecutive games on the road. "

Consecutive is the linking of an object of length of time with a prior object or length of time, which need not be in equal parts. So you can say, for example, "fifth consecutive home run" which would like the fifth home run with a previous series of four.

Not trying to be a grammar dork, but I'm a senior stuck in an editing class right now and hey, why not try and learn something.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by Thresher

And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.

Are you sure you cannot say first annual even if there is clear intention to make it an annual event?

It appears to be an unresolved issue to be covered in the next grammar CBA.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/hints/firstannual.htm

Usage manuals choose not to address this usage, but it is a question asked as often as any other. The logic (if we can call it that) is that something cannot be called "annual" until a year has passed between its inaugural happening and its second manifestation. Therefore, the first event cannot be referred to as the "first annual." In fact, some people argue that the second event in a series is actually the "first annual" (because it's the first time that something has happened on an annual basis), which really confuses people. Whether this is foolishness or not, it seems that enough people belong to this faith that it's probably a good idea to call a first event (even one that is guaranteed to occur every year thereafter) the inaugural or first occasion. On the other hand, virtually everyone knows that the First Annual Fund-Raising Event refers to an event that is happening this year for the first time and that someone is planning and hoping that this event will happen on an annual basis. Our advice then: go ahead and use first annual to describe such an event but know that someone is going to ask what you mean by it.

 

[Thresher]

excellent Kritter471! Gotta love it, eh...anyhow 'Following one after another without interruption' - and the min. is two......two & consecutive is redundant - just as saying "two in a row" as it wouldn't be a row unless there were at least *two* people..........but four homeruns vs five homeruns is justifiable - or, saying they had 'four homeruns' in four games and then, say a month passes, 'four homeruns' in four games again would equal a 'second consecutive series of homeruns' - in that regard.

"clear intention" - but not official - a year must past to make it legit as 'annual' - I've learned this the hard way (ie: articles tossed in the trash & a failing grade) - but thank you kdb209.