Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#3091 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space. I mean they will become a team solely comprised of young players on cheap contracts while unloading anyone making more than 3 mil. This would also hurt teams like the Preds, as they continue to draft and develop well only to lose players to free agency. When you factor in them being competitive in the last couple years but being unable to take on additional cap, they would either barely scrape the playoffs or have to sell what they have and build for the future. I guess in short, what I'm trying to say is guys like Tavares will inevitably take on bigger deals only to be moved while their cap hit stays on their previous team.

I liked the old system, I could understand it. Previously you could judge a trade based on the salary being traded, the age of the players being moved, and their relative success. Now a player can be moved because his host team wants the luxury of his cap hit to make league minimum.

Edited by Ossi Vaananen, 21 November 2012 - 08:59 PM.

  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3092 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,107 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:03 PM

I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space. I mean they will become a team solely comprised of young players on cheap contracts while unloading anyone making more than 3 mil. This would also hurt teams like the Preds, as they continue to draft and develop well only to lose players to free agency. When you factor in them being competitive in the last couple years but being unable to take on additional cap, they would either barely scrape the playoffs or have to sell what they have and build for the future. I guess in short, what I'm trying to say is guys like Tavares will inevitably take on bigger deals only to be moved while their cap hit stays on their previous team.

I liked the old system, I could understand it. Previously you could judge a trade based on the salary being traded, the age of the players being moved, and their relative success. Now a player can be moved because his host team wants the luxury of his cap hit to make league minimum.


I see that but what we are talking about are going to be mostly late season moves for pending FAs. That point won't change.The teams will still have to hit a minimum floor to start the season.I don't think you'll see the Isles or anyone else shipping out cap space on Day 1 of the season. Hopefully they put a mechanism in place to avoid that.

Edit: I think you aren't giving yourself enough credit. We'll all get the new system figured out after a feeling out period. Heck, it'll be new fodder for this forum. Imagine all of the fun we can have debating it! :lol:

Edited by theminister, 21 November 2012 - 09:06 PM.

  • 0

small.pngNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEsmall.png


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3093 kilgore

kilgore

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,401 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:07 PM

The Whitecaps season is over...

Posted Image


The Lion's season is over....

Posted Image


VAN SPORTS FANS ARE GETTING ANTSY
IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS........GET ER DONE!!!!!
  • 0

#3094 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,458 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

The league is willing to accept a delinked HRR, with small annual increases
...
If the League and the PA can agree on an economic starting point with a minimal increase of 1.75% per annum then the teams stand to reap a large windfall if they can keep the total HRR growing by 5-7% as they must feel confident in their ability to do. This would leave the players share significantly less than 50% by the end of the CBA though the players will never see their actual real dollar amount fall.


As I understand the PA offer, they are not decoupling players' share from HRR. The union has abandoned their request for their 2011/12 share amount plus 1.75% yearly growth and replaced it with a proposal that players' share can never be less than it was in the previous year under the new CBA. Basically, they want to ensure players' share can never go down more than it will at the start of this CBA. Owners would have to pony up extra if revenues were ever to dip below what they were in the previous season but for all years of revenue growth the players' share would continue to grow in connection with HRR.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3095 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,155 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

"The Union has had our best economic proposal, and that was in the context of playing an 82 game season. That proposal was semerally rejected, and any expectation that the offer is going to get better as time goes on is not realistic."

- Gary Bettman


I'm not sure how he expects to get a deal done, if he isn't willing to move any closer. and even that deal was unfair for the players and greatly favoured the owners. I'm not sure the mindset of the Comish and the owners right now, he's killing our game/his bussniess and he isn't willing to move enough to fix it.
  • 2

zackass.png


#3096 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 951 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

I would really like to see revenue sharing based on percentage. I don't think that fixed number fixes much other than the next couple years
  • 0

#3097 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,634 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:42 PM

*
POPULAR

I find it funny how the NHL acts like it knows what's best for the game, even though all the problems that exist in the NHL today were created by the owners...

They're so quick to dismiss NHLPA ideas of how to fix the league, as if these guys are idiots. When the reality is, the majority of the owners have no idea how to run the NHL or a team, as is shown by their broken business model.

