Sugar or Sour - next offer from NHL ?

[Brent Burns Beard]

The league will make one final offer.

Do they

1) Table the sweetest offer they can, hoping its enough for the committee to send to a vote.

or

2) Table the most draconian offer yet, knowing its the offer they will implement next season.

On one hand, the PA can say, look the last offer wasnt good enough to send to a vote and if the owners buy that and make it better, i think a vote would get hockey back on the ice. On the other hand, if the owners truly want to ruin the NHLPA (and the NHL at the same time), they will go with option 2.

What does everyone here think they will do ?

Click to read more...

 

[craig1]

I see the NHL as making their best offer basically during the current sessions....after that, they will continue with the same offer until it is accepted by the PA (Some year).....with minor alterations.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

its interesting to see the clear divide so far in the polling ...

guess we will see soon.

dr

 

[misterjaggers]

I don't think the NHL wants an impasse. They don't want to blow up the union. They're waiting until the union membership feels enough wallet pain to cry "uncle." So, I reject the premise of your poll.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I don't think the NHL wants an impasse. They don't want to blow up the union. They're waiting until the union membership feels enough wallet pain to cry "uncle." So, I reject the premise of your poll.

so should i have an option C ? the NHL wont make another offer ?

otherwise, it sounds like you would vote for A

dr

 

[wazee]

so should i have an option C ? the NHL wont make another offer ?

otherwise, it sounds like you would vote for A

dr

I cannot vote for either of your options. For starters, I do not buy your premise that the owners have only two options. Nor do I buy your assumption that if the owners do not offer a 'sweet' proposal that they want impasse. IMO, if the owners offer basically what they offered a couple of days ago, that is a sweet enough offer. How about an option stating the NHLPA will allow its members to vote on the current offer or that the NHLPA will step up to the plate with an offer the owners can accept?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I cannot vote for either of your options. For starters, I do not buy your premise that the owners have only two options. Nor do I buy your assumption that if the owners do not offer a 'sweet' proposal that they want impasse. IMO, if the owners offer basically what they offered a couple of days ago, that is a sweet enough offer. How about an option stating the NHLPA will allow its members to vote on the current offer or that the NHLPA will step up to the plate with an offer the owners can accept?

i see your point. however, i think the challenge for the owners is to get the executive to let it go to vote. for that to happen the owners will have to completly alter the triple cap and arbitration components.

if they come back with something similar to what we have heard they proposed in the meeting, its certain the executive will walk away. in my opinion, if you believe they will do this, you would choose the 2nd option. an offer of that nature is one they know will not be accepted or wont even get to a vote. so why bother unless they just want to set the table "properly" in case they choose the implenetation route.

dr

 

[wazee]

i see your point. however, i think the challenge for the owners is to get the executive to let it go to vote. for that to happen the owners will have to completly alter the triple cap and arbitration components.

if they come back with something similar to what we have heard they proposed in the meeting, its certain the executive will walk away. in my opinion, if you believe they will do this, you would choose the 2nd option. an offer of that nature is one they know will not be accepted or wont even get to a vote. so why bother unless they just want to set the table "properly" in case they choose the implenetation route.

dr

Why bother, indeed? IMO, the challenge for the owners is to put in place a structure that restores the financial stability. Granted, the league could submit a proposal that dropped some of the stuff they have recently included...like the so-called triple salary cap...stuff they probably put it so they would have something to drop. They cannot drop the salary cap, but they can call it by a different name. What would you consider a 'sweet' enough offer that Goodenow would allow the player to vote?

 

[SENSible1*]

I have a question for the PA supporters.

If the Impasse/Implementation scenario using replacement players is as far fetched as most of you claim, why do you then suggest that the NHL is preparing an offer designed to help them go that route?

Do you imagine that the people running the NHL are stupid or not aware of the problems with that scenario?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I have a question for the PA supporters.

If the Impasse/Implementation scenario using replacement players is as far fetched as most of you claim, why do you then suggest that the NHL is preparing an offer designed to help them go that route?

Do you imagine that the people running the NHL are stupid or not aware of the problems with that scenario?

well, i will speak for myself here.

they might not be able to go that route, but certainly have in mind the right course of action so that it remains viable if they take the gamble.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

well, i will speak for myself here.

they might not be able to go that route, but certainly have in mind the right course of action so that it remains viable if they take the gamble.

dr

Once again.

If the scenario is as impossible as PA apologists claim, why bother take any steps to keep it viable?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Once again.

If the scenario is as impossible as PA apologists claim, why bother take any steps to keep it viable?

why are you always so argumentative.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

why are you always so argumentative.

dr

Why won't you answer the question?

I ask the question to point out the fuzzy logic I think is being employed. Perhaps you can show me where I a missing something.

