NHL CBA-related Goodness ... Badness ... whatever

[Habspatrol]

That means that erasing GMs/Owners mistakes = even less money available for current contracts though.

The money is going to NHLPA members, therefore it comes out of the players' share. Its really pretty straight forward.

[hockeylover]

The money is going to NHLPA members, therefore it comes out of the players' share. Its really pretty straight forward.

Do you understand why the players might have an issue with (hypothetical example) the Vancouver Canucks, one year removed from handing Luongo a 15 year deal, deciding to buy him out and the players being on the hook for both his buyout money AND his new salary coming out of their already reduced pie?

[Habspatrol]

Do you understand why the players might have an issue with (hypothetical example) the Vancouver Canucks, one year removed from handing Luongo a 15 year deal, deciding to buy him out and the players being on the hook for both his buyout money AND his new salary coming out of their already reduced pie?

I understand why they wouldn't want the money coming out of their share, because it allows them to ultimately receive more money. Anything that allows them to get paid outside the system is a bonus.

You can obviously see why the owners wouldn't want to pay player money that doesn't go against the overall players' share too though right? Especially when the owners don't want compliance buyouts in the first place. Allowing them is a concession. I'm not saying that it's a massive concession, but it is a concession nonetheless.

[andyt]

I understand why they wouldn't want the money coming out of their share, because it allows them to ultimately receive more money. Anything that allows them to get paid outside the system is a bonus.

You can obviously see why the owners wouldn't want to pay player money that doesn't go against the overall players' share too though right? Especially when the owners don't want compliance buyouts in the first place. Allowing them is a concession. I'm not saying that it's a massive concession, but it is a concession nonetheless.

Maybe the owners should have behaved like businessmen and not fanboys. Then they wouldn't have to be saved from themselves by the players. Again.

Go back to HLs post. Who in their right mind would hand Luongo or DiPietro contracts like that? The players should be punished because Charles Wang is an idiot?

[CarolinaPen]

Maybe the owners should have behaved like businessmen and not fanboys. Then they wouldn't have to be saved from themselves by the players. Again.

Go back to HLs post. Who in their right mind would hand Luongo or DiPietro contracts like that? The players should be punished because Charles Wang is an idiot?

Funny thing with your post is the owners are trying to act like businessmen by controlling their costs. It is hard to have it both ways. Sad thing is they need to do this, because they are too stupid to be responsible in handing out contracts. The owners are not operating in a vacuum (players and agents have a lot to do with the dumb contracts as well), and if they didn't act in ways that pushed the limits of existing rules they would quickly be sued by NHLPA or accused of working to keep free agent costs down.

Given the current position of the NHL as related to other pro leagues and CBA agreements, what exactly do you consider a fair deal from the owners? Is it really that far off the existing proposal? The whole "saved by the players" vibe is just laughable to me. There isn't any common sense coming from either side or they wouldn't have already thrown away the money they have. Neither side ever makes it back up. All the NHL (owners and players) continue to demonstrate is why the NHL is in the lower tier of professional sports with only niche interest nationally.

[TheBigKahuna]

... There isn't any common sense coming from either side or they wouldn't have already thrown away the money they have. Neither side ever makes it back up. All the NHL (owners and players) continue to demonstrate is why the NHL is in the lower tier of professional sports with only niche interest nationally.

The NHL will never be a top tier pro sport in the US. And lockouts like this, only do more damage. The NHL WILL lose fans because of this nonsense. The money they have already lost, will never be made back.

If ONE good thing comes out of this, it should be the firing of Gary Bettman.

[Habspatrol]

Maybe the owners should have behaved like businessmen and not fanboys. Then they wouldn't have to be saved from themselves by the players. Again.

Go back to HLs post. Who in their right mind would hand Luongo or DiPietro contracts like that? The players should be punished because Charles Wang is an idiot?

So you agree with the owners then? There should be no compliance buyouts.

[andyt]

So you agree with the owners then? There should be no compliance buyouts.

It's an either or. Either the compliance buyouts get funded out of the owners share or there are no compliance buyouts. They may not see it, but it's more for their benefit than the players, a way for them to cure buyers remorse and get out of one stupid contract.

[Habspatrol]

No it's not... it's a players' issue. They want compliance buyouts and the owners do not. It's not for the owners' benefit at all.

