Stan Fischler: Goodenow to blame

Status
Not open for further replies.

xerburt

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
346
0
vancouver
Visit site
Going back to the article, the following excerpt is probably the most important thing to note in the entire article:

But what will the NHLPA gain next year that it wouldn't obtain by striking a capped deal right now?

Not a heck of a lot.

If the owners are as resilient as they make themselves out to be, there really is no benefit for the NHLPA to hold out to the end with their current stance. In fact, if they do, they will in all likelihood lose out.
 

struckmatch

Registered User
Jul 28, 2003
4,224
0
Vancouver
xerburt said:
Going back to the article, the following excerpt is probably the most important thing to note in the entire article:



If the owners are as resilient as they make themselves out to be, there really is no benefit for the NHLPA to hold out to the end with their current stance. In fact, if they do, they will in all likelihood lose out.

Exactly, the owners are ready to go to 2 years, no less, are 700+ players going to last 2 full years without NHL paycheques? I doubt it. The PA is better off negotiating a stiff luxury tax right now, instead of driving this to an impasse, and being forced under an economic system in which they have no say whatsoever.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Yup. It makes no sense to fight this. Agree to the cap, then let the stupid greeedy owners figure out ways to get around it as they always do, and watch their salaries soar through the roof as usual.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
puck you said:
I think you should show me the major concessions the PA has made.

again, if you havent been paying attention you wouldnt need to ask.

the players have offered and are willing to negotiate the #'s:

- roll back in salaries
- luxury tax
- rookie cap and bonus reductions
- negotiate changes to arbitration process and rules

Seems to me those are considerable concessions to what everyone claims is "status quo". The total result is a over 100m in concessions. Even if you believe the Levvitt Report, the players have contributed to fixing half the leagues problems, surely the owners can identify how to fix the other half without imposing a work stoppage that is killing the sport.

But you already knew this, you just prefered to play stupid.

dr
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
nomorekids said:
oh, don't forget, mike modano was willing to trim 25,000 a year off his contract :shakehead

does mike modano make $500,000 per year ?

mike modano was willing to trim $350,000 or more per year. Thats not chump change.

even if you think its nothing for a guy who makes 7m, you multiply this 5% over the 700 or so players and its a good 75-100m in salary roll back.

yup.

dr
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
DementedReality said:
again, if you havent been paying attention you wouldnt need to ask.

the players have offered and are willing to negotiate the #'s:

- roll back in salaries
- luxury tax
- rookie cap and bonus reductions
- negotiate changes to arbitration process and rules

Yes. And as has been said before, the NHL could easily propose no salary cap (a huge concession), but a 90% pay cut.

Doesn't mean it does any good.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
DementedReality said:
mike modano was willing to trim $350,000 or more per year. Thats not chump change.

It seems to be chump change to him. After all, it's probably just enough to feed his dog.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
the problem is that the fat cat players are the ones that won't be affected as much by their "concessions." they stand to lose very little from the things they offer.

"er, well, how about we trim down the rookie max? we'll give you that!"

oh, how gracious! and this from the guys who say that "we're doing this for the guys coming up now."

what a heap. and the rollback of salaries doesn't affect the guys already making too much money. same goes for concessions when it comes to arbitration. If a guy is already making 9 million dollars, he's already had his payday...but he has no problem screwing over the 24 year old winger who deserves to make more than the 650,000 he has been making over a couple of good seasons. i can bet that their arbitration proposal wasn't a two-way system, in which players going to arbitration could LOSE salary, if the arbitrator decided they were making too much. as for the rollback, if there's an average payroll of 30 million, trimming 5 percent...or 1.5 million...isn't going to do a whole lot of good. and the luxury tax ceiling they offered was a joke. do they really think...the small market teams, the edmontons, the buffalos, the nashvilles...are going to benefit from paying 1.5 million a year...and MAYBE getting another million(if they're lucky) from luxury tax, something that only 3 or 4 teams even went over because the number was set so low? you must not enjoy the NHL very much, because this formula, this altruistic submission by the players..would slow the fact that
 

struckmatch

Registered User
Jul 28, 2003
4,224
0
Vancouver
DementedReality said:
again, if you havent been paying attention you wouldnt need to ask.

the players have offered and are willing to negotiate the #'s:

- roll back in salaries
- luxury tax
- rookie cap and bonus reductions
- negotiate changes to arbitration process and rules

Seems to me those are considerable concessions to what everyone claims is "status quo". The total result is a over 100m in concessions. Even if you believe the Levvitt Report, the players have contributed to fixing half the leagues problems, surely the owners can identify how to fix the other half without imposing a work stoppage that is killing the sport.

But you already knew this, you just prefered to play stupid.

dr

A 5% roll back would be a significant concession if it was tied to a meaningful luxury tax, but the luxury tax was a joke. It was 40 - 50 million, with about 50 cents per dollar on overages. It was a PR offer, they made an offer for the sake of making one.

I'm not playing stupid, I just don't consider a PR offer a subtiansial one.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
5% is *nothing*. That's half a year's salary at best. Even the lowest slugs in the league get a guaranteed 10% raise. The higher paid players get raises of way more than that once they get to arbitration and free agency, usually hundreds of percent.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
puck you said:
A 5% roll back would be a significant concession if it was tied to a meaningful luxury tax, but the luxury tax was a joke. It was 40 - 50 million, with about 50 cents per dollar on overages. It was a PR offer, they made an offer for the sake of making one.

I'm not playing stupid, I just don't consider a PR offer a subtiansial one.

Actually, you are flattering the PA's numbers...

it was 20% on $50 mil, and 30% on $60mil...
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
dawgbone said:
Actually, you are flattering the PA's numbers...

it was 20% on $50 mil, and 30% on $60mil...

OK let's review the basics of negotiation, first one side makes an offer, the other side counters closer to their position, then the other side counter offers. Negotiation does not mean one side sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "we want a cap". That sound like my 3 year old outside the ice cream store.
 

Cully9

Registered User
Oct 15, 2004
101
0
vanlady said:
OK let's review the basics of negotiation, first one side makes an offer, the other side counters closer to their position, then the other side counter offers. Negotiation does not mean one side sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "we want a cap". That sound like my 3 year old outside the ice cream store.

Or is it one side makes an offer, then a worse offer...

Further, if your counterpart makes an offer that you deem too restrictive, you simply call it a "cap", even when it isn't.
 

nomorekids

The original, baby
Feb 28, 2003
33,375
107
Nashville, TN
www.twitter.com
vanlady said:
OK let's review the basics of negotiation, first one side makes an offer, the other side counters closer to their position, then the other side counter offers. Negotiation does not mean one side sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "we want a cap". That sound like my 3 year old outside the ice cream store.


So, say that you're selling a car...the buyer makes it clear that he wants to spend around 25,000 dollars. You push a piece of paper across the table...

"30,000"

Alright, that's fair...it's more than he wants to spend, so he shakes his head. Negotiating has begun. You make your second offer:

"40,000"

Here's where you lose me. That's not negotiating, and neither is upping the ceiling on your proposed luxury tax. That sounds bratty, and if you want to use a metaphor of child-rearing...that's more like, "keep talking and i'll make it two weeks! okay, then...two weeks! do you want to try for three?"

Counter-productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->