I don't even understand what they're doing right now. They keep asking for the union to submit proposals, even though they know they're going to reject them. The only way they'll accept one is if it's pretty much exactly what they're asking for. So pretty much this whole thing has been a sham, where they're ultimately just waiting for the union to completely cave.
  • 8

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#3098 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively.

When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract.

So any economic damage is being caused solely by the league. Even by talking about mounting damages to the game/league... Bettman is conceding that they would be better off financially to be playing right now. If that wasn't the case there couldn't be any damages. That is unlike the previous work stoppage when more than half the teams were better off by keeping their doors shut rather than playing games.

It is becoming clear that Bettman promised certain fairly dramatic things to the owners... and he is under pressure to keep those promises. Instead of taking a smaller win, he feels that doubling down is the best strategy. It is a vicious circle I have seen behind the scenes in negotiations. The longer it goes and the more it costs, the more pressure to get an even better deal in order to make up for those increasing losses and to make it seem worthwhile to have done through the labour strife in the first place.

The league clearly has a very specific number in mind for what they want their savings to be. They also still feel that they can get it. They also feel in control of the process enough that they can simply start the season when they think they have wrung out enough or that the math for losses starts outweighing what they can get at the table.

If I were Fehr, I would leverage the anger from today that the players have and deliver an ultimatum to the league to start putting the pressure onto them.

They simply have to say that the NHLPA will continue to negotiate until 01 December, after which time they will effectively cancel the season and be negotiating for the 2013-2014 season.

This allows their membership to seek employment elsewhere without having to worry about being obligated under IIHF rules to return to the NHL if a deal gets done this season. It also allows them to make plans for things like NHLPA mini-tours of the big hockey markets where they put on games/tournament similar to the Bieksa's buddies games on a regular basis (say weekly in each major market).... maybe giving half the proceeds to charity and half to the players. Nothing would freak out owners with big continuing overhead costs more than seeing other arenas filled with happy fans enjoying themselves. In this scenario you can also guarantee that broadcasters would jump on board to broadcast many of those games.

Players are playing and getting paid some, fans are seeing hockey, broadcasters are getting revenue... and the owners are left on the sidelines. All of a sudden you diverge "the game of hockey" from "the NHL".
  • 4
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3099 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:02 AM

I see that but what we are talking about are going to be mostly late season moves for pending FAs. That point won't change.The teams will still have to hit a minimum floor to start the season.I don't think you'll see the Isles or anyone else shipping out cap space on Day 1 of the season. Hopefully they put a mechanism in place to avoid that.


I sure hope so you are right. I have the same concern as Ossi.

If a team can trade away cap space what is to stop a team from conducting 'sign and trade' type deals? Let's pick on the Islanders here... The end of next year, Niederreiter's contract is up. They could strike a deal with another team to sign him for $5M and then ship him over, while keeping the cap space. Now the Islanders save $5M in real cash, while still using the cap hit to help them get to the floor.

Whatever deal they eventually land on, I am sure that the agents and the GMs will work overtime to find some loophole to twist the deal in their favour.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3100 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,064 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:06 AM

What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively.

When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract.


You are going to drive yourself insane if you continue to try and apply normal logic to pro sports.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3101 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:11 AM

I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space.


I actually believe it would do the exact opposite. Assuming that you can retain EITHER cap or salary in a trade (the previous league proposal only allowed you to retain salary, the NHLPA one seems to suggest both) it allows bottom revenue teams to get better players.

Basically the cap ceiling teams can unload players who are on contracts with a cap hit that doesn't represent a good value. they can keep paying the majority of the salary, but unload the entire cap hit to a team that could care less about cap hits because they are never going to be at the ceiling.

Just because a player's contract may carry a bad cap hit value... it doesn't mean he is a bad player. Often they are actually veteran bigger name players who just don't happen to be producing at the same level as when they signed their contract.

If we could retain salary in a Luongo trade and get rid of all the cap hit... some poor team like Columbus could benefit hugely from it. They get an excellent player for say $2.5 million per year in real dollars... a much better quality of player than what they could get for similar dollars on the open UFA market. Suddenly you have lower end team with big name players probably on the downward side of their careers, who also now have cash leftover to re-sign their homegrown talent who will also be more willing to stay because they have better players around them.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3102 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:12 AM

I sure hope so you are right. I have the same concern as Ossi.

