sept 15th 2011

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    sept 15th 2011

    collective bargaining agreement expires
    no matter what else changes  the league MUST dump this guaranteed contract status.  its killing teams!, you cant even dump a slug. its like the nba, when it should be like the nfl  produce or get kicked in the caboose!!it stinks! by the way are seats guaranteed sold in ATLANTA FLORIDA TAMPA PHOENIX NASHVILLE COLUMBUS .....ETC   SO WHY ARE THE CONTRACTS?  and don't tell me about league revenue no league comes close to the nfl for revenue. so get rid of it.every player the b's signed last off season stunk meaning, wideman,lucic,ryder,thomas,krejci you know?how would we be if we could cut guys?  make it happen!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to sept 15th 2011:
    collective bargaining agreement expires no matter what else changes  the league MUST dump this guaranteed contract status. its killing teams!, you cant even dump a slug. its like the nba, when it should be like the nfl  produce or get kicked in the caboose!!it stinks! by the way are seats guaranteed sold in ATLANTA FLORIDA TAMPA PHOENIX NASHVILLE COLUMBUS .....ETC   SO WHY ARE THE CONTRACTS?  and don't tell me about league revenue no league comes close to the nfl foe revenue. so get rid of it.every player the b's signed last off season stunk meaning, wideman,lucic,ryder,thomas,krejci you know?how would we be if we could cut guys?  make it happen!
    Posted by paulbking


    It's such a mess.  The lockout occurs to keep salaries down, and the first thing these idiot GMs do is max their salary cap.  The second thing they do is create the long term "$500K for the final three years" deals to circumvent the salary cap that they fought so hard to get.  Lastly, they decide that a player's second contract is what used to be his third contract, and we have guys with less than 100 NHL goals making $4M for the next six years.

    Total disaster.

    Work stoppage pending.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    WOW NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOTT
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    WHY NO POSTS???? YOU GUYS MUST CARE???? I WON'T TO KNOW!! WHAT YOU B'S LOVERS  LIKE ME  THINK??
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jake1977. Show Jake1977's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to sept 15th 2011:
    collective bargaining agreement expires no matter what else changes  the league MUST dump this guaranteed contract status. its killing teams!, you cant even dump a slug. its like the nba, when it should be like the nfl  produce or get kicked in the caboose!!it stinks! by the way are seats guaranteed sold in ATLANTA FLORIDA TAMPA PHOENIX NASHVILLE COLUMBUS .....ETC   SO WHY ARE THE CONTRACTS?  and don't tell me about league revenue no league comes close to the nfl for revenue. so get rid of it.every player the b's signed last off season stunk meaning, wideman,lucic,ryder,thomas,krejci you know?how would we be if we could cut guys?  make it happen!
    Posted by paulbking


    I agree, it should be like the NFL....players should get paid for performance.  The only guaranteed money you get is the bonus upfront for signing, then if you "perform" you earn another year of the contract you signed. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    In Response to sept 15th 2011 : I agree, it should be like the NFL....players should get paid for performance.  The only guaranteed money you get is the bonus upfront for signing, then if you "perform" you earn another year of the contract you signed. 
    Posted by Jake1977
    I TOTALLY AGREE!!! SO WHAT'S UP???   IMAGINE BEING ABLE TO DUMP RYDER? STURM?  SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS BUT THIS THE BIGGEST ISSUE ON HERE AND NO POSTS????? WHAT R THEY ON HERE?   DEMOCRATS??


    JUST KIDDING  KINDA!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

       I was one that thought this was a terrible deal for the owners when it was signed.
    Some errors that need correcting are:
    1-Better revenue sharing, or a reduction in the minimun cap.
    2-More compensation if a team loses RFA. It would stop these huge 2nd             contracts that teams are having to give out.
    3-Longer amount of years for someone to become a UFA.

    And lastly...The NHL should try and go over every possible way the GM's will try to circumvent the rules, and eliminate them. Even put a clause in that allows the league to terminate any deals "not in keeping with the spirit of the CBA agreement".
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
       I was one that thought this was a terrible deal for the owners when it was signed. Some errors that need correcting are: 1-Better revenue sharing, or a reduction in the minimun cap. 2-More compensation if a team loses RFA. It would stop these huge 2nd             contracts that teams are having to give out. 3-Longer amount of years for someone to become a UFA. And lastly...The NHL should try and go over every possible way the GM's will try to circumvent the rules, and eliminate them. Even put a clause in that allows the league to terminate any deals "not in keeping with the spirit of the CBA agreement".
    Posted by biggskye


    Awesome post.  I love the idea of termination for being shady.  I also love the idea of more compensation to keep the poachers at bay.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from derrickmorin. Show derrickmorin's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    If the '2nd contract' still existed there wouldn't be near the cap troubles most teams have.  Teams are now basically penalized for drafting well and producing good players because they can't afford to keep them all after their entry level deals.  