[andyt]

Funny thing with your post is the owners are trying to act like businessmen by controlling their costs. It is hard to have it both ways. Sad thing is they need to do this, because they are too stupid to be responsible in handing out contracts. The owners are not operating in a vacuum (players and agents have a lot to do with the dumb contracts as well), and if they didn't act in ways that pushed the limits of existing rules they would quickly be sued by NHLPA or accused of working to keep free agent costs down.

Given the current position of the NHL as related to other pro leagues and CBA agreements, what exactly do you consider a fair deal from the owners? Is it really that far off the existing proposal? The whole "saved by the players" vibe is just laughable to me. There isn't any common sense coming from either side or they wouldn't have already thrown away the money they have. Neither side ever makes it back up. All the NHL (owners and players) continue to demonstrate is why the NHL is in the lower tier of professional sports with only niche interest nationally.

They got cost control in the last CBA. When the owners first offer was a 24% salary reduction, in the face of record earnings, they instantly lost all credibility. The max contract length and max year to year increases are there because the owners can't trust themselves not to throw 13 year contracts at Parise and Suter and 15 year contracts at Kovallchuk and DiPietro and a 12 year contract at a then 31 year old Luongo. You made my point in your first paragraph...they're too stupid to be responsible, so they need the players to roll over for them. Players have no responsibility for the dumb contracts. None. The owners can always say no and walk away, something they've done from the last 3 CBAs that they signed. Did Kovalchuk walk into the office and force Lamoriello to sign him to that contract? No. Has any player ever forced an owner to sign him? No.

I think the deal is close. The owners insistence on limiting contract length and a 10 year CBA are what is preventing the deal, IMO. If they drop the max contract length, or extend it to 7 years and drop the shortened term for new signings and drop the CBA length to 8 years, I think they'd get a deal done.

Look at the other leagues. The NFLPA gets just under 50%, but it's tiered. They get 55% of regular season game day revenues and a lower share of playoff and merchandising to bring the overall down to 49.5%. The NBA players get just over 50%, but the owners managed to fund 100% of the make whole. The NHL owners are just over 50% with the additional $50 million for pension funding. None of the other leagues has a max contract length. Because the NBA has a soft cap and a boatload of exceptions, they have a punitive luxury tax. MLB doesn't have a cap but has a luxury tax and revenue sharing system. The luxury tax is one of the reasons why the Yankees haven't spent any money this offseason, so they can get their payroll below $189 million and avoid a higher tax rate.

Everyone wants to demonize Fehr because of what they think he did to baseball, but they've had labor peace for 18 years. They wrapped up the lasr Basic Agreement negotiations i a couple of days, but it wasn't ratified by the players until 5 month later. Did the MLB owners lock the players out without a signed agreement? No. This is Bettman's 3rd lockout since the MLB players struck in 1994.

[andyt]

No it's not... it's a players' issue. They want compliance buyouts and the owners do not. It's not for the owners' benefit at all.

Like I said, they don't see it as a benefit to them, probably because the players proposed it. But it's a way for them to get out of dumb contracts.

[hockeylover]

No it's not... it's a players' issue. They want compliance buyouts and the owners do not. It's not for the owners' benefit at all.

It seems to me it's just something reality necessitates since they want to pay the players 230 million less but have already paid out too much money. There's no other way of getting teams under the cap. Not sure how that counts as a "concession". They brought that on.

[hockeylover]

At the end of the day, during the last lockout I was in the owners' corner. Fans for the most part understood that the system was broken, that we needed cost control and salaries linked to revenues for the league to succeed... even if it meant missing an entire season, there was a purpose and people saw that it was necessary. And after the last lockout, all we heard from the owners was that the new CBA was good, that it would help small market teams and - in the years leading up to this lockout - that the league has been very successful.

This time it's just greed (sure, on both sides). But it wasn't necessary. There was nothing fundamentally "broken" about the last CBA and it's a travesty that a league who just watched their biggest and best US markets bring home Stanley Cups - Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh - to have to sit here without hockey again. It's just a joke.

[Habspatrol]

Like I said, they don't see it as a benefit to them, probably because the players proposed it. But it's a way for them to get out of dumb contracts.

You seem to miss the fact that if they buy out a player they have to replace them with another player.

It's more of a GM issue than an owner issue. A GM would love to be able to buy out players and replace them and have an unlimited budget, the owners, not so much.

