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

#5311 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

Well there you have it, Jan 19 is the drop dead date.


David Shoalts@dshoalts

NHL exec: Key is Jan 5. Need a deal by then to allow for 1 wk legal paperwork, 1 wk for camp, first puck drop Jan. 19. Otherwise it's over.

  • 0

#5312 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,358 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

Why do you expect the players just to bow and give away the rights they bargained for in fairness? Just so you can watch them play?

People pretend to care about "the game", etc. But in reality, most are just a bunch of spoiled brats that just want to be entertained and catered to.


Kind of how the players and owners are acting in this?

Do I expect the players to make concessions? Yes. Do I expect the owners to make concessions? Yes.
The company I work for didn't make the profit they forecast this year - because of that, none of the employees will receive a bonus.
In other words, the market is not constant so the employer can NOT guarantee how much they can share with their employees.

One thing that I dislike the most about this lockout is how the fans have divided - how fans from the same team are battling each other, how fans from the same team who choose one side and resort to name calling of each other.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5313 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:39 AM

Kind of how the players and owners are acting in this?  

Do I expect the players to make concessions? Yes. Do I expect the owners to make concessions? Yes.
The company I work for didn't make the profit they forecast this year - because of that, none of the employees will receive a bonus.
In other words, the market is not constant so the employer can NOT guarantee how much they can share with their employees.

One thing that I dislike the most about this lockout is how the fans have divided - how fans from the same team are battling each other, how fans from the same team who choose one side and resort to name calling of each other.


That's just it though. You're contradicting yourself. Owners have made pretty much ZERO concessions. And this is after consecutive years of record profits for the league.

The thing I dislike the most about this lockout is how weak the average person is. How they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to whatever our corporate overlords tell us. How they value brands over people. How they have have so little solidarity with the players they would otherwise cheer for, when they are no longer entertaining them...

People say "it's different, these guys are overpaid/etc.", but it's not. It's just another case of the super-wealthy trying to pay by different rules than the rest of us. It's yet another example of billionaires attempting to maximize private profits, while socializing losses. And, like all large legal issues, what happens can set a precedent that can affect many other people/industries in the future.
  • 4
Posted Image

#5314 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:46 AM

If the players reject this new proposal, they are indeed GREEDY.
  • 0
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#5315 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

Highlights of 300 page offer
http://espn.go.com/b...dec-27-proposal

An NHL team source provided highlights from the latest offer the NHL gave to the union on Thursday:

• Ten-Year Agreement (through 2021/22 season); Parties have mutual opt-out right
after 8 years.

• 50-50 Revenue Split between Clubs and Players with current HRR Accounting.

• $300 million in “Make-Whole” payments (outside the system) to compensate Players
for the reduced value of Player contracts in the early years of the new CBA.

• No contractual “roll backs” of Player Salaries.

• Clubs can operate with an effective Upper Limit of $70.2 million in 2012/13; must
come into compliance with $60 million Upper Limit for the start of the 2013/14
season.

• Each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the
2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged
against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share.

• Establishment of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan that will provide maximum
permissible benefits to Players upon retirement. The Plan will be funded with
contributions out of Players’ Share and $50 million of the “Make-Whole” payment
amount of $300 million will be allocated and set aside to fund potential underfunding
liabilities of the Plan at end of CBA.

• Rules for Entry Level System, Salary Arbitration and Group 3 Unrestricted Free
Agency will remain unchanged.

• Maximum contract length of 6 years subject to a Club’s ability to re-sign its own
Player for a term of up to 7 years (provided the Player played his last full season
with the re-signing Club). In addition, year-to-year Salary variability will be limited
(up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC.

• Money paid (above a defined threshold) to Players on NHL SPCs in another
professional league (e.g., the AHL or a European league) will be charged against the
NHL team’s Cap, but not against the Players’ Share.

