#4 = CLASS!

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

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : I see the job of player agent as dirty.  Stereotyping or not, it's my perception.  If I said the same thing about Mike Barnett, no one would blink, but because Bobby Orr is one, everyone is rushing to defend the profession. I'm not suggesting that Orr breaks the law, but the whole Jordan Staal fiasco in Pittsburgh certainly reeked of an agent's stunts, and I don't like those stunts.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    Why would Staal's agent care where he makes his money? The decision to leave Pitt was all on Jordan. His agent makes the same money regardless and gains nothing but a happier client in the end. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:[QUOTE] I doubt Harry Sinden sat down in '97  But you know what?  Screwge that. Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Harry is a great example of how he is the opposite of Wild GM Fletcher and Wild owner Leipold. Sinden walks away from Khristich but Leipold sits across the table smiling at Fehr after signing Suter and Parise to all that money then cries foul at the NHLPAs demands.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Harry is a great example of how he is the opposite of Wild GM Fletcher and Wild owner Leipold. Sinden walks away from Khristich but Leipold sits across the table smiling at Fehr after signing Suter and Parise to all that money then cries foul at the NHLPAs demands.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
    Love him or hate him Harry was any owners dream. Short of winning championships, although the B's made the finals numerous times, Harry always fielded an entertaining and competitive team all the while making Jacob's a boatload of money.He battled hard in contract negotiations and never capitulated to an agent, even with star players. First g.m to walk away from an arbitrators award.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Love him or hate him Harry was any owners dream. Short of winning championships, although the B's made the finals numerous times, Harry always fielded an entertaining and competitive team all the while making Jacob's a boatload of money.He battled hard in contract negotiations and never capitulated to an agent, even with star players. First g.m to walk away from an arbitrators award.
    Posted by 50belowzero[/QUOTE]


    Exactly, he didn't need the protection provided by a  "cap".  And he was smart enough to pay his best players, just enough to stay.  When reviewing those situations when he did "walk", he was right much more than wrong.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Agents drive up prices by telling their clients to refrain from signing a contract during the season.  They drive up prices by telling their clients to wait to be UFA and test the market.  They drive up prices by telling their clients not to sign the deal for millions of dollars a year so they can squeeze more out of the team. And yes, Tom, the NHL was clearly running out of control and needed to scale back.  If I'm making more money than I would ever need and was told that I was now going to make less, but still more than I'd ever need, I'd probably show up for work the next day.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Not without the advice of your agent. And he probably would advise against it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : I guess we can debate levels of sliminess all day long.  Do you think agents "work the system" harder than owners and GM's ?
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    This is the basis of my point -- players, owners, and agents all act aggressively in their own best interests so to paint one party as "slimy" and then regard the others as victims seems inaccurate, if not naive.  I'm not slamming the OP or sticking up for Bobby Orr, I'm saying that agents do exactly what is expected and predictable.  The only reasonable solution to the problem is for owners to be smart and accountable, thereby preventing the worst agents and the worst contracts from proliferating.  The owners have to power to change it all.  

    Asking the agents to stop taking advantage of desperate owners is like asking the paparazzi not to take pictures of a celebrity bikini falling off at the beach.

    Any comarison to baseball, like the Expos, is not at all accurate because of the salary cap.  Yes, the Expos (or Indians today) were ruined by inflated contract offers to every star player from richer teams.  But making a huge contract offer in the NHL is a very risky move because of the cap, and huge contracts are just as likely to handcuff a team as they are to help them.

    All agents are happy to exploit owners and inflate contracts, but owners have the ability to use their tact and skill to make smart signings and gain a competitive advantage by avoiding bad contracts.  Let the best rise to the top, and let the Wang's sink to the bottom.  No sympathy for the losers -- it is a competition after all.

    Again, slimy agents are only successful with the cooperation of an owner.  Inflated contracts are the owners fault.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : This is the basis of my point -- players, owners, and agents all act aggressively in their own best interests so to paint one party as "slimy" and then regard the others as victims seems inaccurate, if not naive.  I'm not slamming the OP or sticking up for Bobby Orr, I'm saying that agents do exactly what is expected and predictable.  The only reasonable solution to the problem is for owners to be smart and accountable, thereby preventing the worst agents and the worst contracts from proliferating.  The owners have to power to change it all.   Asking the agents to stop taking advantage of desperate owners is like asking the paparazzi not to take pictures of a celebrity bikini falling off at the beach. Any comarison to baseball, like the Expos, is not at all accurate because of the salary cap.  Yes, the Expos (or Indians today) were ruined by inflated contract offers to every star player from richer teams.  But making a huge contract offer in the NHL is a very risky move because of the cap, and huge contracts are just as likely to handcuff a team as they are to help them. All agents are happy to exploit owners and inflate contracts, but owners have the ability to use their tact and skill to make smart signings and gain a competitive advantage by avoiding bad contracts.  Let the best rise to the top, and let the Wang's sink to the bottom.  No sympathy for the losers -- it is a competition after all. Again, slimy agents are only successful with the cooperation of an owner.  Inflated contracts are the owners fault.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    Yeah. The owners wisely negotiated a safety net for themselves last time. There is none for the union, the players, or their agents, and I'm fine with that.  But the league know has it's safety net.  The heavy lifting is done.  The big issue here should be what is an acceptable split, and that should only have to be negotiated once more.  A fair spit is just that.  The size of the pie is immaterial moving forward.
    The owners though, want it all, and there current behavior is a great example why the process is so predatory.  Over the years we've had lots of villains, but right now, the owners demands are way, way out of line.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    There's a huge safety net for the players.  It's called a guaranteed contract.  At worst, a player gets 67% of his negotiated salary if he's bought out, and then he's free to go find somewhere else to work if he can.  Shea Weber could play hockey like Shia Leboeuf and still collect around $80M if they bought him out two years from today.