If I don't ask you the question, how can I understand your position?

 

[saillias]

I'd like them to do option 1 but I think they will go with 2.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Why won't you answer the question?

I ask the question to point out the fuzzy logic I think is being employed. Perhaps you can show me where I a missing something.

If I don't ask you the question, how can I understand your position?

because you are the one with fuzzy logic.

i will speak for myself though.

from what i read impasse wont be a problem. the owners can call it if they choose. its up to the union to challenge it. the risk of course is that if the owners havent crossed their "i's" and dotted their "t's" it could really backfire on them.

the other problem the owners will have though will be using replacements.

regardless, i dont doubt that they want to keep the option open, even if its fraught with major bumps in the road.

whats more important (to them) in your opinion, finding a solution that works for their "ideology" or crushing the union.

dr

ok, now stop arguing with me.

 

[thinkwild]

Which one is the sugar again?

I would suspect the next offer from the NHL will be a hard cap. Has anything changed yet? I still dont think the majority of players would accept it. Many would though. The owners want to exploit that as much as possible, im sure they would love to force a difficult vote on it.

Sports and labour laws could be in a for a decade of challenges. The field is open. The time is right. As Bettman says, thats why I have a lot of lawyers. I worry both sides are going to make a long sacrifice to establish an important tone in the area for the field and the other 3 sports to come.

The gap is so wide, and one side has to budge. Is the pain threshold high enough yet for caving to be accomplished this year? Unless and hopefully, the owners are again just playing the hardball to the max and will give up on hard cap and play a shortest possible season. Likely without Edmonton. Hard to imagine it.

 

[SENSible1*]

because you are the one with fuzzy logic.

i will speak for myself though.

from what i read impasse wont be a problem. the owners can call it if they choose. its up to the union to challenge it. the risk of course is that if the owners havent crossed their "i's" and dotted their "t's" it could really backfire on them.

the other problem the owners will have though will be using replacements.

regardless, i dont doubt that they want to keep the option open, even if its fraught with major bumps in the road.

My point is that the bumps in the road are either much smaller than the case being presented here or the owners would never go that route, unless they are idiots.

whats more important (to them) in your opinion, finding a solution that works for their "ideology" or crushing the union.

I think that they want control of their business.

ok, now stop arguing with me.

And here I am thinking we are having a discussion. Silly me.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think that they want control of their business.

of course they do. many would argue they have it now, but thats another thread.

back to the point of the poll.

will they try and get control of that business by tabling an offer that the players feel they can take to a vote or will they pull back to their early extreme positions based on a strategy involving impasse.

my opinion is that the model offered currently is an easy one for the executive to walk away from without a vote. will the owners find an offer that compels the executive to call a vote ?

i am on the record as stating the owners will never make an offer that doest include linkage, so of course i expect their next one to include it.

ok ?

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If the Impasse/Implementation scenario using replacement players is as far fetched as most of you claim, why do you then suggest that the NHL is preparing an offer designed to help them go that route?

Do you imagine that the people running the NHL are stupid or not aware of the problems with that scenario?

I think impasse, implementation and replacement players are a non-starter. It is just not going to happen for a million reasons. Therefore, anybody who says they prepared this offer or didn't prepare that one to win a case in a courtroom is wrong in my opinion.

I think the owners do feel under pressure to make an offer. They can't let the season slip away without putting their best offer on the table and this is miles from their best offer. They are letting the season slip away without putting a firm offer on the table. They've indicated a willingness to compromise cost (but not certainty), qualifying offers, even arbitration, and free agency. Let's see the best offer in each of these respects. Let's see the Gary Bettman compromise CBA.

Let's lay something on the table that is tempting.

Under pressure or not, the owners can't make a final offer, so I don't think they will. I don't think the owners went into this with a "Plan B" if the players passed on negotiating around the owner's framework.

How can the owners unilaterally increase the range for a salary cap to something that might tempt the players? How can Gary lower the free agency age if the players don't ask for it? If they negotiate a range of $35 million to $50 million, Gary can sigh and say "I had to give something to get certainty. Small market GMs tell me they can live with a $15 million spread, but not a $45 million spread."

(This, of course, ignores the fact that if Toronto can spend $45 million more but is limited to spending it on players over 31, this is a small advantage. Lower the salary bar by 25%, and then give Toronto access to players at age 27. The $15 million is a huge advantage.)

Do nothing and maintain the fiction this CBA is about helping small markets, or table an offer that unilaterally gives clear advantages to the large market teams. That seems to be the choice.

I say they do nothing.

Tom

 

[leaflover]

I vote nothing changes.I believe each side misjudged the resolve of the other and called bluff.Problem is neither side was bluffing,i dont doubt both sides are thinking oh ***t!