• “Cap Advantage Recapture” formula applicable to existing long-term contracts (in
excess of 6 years) for years in which Player is retired or fails/refuses to perform
under his NHL SPC.

• Ability for Clubs to retain/allocate Salary and Cap Charges in the context of Player
Trades within specified parameters.

• More robust League-wide Revenue Sharing Program (increased pool from
approximately $150 million to $200 million) with creation of Industry Growth Fund to
improve the long-term revenue generating potential of the League and low-grossing
Clubs. Formation of active Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee on which NHLPA
will participate.

• New Player Discipline procedures and protocol incorporating Player appeal rights to
a neutral third-party arbitrator for both on-ice and off-ice discipline.

• Flexibility-related adjustments to Payroll Range System, including (in addition to
Salary/Cap Charge allocation in Player trades):



  • 1. Lower Limit obligation without performance bonuses;

2. Elimination of Re-Entry Waivers;

3. Creation of Salary Cap exceptions for emergency roster situations/goaltender
injuries;

4. Waiver exemptions for mid-season signings of Club’s own European Players;

5. Availability of Performance Bonus Cushion in every year of the CBA;

6. Creation of “interview period” for Unrestricted Free Agents.

• Various Player contract enhancements and protections, including:


  • 1. Early activation of “No Move/No Trade” clauses in contract extensions;

2. Additional restrictions on Club “buy-out” rights of Player contracts;

3. Modified Waiver obligations for Clubs / enhanced Waiver opportunities for
Players;

4. Standardization of reimbursements and benefits related to Player
assignments (trades, loans, recalls, etc.);

5. Continued increases in League Minimum Salary and Per Diem;

6. Playoff Pool increased from $6.5 million to $13 million in Year 1; additional
regular increases over the balance of the CBA term;

7. All minor league salary paid in USD;

8. Liberalized “Cap treatment” standards for Club initiatives benefitting Players,
such as “parent-son” road trips; milestone awards/gifts; parental travel and
lodging for attendance at EL Player games, Club provision of various types of
“professional development”-type services for Players, etc.

• Player “Working Condition” improvements, including:


  • 1. Ice-time restrictions and mandatory “days off” requirements during Training
    Camp;

2. Club practice schedule and “days off” requirements during the Regular
Season;

3. Extended “Christmas Break” (i.e., December 24-26 “days off” for all
purposes);

4. Mandatory facility standards for Visiting Teams relating to training/medical
supplies, workout equipment and dressing room standards/supplies;

5. Implementation of “best practices” and continued League initiatives to ensure
optimal ice conditions;

6. Tighter restrictions/regulation of Club off-season conditioning requirements
and Club Conditioning Camp;

7. Establishment of annual Orientation and Development Program for
Rookies/First Year Players.

• New CBA Article devoted exclusively to Player Health and Safety measures and
covering such matters as:


  • 1. The establishment of a Joint NHL/NHLPA Health and Safety Committee with
    equal representation from the NHL and the NHLPA;

2. The establishment of “Standard of Care” and “Professional Duty” obligations
owing from team health care professionals to Players;

3. The establishment of minimum requirements for “health management” staffing
and resources;

4. The establishment of standards for the creation, updating and maintenance of
Electronic Medical Records for Players;

5. Improvements to Second Medical Opinion procedures and protocol and
Fitness to Play determinations;

6. Implementation of additional steps and safeguards to monitor the use (and
possible misuse) of prescription medication by Players.

7. Increased flexibility for Players for rehabilitation of injuries during the offseason.

• Elimination of NHLPA “Guarantee” of Escrow shortfall and increased NHLPA
discretion to determine in-season Escrow Rates.

• Completion of expert third-party review of SABH Program and commitment to make
recommended modifications and improvements, as appropriate.