    Size of the pie also matters because, while the percentage is stable, the actual dollars vary.  Teams have to forecast revenues when signing multi-year deals.  Rising revenue means that your $5M investment in a player is a shrinking percentage of your cap space every year.  Declining revenue?  Increasing percentage.  The Cap has nearly doubled; it's a bad gamble to assume it will continue at that rate, and if they ever lose the NBC deal, boy howdy, it will decline.  If and when that happens, I wouldn't want to have a Kovalchuk deal or a Nash deal or Suter deal to cope with.  Someone will say "roll-back" but you know what?  That has to be negotiated, and it probably won't happen if there isn't a lockout first.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : This has always been my thoughts that it can't be 100% but I would say a very hight percentage are pretty slimy.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    SanDog, I think you almost always have a good take on these thread discussions, but I'm not with you on this one.

    What's the high percentage of agents you're talking about? 50 percent? 70? 80? More? It makes a difference.

    More to the point, you have no evidence on which to base your claim that player agents are "pretty slimy." These are real people we're talking about, and they are professionals. If someone were to make unfounded, mean-spirited accusations about a member of your family, you'd probably be upset. Just sayin'.

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

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! :  I'm not with you on this one. What's the high percentage of agents you're talking about? 50 percent? 70? 80? More? It makes a difference. More to the point, you have no evidence on which to base your claim that player agents are "pretty slimy." Posted by felixwas[/QUOTE]

    My general dealings with attorneys have led me to believe that most are- there's one. I woudn't pinpoint an actual percentage as I wouldn't equate statements of "slimy" in relation to speaking about someone's family. I made no such gesture to any agents family, I don't see the correlation.

    I know people who have dealt with or worked for Zito and Rosenhaus. Not one good word was relayed back to me, not one. There was also no mentioning of wives, children or any relatives for that matter either. I have know idea why you would be so sensitive something I didn't mention.

    I left families out of it so should you...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Fletch, the owners have less power individually and when it comes to their legal responsibility toward their employees.  CBAs tend to do a good job of limiting the power of the employer to play games with the employee, and in the NHL, this means that arbitration and anti-collusion language make it difficult for the owners to act unilaterally at player negotiations. No single owner has the power to restrain the system, but one or two idiots can set precedents, and there are semi-binding mechanisms in place that make those precedents the new normal - all it takes is one or two arbitration rulings based on an out of whack signing by an idiot and suddently that's the market threshold for players of that calibre.

    You're arguing against the sliminess of agents by comparing them to the paparazzi?  I win.

