If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

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

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Controlling labor costs has everything to do with a Bain Capital type company shipping jobs over seas, no unions. The NHL owners want control of players salaries it is very much the same and why it was a good pint by Book.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    Gawd !!!......what you won't attempt to disagree with me.  Bookboys "pint" was hardly what you have written above.....
    Whatever that is.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : BC the owners are morons.  But I have no problem with a rollback or a 5 yr max.  What I have a problem with is the owners butchering their own system of a cap that they wanted...ruined a year of hockey and now are trying to make the players tap out again and ruin hockey again.  All the teams that have players with over 5 year deals since the last CBA should have to pay a fine.  And that fine can go to rollback ticket prices.  Idiots.  Yeah lets give Weber 24+ mllion in a calendar year and the want a rollback...this while they are trying to get a new CBA.  Lets see how rich teams like the Rangers figure out how to munipulate this new system.  I dont think the CBA is between players and owners.  It should start with Owner vs Owner. IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by shuperman


    ^^^^agree 100%!! these idiots need help saving themselves from each other screw them
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    "...you DON'T need to sign expensive UFA's to ridiculous terms and amounts of money to compete." - stevegm

    Just wanted to pull this one point out.

    I'm assuming from your posts on the various threads that you believe player salaries should be determined by the market.  If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

    If I'm right, then you have to look at this point above not only in terms of a team paying for another team's UFAs.  You also have to include their own UFAs who re-sign and the RFAs who re-sign before going to market or re-sign after hitting the market for a price that's influenced by the going rate.  And I would argue that you also have to include the players signed to ridiculous deals by other teams who are then acquired by trade, because now you're responsible for that deal remaining valid.  Every one of those salaries has been influence by the FA process either as a comparable or a threat.

    In that light, the Kings have huge deals with Richard and Carter, another with Kopitar, and another with Doughty.  Quick now has one after the fact.  The Bruins are built around UFA Chara, paid what many people thought was too much to keep RFA Lucic, RFA Krejci, RFA Bergeron and potential UFA Thomas.  Chicago won with UFA Hossa and had UFAs Khabibulin and Huet still on their books; they fit best in the slew of deals they had to pay to keep their core together after they won - Toews, Kane, Sharp, Keith and Seabrook.  The Pens has to meet the market values on Crosby and Malkin and Fleury to win, and ditto Detroit with Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Franzen.

    Not one of those teams wins without the players it would certainly have lost if it had held a different line on salary demands.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Who's to blame for the goons getting these deals.  They arent writing their own cheques.  Again...no issue limited deals.  No issue dropping the cap back some.  But the owners should come out and say "we screwed up on the last CBA...there are obvious loop holes that we as owners used to make players sign on for the highest amount possible...we are the reason that this new CBA must be restructed bc we royally screwed up on the last one.  We are sorry...and we will make this one fool proof so that smart owners can't play the system and win...thank you for your patience"
    Posted by shuperman


    C'mon shupe, you know full well that the owners didn't just sit down in a conference room and dream up their fantasy agreement.  They went to war on one issue and won that issue; that doesn't mean they had unilateral power on every other aspect of the deal.  You also know that there's a Raffi Torres in every group - a guy who is going to play to the limit of the rules if it means he keeps his job or makes an extra few bucks, even if it's at the expense of the guys he went to all those union meetings with.

    I get the whole "eat the rich" mentality behind blaming everything on the owners, I really do.  But the players are also rich.

    Or, to paraphrase Chris Rock, Shea Weber is rich.  The guy who signs Shea Weber's cheques is wealthy.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Gawd !!!......what you won't attempt to disagree with me. Posted by stevegm


    I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was pointing out what you ran around in Books point of labor control. I was trying to help so you don't keep getting called out for your long winded rants by everyone. You want to continue with your drivel of run-on-sentence-paragraphs be my guest. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : C'mon shupe, you know full well that the owners didn't just sit down in a conference room and dream up their fantasy agreement.  They went to war on one issue and won that issue; that doesn't mean they had unilateral power on every other aspect of the deal.  You also know that there's a Raffi Torres in every group - a guy who is going to play to the limit of the rules if it means he keeps his job or makes an extra few bucks, even if it's at the expense of the guys he went to all those union meetings with. I get the whole "eat the rich" mentality behind blaming everything on the owners, I really do.  But the players are also rich. Or, to paraphrase Chris Rock, Shea Weber is rich.  The guy who signs Shea Weber's cheques is wealthy .
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Collective Bargaining Agreement with Collective being underlined. 