If a team can trade away cap space what is to stop a team from conducting 'sign and trade' type deals? Let's pick on the Islanders here... The end of next year, Niederreiter's contract is up. They could strike a deal with another team to sign him for $5M and then ship him over, while keeping the cap space. Now the Islanders save $5M in real cash, while still using the cap hit to help them get to the floor.

Whatever deal they eventually land on, I am sure that the agents and the GMs will work overtime to find some loophole to twist the deal in their favour.


Ya, I'm worried that teams like the Islanders will inevitably have a fire sale on some of their young stars, and competitive teams that don't match their asking price get shafted. The Islanders would theoretically want cheap contracts coming back, or else draft picks. So the Islanders stock up on picks, draft young guys, keep them till their ELCs are up, sign them, and then deal them to another team. Essentially teams like the Islanders would have a monopoly on young talent, but maybe I'm taking this too far.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3103 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:16 AM

Basically the cap ceiling teams can unload players who are on contracts with a cap hit that doesn't represent a good value. they can keep paying the majority of the salary, but unload the entire cap hit to a team that could care less about cap hits because they are never going to be at the ceiling.


I understood it as just the opposite, that teams would trade the player and their salary while retaining the cap hit. So the player can be moved with the cap hit staying behind, but their new team is still writing the cheque so to speak.

I do think you make a good point however, I think a team like Toronto would be willing to pay a substantial sum if we were to keep some of Luongo's CAP HIT. I can't see Gillis doing this however.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3104 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:18 AM

Now you got a long time NHL pro who has been through every lockout speaking his mind. He is sick of Fehr and his crap.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410028


At this point the union has a choice. Same as I have stated all along.

They either try to defend Fehr''s EGO as a negotiator and make a whole pile of guys waste an entire year of their already short careers...........

Or they fire Fehr or have him step down and get a hockey guy to step up to the plate with Bettman to hammer a fair deal out.

There is no other choice. Nobody in their right mind honestly thinks hiring Fehr was worth it anymore. The most the union can hope for is to try to salvage some credibility for the next CBA down the road.

Cut your losses now and live to fight another day.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3105 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:21 AM

Now you got a long time NHL pro who has been through every lockout speaking his mind. He is sick of Fehr and his crap.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410028


At this point the union has a choice. Same as I have stated all along.

They either try to defend Fehr''s EGO as a negotiator and make a whole pile of guys waste an entire year of their already short careers...........

Or they fire Fehr or have him step down and get a hockey guy to step up to the plate with Bettman to hammer a fair deal out.

There is no other choice. Nobody in their right mind honestly thinks hiring Fehr was worth it anymore. The most the union can hope for is to try to salvage some credibility for the next CBA down the road.

Cut your losses now and live to fight another day.


Notice in the same article Erik Cole goes on to refute Hamrlik's claims. But I guess you chose the sound bite without reading the article. Did Fehr take your T-bird away?
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3106 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:30 AM

What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively.

When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract.

So any economic damage is being caused solely by the league. Even by talking about mounting damages to the game/league... Bettman is conceding that they would be better off financially to be playing right now. If that wasn't the case there couldn't be any damages. That is unlike the previous work stoppage when more than half the teams were better off by keeping their doors shut rather than playing games.

It is becoming clear that Bettman promised certain fairly dramatic things to the owners... and he is under pressure to keep those promises. Instead of taking a smaller win, he feels that doubling down is the best strategy. It is a vicious circle I have seen behind the scenes in negotiations. The longer it goes and the more it costs, the more pressure to get an even better deal in order to make up for those increasing losses and to make it seem worthwhile to have done through the labour strife in the first place.

The league clearly has a very specific number in mind for what they want their savings to be. They also still feel that they can get it. They also feel in control of the process enough that they can simply start the season when they think they have wrung out enough or that the math for losses starts outweighing what they can get at the table.

If I were Fehr, I would leverage the anger from today that the players have and deliver an ultimatum to the league to start putting the pressure onto them.

They simply have to say that the NHLPA will continue to negotiate until 01 December, after which time they will effectively cancel the season and be negotiating for the 2013-2014 season.