[Habspatrol]

It seems to me it's just something reality necessitates since they want to pay the players 230 million less but have already paid out too much money. There's no other way of getting teams under the cap. Not sure how that counts as a "concession". They brought that on.

A lot of those contracts come off the books next season. With the ability to trade cap space and the make whole monies they will be able to work it out.

The compliance buyouts are a PA issue and the owners don't want it.

[CarolinaPen]

T... Players have no responsibility for the dumb contracts. None. The owners can always say no and walk away, something they've done from the last 3 CBAs that they signed. Did Kovalchuk walk into the office and force Lamoriello to sign him to that contract? No. Has any player ever forced an owner to sign him? No.

I agree that no one is forcing the owners/GM's to sign the contracts they do. I clearly think they are crazy and need protection from themselves with new CBA rules.

I cannot agree in anyway with your statement that the players have no responsibility for dumb contracts. That is a ridicules statement. Contract negotiations are a two-way process. The players and agents come up with a lot of the crazy contract terms that end up getting signed. They also play teams against each other, sometimes negotiate in bad faith, and will use extreme contract examples to justify the players contracts.

The entire system is financially broken and both sides assume equal responsibility. The NHL and NHLPA are examples of the most most stupid and stubborn organizations in sports. How else can you explain the damage they have done to the game and the amount of money that is lost (forever)?

[*AH*]

CP, while I haven't often much agreed with your statements, everything you've posted today and recently is absolutely right on and is stated perfectly. The NHL financial system is so broken I can't understand why corporate sponsors would want to get in that bed.

You seem to miss the fact that if they buy out a player they have to replace them with another player.

It's more of a GM issue than an owner issue. A GM would love to be able to buy out players and replace them and have an unlimited budget, the owners, not so much.

HP, yeah the team does have to replace bought-out players with another but hopefully a more effective and less expensive player. And yes contracts are more of a GM issue, few owners actually sign players but some do get involved in big, heavy $$$ deals, see: Leipold and Parise, Suter. And I'd bet the Kovalchuk fiasco was the direct result of a directive. I cannot imagine frugal Lou ever coming up with a dumb-ass deal like that. While it has worked out pretty well for the Devils, it's awfully expensive and restrictive for a long time - and if Ilya becomes another Gomez down the road...? And I'd bet you'd love to see your Habs able to unload said Gomez, eh?

I can't understand why it's 'important' to the PA as 30 members stand to be cast-out and every team/owner/GM has at least one contract they would like to unload, see: Carolina v. Stewart. Now personally I like Tony when he plays the way he should and is capable of but too often doesn't.

[Habspatrol]

When being competitive is such a big factor in selling your product you're going to have GMs doing everything they can to keep their star players and add available star players.

How would Cane fans react if they lost Eric Staal because they were only willing to give him a 4 year $6M per year deal? I assure you that the did not want to give him a 7 year deal at $8.25M a year deal. However, they knew that if they didn't pay up that they'd lose him as soon as he was a UFA. Players and agents do what they can to get as much money as possible and in many cases as long as possible. To claim they have no responsibility for these stupid contracts is beyond laughable.

[Habspatrol]

HP, yeah the team does have to replace bought-out players with another but hopefully a more effective and less expensive player. And yes contracts are more of a GM issue, few owners actually sign players but some do get involved in big, heavy $$$ deals, see: Leipold and Parise, Suter. And I'd bet the Kovalchuk fiasco was the direct result of a directive. I cannot imagine frugal Lou ever coming up with a dumb-ass deal like that. While it has worked out pretty well for the Devils, it's awfully expensive and restrictive for a long time - and if Ilya becomes another Gomez down the road...? And I'd bet you'd love to see your Habs able to unload said Gomez, eh?

I can't understand why it's 'important' to the PA as 30 members stand to be cast-out and every team/owner/GM has at least one contract they would like to unload, see: Carolina v. Stewart. Now personally I like Tony when he plays the way he should and is capable of but too often doesn't.

My guess is that most players would be quite happy to get paid while no having to actually play out their contracts while at the same time being free to sign a new contract somewhere else.

And yeah, as a fan I'd love to see Gomez bought out. I'm sure that our GM would love to be able to rid himself of that contract... but I don't know how much our owner wants to spend $10M on a player who isn't going to play for him... then have to spend money to replace him.

[*AH*]

Why would he/they (Molson family) want to spend $10 mil on a player that doesn't play for them now, tho' taking up a roster spot?