• Improvements to existing Performance Enhancing Substances Program, including:


  • 1. Expansion of Prohibited Substances List to include illegal stimulants;

2. The establishment of testing protocol for HGH;

3. Varied forms and times of testing throughout the year;

4. The establishment of protocol for “reasonable cause testing”;

5. Incorporation of agreed-upon appeal procedures from “positive” test results;

6. Commitment to work with the AHL and the PHPA to expand Program to cover
AHL Players.

• Joint (NHL/NHLPA) Committees:


  • 1. Formation of new “Owner-Player Relations Committee,” with broad-based
    participation from Owners and Players intended to foster and establish better
    understanding and stronger working relationships.

2. Formation of new “Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee” to oversee the
operation of the Revenue Sharing System.

3. Formation of new “Joint Health and Safety Committee” to make
recommendations to the NHL and the NHLPA on Player Health and Safety
matters.

4. Formation of new “NHL/NHLPA Equipment Working Group” to study,
promulgate and enforce minimum standards for protective equipment utilized
by NHL Players.

5. Refined and enhanced role for “Player/Club Competition Committee” (CBA
Article 22) with greater consultation and interaction with the NHL General
Managers’ Committee.

6. The “NHL/NHLPA Joint Owner-Player Broadcasting/Marketing Committee”
(CBA Article 32) will be reconstituted to consult and establish policy on
League broadcasting and marketing matters, as well as other League
business functions and initiatives.

7. The NHL/NHLPA International Committee (CBA Article 24) will be charged
with jointly identifying, creating, exploiting and managing new international
business opportunities involving NHL Players, in which the NHL and NHLPA
will participate as 50-50 partners. The NHL/NHLPA International Committee
shall also have an advisory role in planning and executing NHL events
conducted outside of North America.

• Players provided access to NHL.com platform for their individual Player websites
and social media.

• Implementation of a weighted Draft Lottery in which all non-Playoff teams compete
for opportunity to choose first overall in the annual Draft.

• Exclusive negotiating rights window for European Draftees extended to one period
covering four years, instead of two periods covering two years each.

• Modification to “Four-Recall Rule” to remove limitation on “number of transactions”
following the Trade Deadline; replace with limitations on the total number of Recalls
on roster at any one time after the Trade Deadline.

• Updated and improved Grievance Arbitration process and procedure.

• Enhanced access to Game Tickets for Visiting Team Players and NHLPA.

• NHLPA representatives to be provided reasonable access to Club facilities and
Players at reasonable times.


  • 0

#5316 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,358 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

That's just it though. You're contradicting yourself. Owners have made pretty much ZERO concessions. And this is after consecutive years of record profits for the league.

The thing I dislike the most about this lockout is how weak the average person is. How they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to whatever our corporate overlords tell us. How they value brands over people. How they have have so little solidarity with the players they would otherwise cheer for, when they are no longer entertaining them...

People say "it's different, these guys are overpaid/etc.", but it's not. It's just another case of the super-wealthy trying to pay by different rules than the rest of us. It's yet another example of billionaires attempting to maximize private profits, while socializing losses. And, like all large legal issues, what happens can set a precedent that can affect many other people/industries in the future.


From a year ago:

http://ca.sports.yah...ug=ycn-10423863

"I'm surprised that NHL players make as much as they do. One of the major papers in New York City used to show the weekly ratings of sports games on TV in the New York market. NHL games were always the lowest rated of any sport, and some of the ratings were incredibly low. A Stanley Cup Finals game on NBC in 2007 was the lowest rated prime time program in NBC history."

How am I contradicting myself? I said I expect both to make concessions.

As far as bending over backwards - in the real world - you move on. Tell me, don't you work for a corporate overlord?
Please elaborate on how how you dislike the lockout because of how weak the average person is,

Without the "billionaires" as you say - there would be no hockey.

Again, for the record, I cheer for the team - not an individual players...players are way different since the 90's then they were in the 70's and 80's - where they cared more for the crest on their jerseys than their bank accounts.

There is no precedent being set in this for the average person - for the person in reality.