This allows their membership to seek employment elsewhere without having to worry about being obligated under IIHF rules to return to the NHL if a deal gets done this season. It also allows them to make plans for things like NHLPA mini-tours of the big hockey markets where they put on games/tournament similar to the Bieksa's buddies games on a regular basis (say weekly in each major market).... maybe giving half the proceeds to charity and half to the players. Nothing would freak out owners with big continuing overhead costs more than seeing other arenas filled with happy fans enjoying themselves. In this scenario you can also guarantee that broadcasters would jump on board to broadcast many of those games.

Players are playing and getting paid some, fans are seeing hockey, broadcasters are getting revenue... and the owners are left on the sidelines. All of a sudden you diverge "the game of hockey" from "the NHL".


The NHLPA can go @#$# themselves. Thats the answer from the NHL .The current stars can go play in the KHL. The other 90% have no reason in the slightest to continue to sit out. Their contracts do not change nor would they change if they left the NHLPA and formed a new union.

All the kids on entry level contracts will NOT sit out and go play in the KHL. They will break with the NHLPA and go sign for big bucks with the new NHL union.

And the kids heading to the draft will be drafted and carry on.

This thread is 104 pages and you are STILL deluded into some fantasy where the NHLPA has any legal power of any kind. They dont.

You are still DELUDED into thinking fans will NOT go to NHL games . Why ? Just to satisfy Sidney Crosby's desire to get HIS way?

You are not accepting some basic Adult realities of the way life works.

You have no say in what Bettman does or says. You have NO power to decide it nor will us fans have any say in any of this. So pretending you have all the answers or you are smarter than these people is simple DELUSION.

Why not accept the reality that the union has gone too far , pissed the owners off and now there is no hockey.

The NHL is under no obligation at all to re hire the NHLPA in any way shape or form. And they WILL be banned from the NHL if they insist Fehr stays on without a deal in place. The end is coming.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3107 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:38 AM

Notice in the same article Erik Cole goes on to refute Hamrlik's claims. But I guess you chose the sound bite without reading the article. Did Fehr take your T-bird away?


I know you are frustrated. But your childish insults are irrelevant and are not helpful. You cannot see beyond a very limited viewpoint.




Eric coles counter complaining was littered with spite and insults. Telling the guy to 'keep his mouth shut' . To me it was so immature it wasnt worth mentioning. Its ridiculous.

If you settle down and quiet your mind, you will see one side whining and the other calling the shots.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3108 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:10 AM

*
POPULAR

The NHL is under no obligation at all to re hire the NHLPA in any way shape or form. And they WILL be banned from the NHL if they insist Fehr stays on without a deal in place. The end is coming.


Well you are simply wrong and shouldn't call people out when you don't have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

The players would have to decertify the union from THEIR end in order for it to dissolve. The NHL is simply not legally allowed to ban the NHLPA... the process of decertification is fairly involved and requires a court to agree that the union was not acting in good faith representing it's members. There is just no legal process for some players to go and decide to make their own union to compete with the NHLPA. Collective bargaining is actually ruled by laws, and not just whatever make-believe world that you live in. Heck, that doesn't even take into account the law against replacement workers that is in place in many North American jurisdictions including B.C.

You are literally just ranting and making things up that have no basis in law or reality.

Your assertion that 90% of the player's have no reason to sit out is clearly a lie or purposeful ignorance on your part based on what we can see every day. They are more than able to vote to agree to any deal the NHL offers, yet they haven't... so either 90% of the players are too stupid to realize that you know better than they do (yet are smart enough to navigate union decertification as you suggest)... or they in fact have a reason not to be agreeing with the proposed deal.

There are plenty of reasons for them not to agree to the proposed NHL deal... about $3 billion of them according to the numbers out of the news outlets, which is the amount the owners are trying to save over the life of any deal. The players would be faced with an immediate 13% wage reduction on top of any proportion of this season lost due to the lockout.... and then would take years to get back to their current salary levels.

Also.... please post where I said that I felt that I had any personal sway over the actions of Fehr or Bettman like you so childishly and foolishly suggest? I am not sure if YOU are aware of some basic adult facts of life.. like this is a discussion board for the Canucks... and this is a thread to discuss about the CBA. This seems like a pretty appropriate place to make comments about the CBA regardless of how personally offended you are about it.

Edited by Provost, 22 November 2012 - 01:34 AM.