    IF the only issue and main topic was the cap shouldn't these brilliant billionares have the capacity to look into it further and see the eventual pitfalls. They created this cap.  They wanted it. They got it. And then cheat their own system. 
    Re-read my post.  I said put a limit of 5 yrs on deal.  I said reduce the cap if need be.  But don't come to the players and just say we want a cap of 60 million.  BC agents and owners have already found a way around it.  There is no way is this on the players. 
    The owners are to blame for "their cap" failing.  High end teams found ways around it by dumping Wade Redden in the minors and signing Richards to a front end loaded contract. 
    My frustration has nothing to do with salaries the players or the billions the owners make.  My frustration is with the "system".  The owners "system"!!!!

    The screwed up...they don't even want to continue on with the c rap system they drew up...what's so hard to understand about that.  The owners are to blame! 
    So in order to get it right the owners must sit down with other richer owners and find a flawless system...then present it to agents who are sneaky money driven lawyers to see if it can be broken.  When they have it figured out then go to the NHLPA. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TommyD603. Show TommyD603's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    The owners don't care about their level of popularity is vs. the players'. Fans pay the owners at the gate for liking the players. It's not like people can choose to pay the players OR the owners. They're not in competition. People have hated Jacobs for years and kept showing up.

    What's stupid, though, is that salaries go up because free agency exists, which- by definition- means that players are paid more than market value: they go to the highest bidder. As such, if player A scores 20 goals and earns a $2.5M contract, then next year another players scores 20 goals, nogations START at $2.5M... but there's always someone that needs a 20 goal scorer SOOOO BAD in their mind that they're willing to give the player $3M, because there aren't enough 20 goal scorers to go around. So no matter how many times the owners ratchet down pay, they're going to crank it back up again. That is, unless, they put in a really low individual cap on contracts. But that creates its own problem because eventually players will max out and will choose their locations based off of where they want to be. With that being the case, players will have very little incentive to go anywhere the sucks (like New Jersey) and the big hockey markets that are the most appealing to play in will STILL get all the talent, and the smaller teams will be competing for everyone else. With such increased competition for the next teir of players, THEY will start to max out, too.

    You either do away with free agency, which is a capitalist system, or you deal with it. But since owners are billionaires that made all their money through capitalism, it's pretty hypocritical to cry about it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    "...you DON'T need to sign expensive UFA's to ridiculous terms and amounts of money to compete." - stevegm Just wanted to pull this one point out. I'm assuming from your posts on the various threads that you believe player salaries should be determined by the market.  If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. If I'm right, then you have to look at this point above not only in terms of a team paying for another team's UFAs.  You also have to include their own UFAs who re-sign and the RFAs who re-sign before going to market or re-sign after hitting the market for a price that's influenced by the going rate.  And I would argue that you also have to include the players signed to ridiculous deals by other teams who are then acquired by trade, because now you're responsible for that deal remaining valid.  Every one of those salaries has been influence by the FA process either as a comparable or a threat. In that light, the Kings have huge deals with Richard and Carter, another with Kopitar, and another with Doughty.  Quick now has one after the fact.  The Bruins are built around UFA Chara, paid what many people thought was too much to keep RFA Lucic, RFA Krejci, RFA Bergeron and potential UFA Thomas.  Chicago won with UFA Hossa and had UFAs Khabibulin and Huet still on their books; they fit best in the slew of deals they had to pay to keep their core together after they won - Toews, Kane, Sharp, Keith and Seabrook.  The Pens has to meet the market values on Crosby and Malkin and Fleury to win, and ditto Detroit with Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Franzen. Not one of those teams wins without the players it would certainly have lost if it had held a different line on salary demands.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    Maybe that's the confusion. No I don't. I believe player salaries should be determined by the amount of the cap. I think a percentage of league revenues, is the only sensible way to set a cap, as it protects both sides when things go up and down.  The cap is a hard predictable number, and I think that's a fairly easy system for the teams to operate in. Certainly much easier than it ever was before. If teams elect to spend 50% of that allotment on 3 players, fine.  Time will tell if that's a good idea or not.  I believe they should have to live with those decisions.  Like someone said, it is a competition.
    I certainly think some things need to be negotiated, and I think they're real straight forward, and I doubt they'd cause a work stoppage.   I'll vigourously argue the wheel needs to be re-invented though.  That's what the owners want, and I feel that with the current state of the league, in comparison to the rest of the economy,.... that's absurd.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    "The cap" is just a factor in the market.  If you score 50 goals but, the next year, every team in the NHL is maxed out against the cap, there is no market for you.

    shupe - you do realize collective bargaining means all of the players on one side and all of the owners on the other agree to abide by the same terms? It's not "cooperative bargaining," and deals pass with a significant dissenting vote.  If owners need 70% to ratify, you have one in every three owners willing to push the envelope.  Ditto the players.  And how do you know the owners didn't sit down and say "here's the perfect system" and the players said "no.  Make the following changes and we can talk about."  And the owners, being smart business people, realized they should take what they got, make money for five years to show the players a cap isn't a terrible thing for them, and then come back for the things they gave up?