This is the entertainment industry...whatever they get will not impact what say the corporate giants like FedEx, Wall Mart, GM, etc do for their employees.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5317 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

Funny how the owners are always making concessions....amazing how the employees can dictate what the owners can and can't do....

the owners have given players nothing, they are just offering to take less away....Isn't that big of them? Wow...so generous.... NOT !!!
  • 3

#5318 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

Amazing how the agents force the owners to sign players to multi year deals for more than they are worth by threatening that they will go elsewhere...

If you knew enough about the actual legal issues, then you'd know that you don't have enough actual information to really make an assessment of who has budged, and who is playing games.
You're not in the board room, and you should know that you're reacting to media rhetoric, and not actual happenings.
There are so many fine details that have been bargained over, and so many back and forths. You can't possibly think you know enough of the situation to decide who is the greedier of the two.
  • 3

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#5319 KoreanHockeyFan

KoreanHockeyFan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,474 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:59 AM

Barely any movement by the league, but it's movement nonetheless. By this point, I honestly don't care what's happens now, in fact in some regards, I hope the season is cancelled so both sides can learn a lesson.

Every since 2005, the league has been receiving record profits, and player salaries have skyrocketed ever since. Even with such positive financial results, both sides decide to argue how to divide the large amount of economic surplus. I mean, I could sympathize a little bit for both sides in 04/05, the league was in a financial crisis. But this? This is total BS. Both sides continue to argue and pursue more money even after the heaps of profits they've already accumulated over these past 7 years.

Oh well, I'm still going to watch the NHL when it comes back. It's just that this ridiculous fiasco that has been plagued with arrogance and greed will always be in the back of my mind whenever I hear the words "for the fans" coming out of the mouths of the players or the league.

Edited by KoreanHockeyFan, 28 December 2012 - 12:00 PM.

  • 0

#5320 Alex Edler 23

Alex Edler 23

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 11

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:01 PM

Lp
  • 0
Sig too big.

#5321 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

This is interesting:

Implementation of a weighted Draft Lottery in which all non-Playoff teams compete
for opportunity to choose first overall in the annual Draft.

  • 1
Posted Image

#5322 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

• Flexibility-related adjustments to Payroll Range System, including (in addition to
Salary/Cap Charge allocation in Player trades):



  • 6. Creation of “interview period” for Unrestricted Free Agents.

What they really mean to say is
"improvements to the quantity, and quality of signing rumours leading up to UFA date." B)
  • 1

#5323 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,358 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

If you knew enough about the actual legal issues, then you'd know that you don't have enough actual information to really make an assessment of who has budged, and who is playing games.
You're not in the board room, and you should know that you're reacting to media rhetoric, and not actual happenings.
There are so many fine details that have been bargained over, and so many back and forths. You can't possibly think you know enough of the situation to decide who is the greedier of the two.


Exactly - that's why I made that post - sorry, I should have enclosed it in [sarcasm] - just like someone can't say "amazing how the owners sign multi year contracts and then want to change them" without knowing all the details...

The simple solution is pay for performance (something I doubt not one player would ever sign for - I wonder why?)
Owners can't "fire" the players like your boss and mine can do if we aren't performing up to expectations.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5324 Hugemanskost

Hugemanskost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:10 PM

This is a deal that makes sense for both sides. There is no clear "winner", although, I would give a slight edge to the players at this point. The biggest concession by the players would be the 50-50 revenue split. $1.5 B is still a good chunk of coin, though!

Sign it and drop the freakin' puck already!
  • 1

webkit-fake-url://D8829558-F65F-49B9-9829-A7DFC7F2E6E4/application.pdf


:towel: :canucks:


#5325 WiDeN

WiDeN

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,751 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

Exactly - that's why I made that post - sorry, I should have enclosed it in [sarcasm] - just like someone can't say "amazing how the owners sign multi year contracts and then want to change them" without knowing all the details...

The simple solution is pay for performance (something I doubt not one player would ever sign for - I wonder why?)
Owners can't "fire" the players like your boss and mine can do if we aren't performing up to expectations.