  • 10
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3109 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,537 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

Another lost season has been looming since the day the NHLPA announced that they were going with Donald Fehr as their leader heading into the new CBA negotiations. The militants within the union won the day and I came to terms with the fact that there will be no season this year, hockey players being the most militant lot in professional sports.They will be in there grinding for every available nickel, just like every other CBA negotiation.

As North American pro athletes go, it's hard to like hockey players. They're just so damned greedy.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#3110 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,775 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:45 AM

I understood it as just the opposite, that teams would trade the player and their salary while retaining the cap hit. So the player can be moved with the cap hit staying behind, but their new team is still writing the cheque so to speak.

I do think you make a good point however, I think a team like Toronto would be willing to pay a substantial sum if we were to keep some of Luongo's CAP HIT. I can't see Gillis doing this however.


It depends on which proposal you are talking about. The original league one talked about just being able to retaining cap hit.... the NHLPA has suggested being able to trade either hit or salary to a max of 15% of the upper cap limit (they don't go into great detail, but they also refer to it as a Retained Salary Transaction which probably leads us to believe that they are not just talking about retaining cap space.

In the end it really only makes sense if you decouple the two and can trade either to some pre-determined maximum. It is the only way to spur trades, or there is no point in creating this clause. You need a trading partner who is short on cash and one who is short on cap space to make a deal happen under this type of scenario and need to be able to trade both back and forth as required.

I actually don't understand what the league is trying to accomplish by their version of cap retention only other than allowing bottom spending teams to get rid of veteran bad value contracts.... which doesn't often seem to be their biggest problem in competing (Lecavalier contract notwithstanding). No cap ceiling team could afford to retain cap hits for players they trade away... and they are generally not as worried about the actual salary dollars. Bottom end teams needing to retain cap hit to reach the cap floor would only be becoming less viable competitively, so why put in a cause that really only does that for them?
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3111 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:03 AM

I think as Canadian hockey fans it's very beneficial to us if the UFA age was increased. Canadian teams have a hard time retaining their players after UFA or getting big ticket free agents to sign here. Most players want to play on big market, nice weather US teams.


Yes... truly, Edmonton has had a hard time signing Eberle and Hall to long term extensions. And Vancouver with the Sedins, Luongo and Kesler. Really a shame we couldn't lock them up. Don't forget Calgary with Iginla and Kiprusoff. Their team really fell apart when those two signed with Florida. And how cool would it have been if Ottawa had kept Spezza and Alfredsson together for a long time?
  • 1

#3112 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:22 AM

This thread is 104 pages and you are STILL deluded into some fantasy where the NHLPA has any legal power of any kind. They dont.


You keep saying this. And it keeps not being true. What exactly do you think a union is? I'm genuinely curious.
  • 1

#3113 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,817 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:29 AM

they should cancel the entire season so fans dont have to wait and see.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3114 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:40 AM

The Owners have all the cards here, The only reason they don't cancel the season is because they are business men and any dollars they can make from salvaging this season will be great. Once reasons and costs a start to build then they will consider canceling the season.

Its my opinion that the NHLPA think that they are the product in this endevour, but they are not. They are but pawns and elite players are bishops. Many sons will hopefully play hockey when they get older and maybe play for the cup. Which they will only be able to do in ............ THe NHL~!

The product is the Jerseys, the Game, the Family outings, the Ice, the Logo, the Play offs, The Stanley Cup....but players come and go.
  • 0

#3115 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:40 AM

I know you are frustrated. But your childish insults are irrelevant and are not helpful. You cannot see beyond a very limited viewpoint.




Eric coles counter complaining was littered with spite and insults. Telling the guy to 'keep his mouth shut' . To me it was so immature it wasnt worth mentioning. Its ridiculous.

If you settle down and quiet your mind, you will see one side whining and the other calling the shots.


Dude I don't know how many times you have to be humiliated before you shut up. It seems every time you post you derail the thread into this power dynamic that only you are perceiving, if I were a psychologist I would say it is feelings of inferiority. Oh and telling me to keep my mouth shut, and I'm the one with the childish insults?

I asked if Fehr took your t-bird away because quite frankly your responses seem to be directed at him with an unfounded belief of Fehr somehow inhibiting the season from starting. In all honesty it is your posts that come across as whining, which is why I wonder if Fehr did something horrible to you in your childhood, because this dynamic of painting him all evil really shows you have no platform to stand on.