    As for those "outs" - dumping guys in the minors, or buying them out - you don't think the PA loves those elements?  You don't think a mechanism that allows the Rangers to exceed the cap in real dollars player underperforms is good for the membership?  Of course it is.  Of course that's one of the things they looked at when they decided they could live with a cap.  It has holes.  If it didn't, they would never have agreed to it.  And if they didn't agree, there'd have been no hockey the last five or six years.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Who's to blame for the goons getting these deals.  They arent writing their own cheques.  Again...no issue limited deals.  No issue dropping the cap back some.  But the owners should come out and say "we screwed up on the last CBA...there are obvious loop holes that we as owners used to make players sign on for the highest amount possible...we are the reason that this new CBA must be restructed bc we royally screwed up on the last one.  We are sorry...and we will make this one fool proof so that smart owners can't play the system and win...thank you for your patience"
    Posted by shuperman


    I'm not blaming anyone for the goons getting millions.

    I'm blaming the players for being so greedy.


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

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    [QUOTE]"The cap" is just a factor in the market.  If you score 50 goals but, the next year, every team in the NHL is maxed out against the cap, there is no market for you. shupe - you do realize collective bargaining means all of the players on one side and all of the owners on the other agree to abide by the same terms? It's not "cooperative bargaining," and deals pass with a significant dissenting vote.  If owners need 70% to ratify, you have one in every three owners willing to push the envelope.  Ditto the players.  And how do you know the owners didn't sit down and say "here's the perfect system" and the players said "no.  Make the following changes and we can talk about."  And the owners, being smart business people, realized they should take what they got, make money for five years to show the players a cap isn't a terrible thing for them, and then come back for the things they gave up? As for those "outs" - dumping guys in the minors, or buying them out - you don't think the PA loves those elements?  You don't think a mechanism that allows the Rangers to exceed the cap in real dollars player underperforms is good for the membership?  Of course it is.  Of course that's one of the things they looked at when they decided they could live with a cap.  It has holes.  If it didn't, they would never have agreed to it.  And if they didn't agree, there'd have been no hockey the last five or six years.
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    C'mon..do you really see that as a realistic scenario? 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from heyoo. Show heyoo's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    The owners are paying the players so to call the players greedy is completly ridic. Players are paid what is determined to be their worth by the league as a whole. If pitt offered crosby 5mil then we would have just gone to another team that valued his service more. Just like in all business' if a nurse is getting paid 35,000 at hospital A and is offered 60,000 at hospital B then the nurse goes to hospital B. Business' have to realize they must keep up their workers salaries or they will find that higher paying job. Just like in hockey sutter and parise didnt go to minn for the view. In business money is the most important thing... Go to the place that pays your worth. Bcs without thier workers then they have no business.. If the khl starts offering 2mil more to players than the nhl see how many ppl jump the pond.

    I dont go to the game to watch jacobs skating around without players that keep my interest then jacobs doesnt get paid......
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    I read on here a few weeks back from someone, sorry no recollection, the owners are arguing with the owners on a new CBA.  The players are not part of the picture in reality, I can agree with that point of view to a degre.  The players were jocked with escrow language in 2004, now they want it gone witness the Fehr counter proposal.  No need for auditing with the NHL with the offer placed in the last counter offer.  If the players were winners in the lsast CBA, it was a result of the NHL recieving postive results from things like HDTV, new rule changes, and the original six teams winning Cups (of course being the best game in sports, imo), not soley because of the CAP.  Presently, it is win win collaborative negotiations, the owners won last time and the owners want to win again.  Personally it is hard to argue with that point of view.  These people have the money and a monopoly.  So until the few owners agree with the many, we can debate who won the last CBA but the real question imo is who is losing if we do not have hockey in October!  All are losing!  The reality will set in soon me hopes.  If by chance you think I side only with the owners then realize I think every player should be a UFA in a monopoly!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    "The cap" is just a factor in the market.  If you score 50 goals but, the next year, every team in the NHL is maxed out against the cap, there is no market for you. shupe - you do realize collective bargaining means all of the players on one side and all of the owners on the other agree to abide by the same terms? It's not "cooperative bargaining," and deals pass with a significant dissenting vote.  If owners need 70% to ratify, you have one in every three owners willing to push the envelope.  Ditto the players.  And how do you know the owners didn't sit down and say "here's the perfect system" and the players said "no.  Make the following changes and we can talk about."  And the owners, being smart business people, realized they should take what they got, make money for five years to show the players a cap isn't a terrible thing for them, and then come back for the things they gave up? As for those "outs" - dumping guys in the minors, or buying them out - you don't think the PA loves those elements?  You don't think a mechanism that allows the Rangers to exceed the cap in real dollars player underperforms is good for the membership?  Of course it is.  Of course that's one of the things they looked at when they decided they could live with a cap.  It has holes.  If it didn't, they would never have agreed to it.  And if they didn't agree, there'd have been no hockey the last five or six years.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    By collective I meant sum of the parts.  Meaning that it is more than one topic.