    I know Kevin Lowe is blamed for ruining the 2nd contract with his offer sheet to Penner but if I remember correctly, Bergeron was signed to his 5 year deal before that?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    The whole point of the Cap is to try to keep salaries from spiraling out of control.  Guaranteed contracts help this by trying to make sure GMs really think about what a player is worth.  Bad contracts hurt the team, and that makes it difficult to get out of them.  It seems that many GMs haven't learned that yet.  Giving them a free out will only cause them to hand out even more ridiculous un-earned contracts, only then they would be able to dump them or renegotiate if the player doesn't live up to expectations.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    If the '2nd contract' still existed there wouldn't be near the cap troubles most teams have.  Teams are now basically penalized for drafting well and producing good players because they can't afford to keep them all after their entry level deals.   I know Kevin Lowe is blamed for ruining the 2nd contract with his offer sheet to Penner but if I remember correctly, Bergeron was signed to his 5 year deal before that?
    Posted by derrickmorin


    Eric Staal's 3 year, $13.5M deal preceeded Bergeron's.

    Either way, it's a terribly unhealthy practice.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    Whoa, Paul - a more descriptive headline might have got some of us here sooner!

    I agree in principle re: giving the NHL head office a "for the good of the game" power like the one they have in baseball... then I think about that again and wonder if anything good for the game has ever come out of the NHL head office.

    The players will have their list, too.  They'll want less compensation for RFA offers, shorter terms before players become UFAs, and a higher minimum cap figure.  They're already beating the drum about the current revenue sharing because of the escrow.  I would be too, actually, if my employers could tax me 15% of my salary because they didn't do their job effectively enough.  In other words, most of the things causing problems are collectively bargained concessions to the players for the fact that there's a cap at all.  Short of collusion, there's really no good way to keep salaries from rising as high as the system will allow short of the talent pool becoming overstocked.  The only way that happens is to fold teams.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    Whoa, Paul - a more descriptive headline might have got some of us here sooner! I agree in principle re: giving the NHL head office a "for the good of the game" power like the one they have in baseball... then I think about that again and wonder if anything good for the game has ever come out of the NHL head office. The players will have their list, too.  They'll want less compensation for RFA offers, shorter terms before players become UFAs, and a higher minimum cap figure.  They're already beating the drum about the current revenue sharing because of the escrow.  I would be too, actually, if my employers could tax me 15% of my salary because they didn't do their job effectively enough.  In other words, most of the things causing problems are collectively bargained concessions to the players for the fact that there's a cap at all.  Short of collusion, there's really no good way to keep salaries from rising as high as the system will allow short of the talent pool becoming overstocked.  The only way that happens is to fold teams.
    Posted by Bookboy007

    bookiekid i would give you all your valid points the rfa..the compensation; don't care the contracts are a KILLER  man woudn't you want to DUMP THESE BUMS,,,OR..wait they might perform!i dont know about  the cap minimum  how can teams that dont sell tickets pay it?. on the other hand if you cant pay at least 40 million move to the ahl!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from derrickmorin. Show derrickmorin's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011 : Eric Staal's 3 year, $13.5M deal preceeded Bergeron's. Either way, it's a terribly unhealthy practice.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Nice work yet again! I was thinking there might have been one.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from derrickmorin. Show derrickmorin's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    I think if GM's sign stupid contracts they shouldn't be let off the hook completely but the buyout shouldn't be so expensive.  the NFL's salary is totally ridiculous but I understand there has to be different circumstances because of injuries and uhh..well...legal issues with a lot of players.

    I agree with Burke that teams should be able to take money back in trades and maybe use a similar system as the buyout except lessen the amount counting towards the cap.

    Off the top of my head would it not be nice to see 1/4 against the cap over twice the amount of years owing regardless of age.   In most cases, don't players that are bought out quickly re-sign with other teams, ultimately earning their 1/3 or 2/3's of their salary plus the new salary amount.  (With the exception of Shaefer - no idea where he is at now)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    I think if GM's sign stupid contracts they shouldn't be let off the hook completely but the buyout shouldn't be so expensive.  the NFL's salary is totally ridiculous but I understand there has to be different circumstances because of injuries and uhh..well...legal issues with a lot of players. I agree with Burke that teams should be able to take money back in trades and maybe use a similar system as the buyout except lessen the amount counting towards the cap. Off the top of my head would it not be nice to see 1/4 against the cap over twice the amount of years owing regardless of age.   In most cases, don't players that are bought out quickly re-sign with other teams, ultimately earning their 1/3 or 2/3's of their salary plus the new salary amount.  (With the exception of Shaefer - no idea where he is at now)
    Posted by derrickmorin
    WOW CHEESE N CRAKERS DUDE MAYBE USE
    2\8THS OF A %to figure sheite out?   make it simple and easy its not that complicated, play get paid sick see u later  see nfl
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    My favorite ideas will never happen.  I'd love one of two things to happen:

    1. The Sather system.  With the exception of entry level players, every year, every player is a free agent.  Every year, every player is in a contract year.  GMs would have to weigh how much they're willing to pay for top players, mid-level players, role players, and developmental players and shop accordingly.  They'd have to think about continuity.  Coaches, ironically, would become part of building a team brand.  The trap would effectively disappear - because name me a player who says "hey, let's play the trap!"