I will ask you once again to stop derailing this thread, as intelligent members here are tired of trying to explain basic labour dynamics to you. As entertaining as it might be, the dancing bear becomes sad at some point. In other words the laugher has quickly turned to pity of your narrow minded opinion.
  • 4

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3116 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:51 AM

It depends on which proposal you are talking about. The original league one talked about just being able to retaining cap hit.... the NHLPA has suggested being able to trade either hit or salary to a max of 15% of the upper cap limit (they don't go into great detail, but they also refer to it as a Retained Salary Transaction which probably leads us to believe that they are not just talking about retaining cap space.

In the end it really only makes sense if you decouple the two and can trade either to some pre-determined maximum. It is the only way to spur trades, or there is no point in creating this clause. You need a trading partner who is short on cash and one who is short on cap space to make a deal happen under this type of scenario and need to be able to trade both back and forth as required.

I actually don't understand what the league is trying to accomplish by their version of cap retention only other than allowing bottom spending teams to get rid of veteran bad value contracts.... which doesn't often seem to be their biggest problem in competing (Lecavalier contract notwithstanding). No cap ceiling team could afford to retain cap hits for players they trade away... and they are generally not as worried about the actual salary dollars. Bottom end teams needing to retain cap hit to reach the cap floor would only be becoming less viable competitively, so why put in a cause that really only does that for them?


Now a discussion worth having. Do we both agree that if cap hit were traded it would be beneficial to small market teams, while trading salary would be beneficial to larger markets in as much as their cap is untouched?

Either way this seems like a sure bet that it will be incorporated into the next CBA as both sides agree on it. The next real question is what do the NHLPA and NHL currently agree on in terms of framework. As I understand it both sides agree to 50% right away, both sides want cap/salary trade able, both sides agree on a reduced ELC to 2 years, and both sides agree on this new 'midpoint' conception of salary range from min to max. One would think that is enough for framework while they attempt to meet in the middle on the 'make whole' provision; but of course this is Bettman we are talking about so another concession is impossible.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3117 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:47 AM

Yes... truly, Edmonton has had a hard time signing Eberle and Hall to long term extensions. And Vancouver with the Sedins, Luongo and Kesler. Really a shame we couldn't lock them up. Don't forget Calgary with Iginla and Kiprusoff. Their team really fell apart when those two signed with Florida. And how cool would it have been if Ottawa had kept Spezza and Alfredsson together for a long time?


Eberle, Hall, Kesler and Spezza were all RFA when they re-signed. Luongo was given one of the best contracts in the league and made captain to retain him. Iginla and Alfie are both Captains. Sedins and Kipper well they are Scandinavian and great ppl.

How many UFA's sign in EDM, WPG,OTT,CLG?
  • 0

#3118 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:12 AM

How many UFA's sign in EDM, WPG,OTT,CLG?


2012 by team
Calgary - 5
Edmonton - 5
Montreal - 7
Ottawa - 4
Toronto - 3
Vancouver - 7
Winnipeg - 7

I didn't total up every team but it looked like most teams were in the 5-7 range with a few on the high (Rangers, Devils) or low (Kings, Flyers) end. At a quick glance 6 would seem to be the league average.

Overall though this would seem to be a silly argument regardless. There are so many factors in play when a free agent is selecting a destination (or not selecting, just hoping an offer comes to them).
  • 0

#3119 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:40 AM

2012 by team
Calgary - 5
Edmonton - 5
Montreal - 7
Ottawa - 4
Toronto - 3
Vancouver - 7
Winnipeg - 7

I didn't total up every team but it looked like most teams were in the 5-7 range with a few on the high (Rangers, Devils) or low (Kings, Flyers) end. At a quick glance 6 would seem to be the league average.

Overall though this would seem to be a silly argument regardless. There are so many factors in play when a free agent is selecting a destination (or not selecting, just hoping an offer comes to them).


My mistake, I should ask how many high end UFA's come to these markets.
  • 0

#3120 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,746 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:42 AM

That would lead to a back-and-forth of what you consider a high-end UFA, so it's probably easier if you look that up.
  • 2




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.