    Bottom line for me is this...I believe the rich will get richer and the wealthy are disgustingly well off.  And I really don't care...I was more in favor of owners during the last CBA bc I believed there should be a cap.
    The players were ready to continue under the current CBA which the owners developed.  But the owners want no part of their own CBA.  Pretty telling to me that they didnt do anything but ruin the year of hockey. 

    So....when the owners meet with the other owners and get a deal "THEY" cant screw up...they should then present it to the NHLPA...they want term brought down after the Weber Parise and Suter deals?  Really?  I mean come on.  The owners are a joke...and I am on the players side this time around bc they are thinking outside the box and offering their deal with the option of going back to the current deal which has made billions each year since it was brought in.  So the successful CBA wasnt enough.  So the owners wanna do something about it...when the owners present something that they cant mess with I may think dfifferently. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : I'm not blaming anyone for the goons getting millions. I'm blaming the players for being so greedy.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    What were Shelly, Boogieman, Orr and our very own ST supposed to do...say no, we dont deserve that...reduce our pay to league minimum.  How are the being greedy...shouldnt you blame the agents...
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : What were Shelly, Boogieman, Orr and our very own ST supposed to do...say no, we dont deserve that...reduce our pay to league minimum.  How are the being greedy...shouldnt you blame the agents...
    Posted by shuperman


    You make it seem as if they players all sit back and wait for the owners to offer deals.  Sure, the agents are also to blame. 

    At this point, they players should look in the mirror and say, "Wow, I am making so much money.   I have more money than I know what to do with.  If they were to chop my future earnings by 11%, I'm still going to be rich.  Let's play hockey."

    Instead, they're saying, "Oh no you don't.  I want my paychecks to continue to grow from ridiculous to super ridiculous, and I'm prepared to sit in my million dollar living room and pout until you cave."

    (Those are direct quotes, as reported by hockey insiderr.)


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    I apologise for using the term "babbling".

    But on the main point, lets look at recent champs:

    LA: Richards, Carter, Quick, Doughty
    Boston: Savard, Chara
    Chicago: Hossa
    Pittsburgh: Crosby

    These are the best teams, but even a smart managed team like the Bruins were forced to sign some contracts that they probably wouldn't if they weren't being offered elsewhere

    This is a trend that has evolved over the CBA. It's a way to give players more money and stay within' the cap. The Weber example is the most extreme so far and involves an RFA. You can be sure without rule changes it's just the tip of the iceberg. Surely there would be team willing to offer a massive deal to Seguin if they get the chance, and the Bruins would be forced to match...

    Your point that there are other options for battling these contracts is valid, but simply limiting contract length would work just fine. It would address the cap circumvention, and the ridiculous situations like Savard not retiring and collecting a big paycheck for years.

    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...:
    In Response to Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks... : Babbling??  I'd sooner have adult discussions with you, but if you prefer us to continue rudely, guess I'll have to go along. I was responding to 2 points you made earlier on this thread. #1.  You stated, "they are signing players to long term contracts, because they have to in order to compete" #2.  Paraphrasing..."teams are competitors, not one collective mind". Although I agree with much of what you've written above, it doesn't really apply to what my response was to your original thought. It's not opinion Oates, it's fact that you DON'T need to sign expensive UFA's to ridiculous terms and amounts of money to compete.  Many successful teams don't do that....that's irrefutable.  Those that do, don't automatically come out on top.  They take a huge gamble, and under the system, that could go either way.  My response to your 2nd point, was merely that although true, it didn't validate point #1. I guess my opinion is that the durations aren't really a deal breaker.  I agree they're not a good thing, but still having to work within the confines of a reasonable cap I believe,  balances things out. I don't put that part forth as fact, just my opinion. I'm wondering if having to re-invent the wheel, from a bargaining perspective, every 4 years or so, isn't playing right into the hand of the Minnesota's and NJ's.  As it stands now, they have to be accountable for their decisions.  A reworked deal could give them somewhat of a pass.  In summary, I don't disagree these long term deals should be looked at.  I just don't think they're as big a hurdle or issue, as some.  Rather than the length, I'm more concerned about the accounting.  What you spend per year, per player, should go toward the cap.  If you want to sign him for 20 years...fine, but what he's paid each year is the cap figure.  If he quits, retires, whatever, after 3 years, he stops getting paid, the cap hit is removed, and his team keeps his rights for 17 more years in the event he ever changes his mind.
    Posted by stevegm
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: If the owners want 5 year maximum contracts and salary rollbacks...

    What the heck does Savard have to do with the B's winning the Cup?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share