    The Cap doesn't invalidate the Expos or Indians or Royals comparison; it's just slightly different because it replaces "budget" with "cap" - either way, Edmonton will have some hard decisions when Eberle, RNH, Hall, Yakupov and whoever else are looking for big money contracts.  RFA means that if they paint themselves in a corner after paying one or two of those guys, they might be vulnerable to offer sheets on the others - and offer sheets are inherently inflationary.  In fact, if you wanted to do a slime comparison with owners, a great example would be the owner who makes a bunch of RFA offer sheets knowing that they'll all be matched, but forcing the teams to take on more salary than they can handle.  Instead we see restraint from ... all but a few idiots.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]There's a huge safety net for the players.  It's called a guaranteed contract.  At worst, a player gets 67% of his negotiated salary if he's bought out, and then he's free to go find somewhere else to work if he can.  Shea Weber could play hockey like Shia Leboeuf and still collect around $80M if they bought him out two years from today. Size of the pie also matters because, while the percentage is stable, the actual dollars vary.  Teams have to forecast revenues when signing multi-year deals.  Rising revenue means that your $5M investment in a player is a shrinking percentage of your cap space every year.  Declining revenue?  Increasing percentage.  The Cap has nearly doubled; it's a bad gamble to assume it will continue at that rate, and if they ever lose the NBC deal, boy howdy, it will decline.  If and when that happens, I wouldn't want to have a Kovalchuk deal or a Nash deal or Suter deal to cope with.  Someone will say "roll-back" but you know what?  That has to be negotiated, and it probably won't happen if there isn't a lockout first.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    You're absolutely right about the contracts, and I can't imagine why that hasn't been a huge issue for the owners. But consider this Book. What you're saying is what we all have to be mindful of. If you're mortgage payment straps you at 2%, you need to think about what will happen if rates go to 5%. We all have to think about the future, and be somewhat responsible today.  If we don't, it hurts us.  Why should these billionaire owners be shielded from the realities of a system that made them rich, and that the rest of us are all supposed to be smart enough to function in.
    I guess we disagree about the split.  I think there's a number that only needs negotiated once.  It would seem to me, the toughie would be finding agreement on actual revenue. If it's a percentage, it moves with the money, and everyone lives with the same realities. I'm not saying the owners don't have things that need to be negotiated, I just have a problem with their overall attitude that they should insulate themselves from every dumb move imaginable, by taking away from the employees.  I'm of the mindset that if you mess up, it's your problem not someone elses. The owners write the checks. they are ultimately responsible.
    Using the Nash or Suter deals, it would seem reasonable that the league would push for a deal wheras those types of contracts are for a percentage of the team cap, not hard dollars.  That's fair, yet somewhat free enterprising.
    Again, there are things that need to be negotiated.  If the owners locked the players out because they no longer went along with guaranteed contracts, i'd be solidly with them, but the bottom line here is, the league is having unprecedented success, but the league doesn't want to share that revenue with itself.  They want the players to float the weak teams.  This will make the fledglings ok, and the already super rich teams like Boston and Toronto, even more filthy rich.  Seems to me, the league should spread the bounty around a bit better.
    Much has been made about the tv deal. It's big, but nowhere as big as I was lead to believe(around$200 mil per). Currently, it's 75 mil plus commission(25 mil maybe)   An extra 100 mil is substantial, but divided 30 ways it isn't.  The fact that the NBA tv package is approximately 450% better shows there's still lots of room for improvement.
    Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you say, I'd  just like to see a fair working arrangement.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Yeah. The owners wisely negotiated a safety net for themselves last time. There is none for the union, the players, or their agents, and I'm fine with that.  But the league know has it's safety net.  The heavy lifting is done.  The big issue here should be what is an acceptable split, and that should only have to be negotiated once more.  A fair spit is just that.  The size of the pie is immaterial moving forward. The owners though, want it all, and there current behavior is a great example why the process is so predatory.  Over the years we've had lots of villains, but right now, the owners demands are way, way out of line.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Which ones?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]Fletch, the owners have less power individually and when it comes to their legal responsibility toward their employees.  CBAs tend to do a good job of limiting the power of the employer to play games with the employee, and in the NHL, this means that arbitration and anti-collusion language make it difficult for the owners to act unilaterally at player negotiations. No single owner has the power to restrain the system, but one or two idiots can set precedents, and there are semi-binding mechanisms in place that make those precedents the new normal - all it takes is one or two arbitration rulings based on an out of whack signing by an idiot and suddently that's the market threshold for players of that calibre. You're arguing against the sliminess of agents by comparing them to the paparazzi?  I win. The Cap doesn't invalidate the Expos or Indians or Royals comparison; it's just slightly different because it replaces "budget" with "cap" - either way, Edmonton will have some hard decisions when Eberle, RNH, Hall, Yakupov and whoever else are looking for big money contracts.  RFA means that if they paint themselves in a corner after paying one or two of those guys, they might be vulnerable to offer sheets on the others - and offer sheets are inherently inflationary.  In fact, if you wanted to do a slime comparison with owners, a great example would be the owner who makes a bunch of RFA offer sheets knowing that they'll all be matched, but forcing the teams to take on more salary than they can handle.  Instead we see restraint from ... all but a few idiots.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Book, again, you seem to think I'm sticking up for agents, which I'm not.  What I'm arguing against is your whistling past the graveyard of owners writing outrageous checks, and then saying it's the agents fault.  I'm not even sure that who is at fault matters very much.

    Agents, used-car salesman, divorce lawyers, paparazzi, and snake oil salesmen aren't going to wake up tomorrow and have a moral reconciliation.  Nor should they really.  Expect them to do what they do.

    What's more important than who is at fault, is how to fix the problem.  Changes to the CBA, new contract regulations, or giving agents morality training (TT?) all seem woefully unrealistic to solve a problem that could be solved by the owners themselves.  Like steve said, they need to plan for the future too and consider the uncertainty of the cap.  That's not so hard, and those who do it well will be rewarded.  They need to find more effective ways of building quality rosters than throwing top dollar at the FA market.  Some teams do this already, others don't.  I feel like you are suggesting that everybody change the system to protect the owners who have failed at the current system.  Failed, on the basis of their own free-will and bad decisions.