Well, the reason that the owners can't fire a player is because there is a players union that has bargained for guaranteed contracts, but let's not pretend that having a players union doesn't benefit the NHL to a huge extent.
  • 0

V a n c o u v e r C a n u c k s

Posted Image
2 0 14 S t a n l e y C u p C h a m p i o n s


#5326 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

Right...do you hear that sound? That's me playing "Cry me a river" on the worlds smallest violin.

Come up with a reply at least instead relying on the worlds worst comeback.
  • 0

#5327 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,358 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:22 PM

Come up with a reply at least instead relying on the worlds worst comeback.


Would you like some more cheese?

Is that better? :)
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#5328 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:24 PM

From a year ago:

http://ca.sports.yah...ug=ycn-10423863

"I'm surprised that NHL players make as much as they do. One of the major papers in New York City used to show the weekly ratings of sports games on TV in the New York market. NHL games were always the lowest rated of any sport, and some of the ratings were incredibly low. A Stanley Cup Finals game on NBC in 2007 was the lowest rated prime time program in NBC history."

How am I contradicting myself?  I said I expect both to make concessions.


Your words:

Kind of how the players and owners are acting in this?  

Do I expect the players to make concessions? Yes. Do I expect the owners to make concessions? Yes.
The company I work for didn't make the profit they forecast this year - because of that, none of the employees will receive a bonus.


You say you expect the owners to make concessions, yet they have really made none of any significance. Especially compared with the owners' unreasonable demands.

You then try to compare your company, which didn't make a profit, to a league that has made record profits in consecutive years. How does this compare?

Were you also asked to take a 12.3% paycut in future years? Are you also restricted from working/moving anywhere else, because you signed a 10-year contract under terms your employer is now trying to change (without giving you an opt-out)?


As far as bending over backwards - in the real world - you move on.  Tell me, don't you work for a corporate overlord?  
Please elaborate on how how you dislike the lockout because of how weak the average person is,  


This is a perfect example. Employees are standing up and fighting for the rights they bargained for in good faith. Rather than support them, or at the very least respect their rights, the average Joe is telling them to suck it up, and bend over for the fat cats.

Why? Because of an in-depth understanding of the financial and legal issues? No, not at all. They just want to be entertained, and feel uncomfortable calling out the corporate elite, even when they are so obviously manipulating the situation.


Without the "billionaires" as you say - there would be no hockey.

That makes zero sense. We may not have an NHL without billionaires - at least, not as it is right now - but we'll always have hockey. I wonder if it would be even better...


This is the entertainment industry...whatever they get will not impact what say the corporate giants like FedEx, Wall Mart, GM, etc do for their employees.


Wrong again. The public perception towards employee rights is the basis for their existence. The more the general public begins to lose respect for them, and be comforatable with corporate bullying, the less power each of us have.

For someone with such strong feelings about organized labour negotiations, you have very little knowledge of how they work, or even what they represent. Sadly, you are in the majority.

Edited by D-Money, 28 December 2012 - 12:43 PM.

  • 3
Posted Image

#5329 iwtl

iwtl

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 676 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 07

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

This is interesting:

Implementation of a weighted Draft Lottery in which all non-Playoff teams compete
for opportunity to choose first overall in the annual Draft.


It's about time - call it the Oilers or Penguins rule. A team that is poorly run and plays equally poorly should not be rewarded with consecutive #1 picks over and over. I had no issue with the worst overal drafting first overal but when teams make no effort to improve and make repeat trips up at #1 they need to do something so that a businuess plan of sucking badly does not guarentee first overal all draft picks. For me I would prefer it being even more simple - a team drafting first overal can not draft any higher than Third overall for 2 years after drafting first ( unless the first draft pick is aquaired via trade ). Just my thoughts
  • 0
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. -
John Kenneth Galbraith