    2. The Purse (or maybe its Communism).  Cup winning team splits the largest share of the revenue sharing dollars, with everyone else getting progressively less depending on when they were eliminated and not won-lost records - so all non-playoff teams get the salary budget.  In season pay cheques are based on the minimum salary budget, with all other moneys as playoff bonuses.  Teams bid on players in Free Agency or in contract renegotiations etc. in terms of percentage of team salary rather than gross dollars.  It's a pure pay-for-performance, and performance means winning not stats.  Isn't this what we all want to see?  Is there a better motivation for competitive athletes than win and you get paid?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    My favorite ideas will never happen.  I'd love one of two things to happen: 1. The Sather system.  With the exception of entry level players, every year, every player is a free agent.  Every year, every player is in a contract year.  GMs would have to weigh how much they're willing to pay for top players, mid-level players, role players, and developmental players and shop accordingly.  They'd have to think about continuity.  Coaches, ironically, would become part of building a team brand.  The trap would effectively disappear - because name me a player who says "hey, let's play the trap!" 2. The Purse (or maybe its Communism).  Cup winning team splits the largest share of the revenue sharing dollars, with everyone else getting progressively less depending on when they were eliminated and not won-lost records - so all non-playoff teams get the salary budget.  In season pay cheques are based on the minimum salary budget, with all other moneys as playoff bonuses.  Teams bid on players in Free Agency or in contract renegotiations etc. in terms of percentage of team salary rather than gross dollars.  It's a pure pay-for-performance, and performance means winning not stats.  Isn't this what we all want to see?  Is there a better motivation for competitive athletes than win and you get paid?
    Posted by Bookboy007
    why not not just kill the guaranteed contracts???
    it would be the same
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulbking. Show paulbking's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
       I was one that thought this was a terrible deal for the owners when it was signed. Some errors that need correcting are: 1-Better revenue sharing, or a reduction in the minimun cap. 2-More compensation if a team loses RFA. It would stop these huge 2nd             contracts that teams are having to give out. 3-Longer amount of years for someone to become a UFA. And lastly...The NHL should try and go over every possible way the GM's will try to circumvent the rules, and eliminate them. Even put a clause in that allows the league to terminate any deals "not in keeping with the spirit of the CBA agreement".
    Posted by biggskye
    better revenue sharing? if i pay 300 milion for the Boston bruins and you pay 100 million for the phoenix coyotes   i should be able to make more money than you, if you do well  and make money good, but if i do better and make make more money thats my perogitive, that's y my franchise casts  more in the beginning i need to make back my 300 mill? see
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011 : better revenue sharing? if i pay 300 milion for the Boston bruins and you pay 100 million for the phoenix coyotes   i should be able to make more money than you, if you do well  and make money good, but if i do better and make make more money thats my perogitive, that's y my franchise casts  more in the beginning i need to make back my 300 mill? see
    Posted by paulbking

       As a fan, I agree with you.
    I have no problem with a 25 team NHL. I was just just trying to think like Bettman:) He is the one that will be re-negotiating.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011 : better revenue sharing? if i pay 300 milion for the Boston bruins and you pay 100 million for the phoenix coyotes   i should be able to make more money than you, if you do well  and make money good, but if i do better and make make more money thats my perogitive, that's y my franchise casts  more in the beginning i need to make back my 300 mill? see
    Posted by paulbking


    This is one point of view.  Another is that without the other teams, your team is  worthless.  Revenue sharing isn't 50/50.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wallydouglas. Show wallydouglas's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    Every  team should get to designate one player as the franchise player, his salary should not count against the cap during the life of the contract. I know thats no different really that raising the cap.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    The idea of the franchise player goes against the idea of the salary cap.  Some teams (the richer ones) would be for it, while the majority of the clubs would be against it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: sept 15th 2011

    In Response to Re: sept 15th 2011:
    How about going to a completely incentive based system?   Every player gets minimum NHL Salary and is compensated solely upon performance. It motivates players to perform and management only has to pay when they do well. Not sure if i would have set performance figures (i.e. 250K for 10 goals, 1M for 20, etc etc) or if each player would have his own figures.. thoughts?
    Posted by bhsreddevil12


    I believe this is what caused the NHLPA to be formed. The problem was once a player got close to getting his performance goal. The owners would then force the coaches to reduce playing time, or start fining players for being 30 sec late for practice, or they'd get one player to accept a team jacket & the other $1500 signing bonus. (Howe & Lindsey)
    Not saying it would get to this extreme, but get the idea? Paying on performances only would be great in a "perfect world" however, remember these owners are business men & they cut corners to save a dollar. So, having things this way is giving far too much power to the owners.
     

Share