    Minnesota has taken in incredible gamble.  One that every other team basically balked at.  Why can't they just thrive or crumble on the merits of that gamble?  Why do we need to protect owners from those shifty agents?  There are rules in place, there is a salary cap, and there are a boatload of greedy lawyers on both sides.  Let the smartest, shrewdest owner win.

    It would be one thing if the owners that were wildly throwing money around won the Cup every year, but that hasn't been the case at all.  Of course spending to the cap helps, but I am convinced that there is already enough incentive not to throw gobs of money at FAs.  Sure teams still do it, but until the teams signing the Dipietro, Bryzgalov, Leino, and Suter contracts start winning Cups, I don't see a need for changes to protect owners.  Let them overspend and fail, others will win.

    Until then I'll optimistically enjoy watching the Bruins, Red Wings, and others capitalize on the foolishness of others.

    P.S. Expect Seguin's agent to be 'slimy'.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Which ones?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    1. expecting the players to single handedly fund a socialist welfare system for under performing businesses(teams)
    2. removing the only non partisan safe guard available to players in contract negotiation(arbitration)
    3.  attempting to block the potential earning power of young players by an additional year(entry level contracts)
    4. same thing for older players by moving free agency down the road.
    5. expecting players to take around a 20% pay cut despite record profits, when the league used this "we'll grow together" mantra to sell the cap in the first place.

    Just my opinion, but I think the league should insist on a 50-50 split, take responsibility for their pi$$ poor business decisions, and make a deal.  If all of this socialist, protectionist crap is really that important to the  survival of the game, Harry Sinden is, and has always been, the Messiah.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Interesting read, "dirty" word and systematics. Name an institution that does not have a "dirty" aspect to it's operation.  Bill Wirtz or even Harold Ballard? Allan Eagleson? and Mark Messier?  all dirty in my book.  
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BlueChip99. Show BlueChip99's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]NAS is probably a 14 or 15 year old tough guy behind a keyboard....
    Posted by heyoo[/QUOTE]
    You're right, and his keyboard is his sword. A true tough guy!.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Like the tough guys who talk shi- about him from behind their keyboards?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Fletch, somehow this conversation has gone sideways.  I don't think you're defending agents; I think you're being unrealistic about the whole "protecting owners from themselves" angle - you and everyone else I hear it from.  If I make my position really simple, it's that the owners negotiate the CBA as a group and then compete for players as adversaries.  If you don't use every resource available to get the best players available - whether you draft, develop and then pay or sign FAs - it's very hard to compete, and outside of Toronto, not competing is bad for business.  It becomes a death spiral.  Just saying no doesn't seem like a solution.  As long as there's a Minnesota for every Parise, that competition will continue to inflate salaries.  The only part of this that has to do with agents is the way they make this worse by explicitly pitting teams against one another.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Kudos to bookboy and fletch on an excellent debate involving two opposite view points.  I really appreciate the opportunity to read well thought divergent positions, and you both put forth yours strongly, while being mindful of the fact that you're dealing with other human beings. An excellent example for the rest of us.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]Like the tough guys who talk shi- about him from behind their keyboards?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Yes. We are all tough when talking with anyone.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Amen.  Though as much as you and I have gone at it on one thing or another, and I'm sure stevegm would retract his kudos if he went back and saw my part of those exchanges, I don't think we ever ventured anything properly answered with a shot to the nose.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : My general dealings with attorneys have led me to believe that most are- there's one. I woudn't pinpoint an actual percentage as I wouldn't equate statements of "slimy" in relation to speaking about someone's family. I made no such gesture to any agents family, I don't see the correlation. I know people who have dealt with or worked for Zito and Rosenhaus. Not one good word was relayed back to me, not one. There was also no mentioning of wives, children or any relatives for that matter either. I have know idea why you would be so sensitive something I didn't mention. I left families out of it so should you...
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    SanDog, my point about families was an effort to humanize, if you will, agents: to show that they are real people, just like your family. It wasn't my intent to slight your family.

    Having said that, of my four siblings, two are attorneys—so you brought my family into it without realizing it. So let's call the "families" question a tie (and we won't go into overtime or a shoot-out about it, OK?).
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS! : Having said that, of my four siblings, two are attorneys—so you brought my family into it without realizing it. So let's call the "families" question a tie Posted by felixwas[/QUOTE]

    Gotcha I'll tone down the rhetoric and stick with "there a few bad apples in all professions".
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: #4 = CLASS!

    Jeez, Dog, just because they're felix's family doesn't mean they aren't a-holes.  Doesn't mean they are....  Just, you know, I'd ask felix's opinion before moving on.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share