"This is the first test of a gentleman: his respect for those who can be of no possible value to him." - William Lyon Phelps



#5330 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:44 PM

It's about time - call it the Oilers or Penguins rule. A team that is poorly run and plays equally poorly should not be rewarded with consecutive #1 picks over and over. I had no issue with the worst overal drafting first overal but when teams make no effort to improve and make repeat trips up at #1 they need to do something so that a businuess plan of sucking badly does not guarentee first overal all draft picks. For me I would prefer it being even more simple - a team drafting first overal can not draft any higher than Third overall for 2 years after drafting first ( unless the first draft pick is aquaired via trade ). Just my thoughts


Yep

Very poorly run.

Posted Image

:picard:

Edited by Squeak, 28 December 2012 - 12:44 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#5331 Brad Marchand

Brad Marchand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

Yep

Very poorly run.

Posted Image

:picard:


He probably meant before they got all those draft picks, cause the Penguins flat out sucked from 2002-2006.
  • 1
Posted ImagePosted Image
Luc Bourdon & Rick Rypien: Forever Canucks

#5332 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:48 PM

He probably meant before they got all those draft picks, cause the Penguins flat out sucked from 2002-2006.


So did LA for awhile.

So did Philly for awhile.

So did Florida.

So did Minnesota.

So did Vancouver.

So did Ottawa.


It's the ebs and flows of a league --- only a handful of teams will stay truly contenders for a long period of time.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5333 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,792 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:48 PM

It's about time - call it the Oilers or Penguins rule. A team that is poorly run and plays equally poorly should not be rewarded with consecutive #1 picks over and over. I had no issue with the worst overal drafting first overal but when teams make no effort to improve and make repeat trips up at #1 they need to do something so that a businuess plan of sucking badly does not guarentee first overal all draft picks. For me I would prefer it being even more simple - a team drafting first overal can not draft any higher than Third overall for 2 years after drafting first ( unless the first draft pick is aquaired via trade ). Just my thoughts


Perhaps the lottery weighting will incorporate past #1 overall picks, like the 2005 draft lottery did.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5334 Brad Marchand

Brad Marchand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,409 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

So did LA for awhile.

So did Philly for awhile.

So did Florida.

So did Minnesota.

So did Vancouver.

So did Ottawa.


It's the ebs and flows of a league --- only a handful of teams will stay truly contenders for a long period of time.


Four straight seasons of fewer than 70 points. You tell me if that is just eb and flow.

It's like saying the Canucks of 1997-2000 were well-managed.
  • 1
Posted ImagePosted Image
Luc Bourdon & Rick Rypien: Forever Canucks

#5335 Lonny_Bohonos_14

Lonny_Bohonos_14

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:56 PM

It's the ebs and flows of a league --- only a handful of teams will stay truly contenders for a long period of time.


There are ebs and flows - and then there is flat out not giving a dam.

Most teams try to make progress from year to year. What has Edmonton done other than add their #1 picks? No notable FA signings, no progress in the standings. I'm not saying that they should have been out there trying to land Suter and Parise, but they don't make any effort to improve the team.

I would rather see Calgary get the next first overall then one of the bottom feeders that frequent the top 5. Calgary at least tries to put together decent team year in and year out.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5336 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

the owners have given players nothing, they are just offering to take less away....Isn't that big of them? Wow...so generous.... NOT !!!

So many people view the league as 'taking away players rights' during this negotiation...there is nothing in existence to take away right now. All the old conditions of the old CBA expired, that means ceased to exist on Sept 15th 2012. Right now there are negotiations and on one side is the NHLPA and other is the NHL...it appears that they agree on a 50/50 split for the long term and are merely arguing about what to do for the short term turbulance of reaching that 50/50 split.

I guess you can continue to dig trenches in a defend it to the death attitude..or you can look for similarities and mutual benefits such as "if we play at least some of this season people will get paid".
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5337 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

So did LA for awhile.

So did Philly for awhile.

So did Florida.

So did Minnesota.

So did Vancouver.

So did Ottawa.


It's the ebs and flows of a league --- only a handful of teams will stay truly contenders for a long period of time.


Yes, and it takes an especially talented management team to stay non contenders for such a long period of time and not get a decent draft pick *cough* Leafs. This should be referred to as the Leafs rule lol
  • 0

#5338 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:03 PM

Definitely some interesting points to ponder in their proposal. (Try saying that 10 times fast!)

Each Club will be entitled to execute up to one “Compliance Buy-Out” prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team’s Cap, but will be charged against the Players’ Share.


Not sure how that's going to go over with the players as it would seem to mean the players are the ones who actually have to buy out the contracts if it's counted against their share. But, it depends on any specific rules they might have proposed for dealing with the lockout shortened season. Their proposal makes it obvious they wanted the shortened season, but since the salary cap mentioned is based on a full season it's hard to know what that would translate to in terms of players' share. Would they get only 50% of actual HRR and that would have to include the buyouts? If so, that's a huge financial hit for players that makes them pay for the owners' bad contracts.

Establishment of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan that will provide maximum permissible benefits to Players upon retirement. The Plan will be funded with contributions out of Players’ Share and $50 million of the “Make-Whole” payment amount of $300 million will be allocated and set aside to fund potential underfunding liabilities of the Plan at end of CBA.


It's probably one they have to let go, but I know the players didn't like that before, especially owners saying they're giving them $300M in "make whole" when it's really $250M and then $50M for the pension plan that the players are now having to pay for themselves (unless I'm misunderstanding).

But, those two possible sticking points aside, there are lots of other interesting things in the offer. I would love to know more about the "Cap Advantage Recapture" formula (for existing long-term contracts for retired players) and the "Industry Growth Fund." I was most surprised by the section on players' contractual rights.

Various Player contract enhancements and protections, including:
1. Early activation of “No Move/No Trade” clauses in contract extensions;
2. Additional restrictions on Club “buy-out” rights of Player contracts;


I'm a bit shocked by those to be honest. Definitely a win in the players' column for those. Obviously owners don't find guaranteed contracts as horrible as so many here do, especially in the shortened form proposed by this CBA.

Improvements to existing Performance Enhancing Substances Program, including:
1. Expansion of Prohibited Substances List to include illegal stimulants;
2. The establishment of testing protocol for HGH;


How were those not already included?!

Formation of new “Owner-Player Relations Committee,” with broad-based participation from Owners and Players intended to foster and establish better understanding and stronger working relationships.


In all honesty, that's the best idea I've seen them come up with yet! This negotiation has gotten nasty and it's definitely time for some couples counseling!

Implementation of a weighted Draft Lottery in which all non-Playoff teams compete for opportunity to choose first overall in the annual Draft.


Anyone know how that might differ from what we have now?


This definitely seems like a good offer, or at least an excellent framework needing only minor tweaks. I'm really starting to think they can they can get a deal done (as long as the NHL doesn't have another hissy fit if the PA counters rather than just signing it with a lipstick kiss.)
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5339 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 69,158 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:05 PM

@LouisJean_TVA
@NHLPA has a 3pm Eastern conference call w/ executive board and negotiating committee. League offer deemed extensive. Over 300 pages.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5340 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,274 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:10 PM

Yes, and it takes an especially talented management team to stay non contenders for such a long period of time and not get a decent draft pick *cough* Leafs. This should be referred to as the Leafs rule lol


I think that is exactly my point.

La - cup win
Philly - cup final appearance
Chicago - cup win
Pittsburgh - cup win
Vancouver - final appearance
Ottawa - final appearance

Minnesota (Coyle, Granlund, Brodin, Hackett, Zucker) and Florida (Huberdeau, Howden, Petrovic, Markstrom) have arguably better prospect depth coming up when compared to Edmonton
  • 0
Posted Image




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.