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

#5821 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

"I don’t trust Bettman and what his motive is. He’s a nice man, met him numerous times, but I don’t trust what’s happened so far." - Jason Chimera
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5822 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,802 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:57 PM

I wonder if any new amnesty buyout clause will allow you to trade for a player and then buy him out?

There are teams in trouble if there is a cap drop who may not really have the money to spend on a buyout. You could get some really good young players/picks basically for cash by getting another team off the hook for a contract.

We don't really have anyone worth buying out. Ballard is maybe worth $3 million in a lower cap world (he is worth $4 million in a $70 million cap world). Luongo has enough value in a trade that you don't need to buy him out (unless the backdiving contract clause is really punitive). Booth is again maybe only a million overpaid in the new world.

I wonder what you could get from Tampa Bay if you took the Lecavalier contract from them (they can buy out Ohlund themselves and it isn't too expensive).
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5823 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,299 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:58 PM

One thing I was pondering last night regarding the timing of this is what exactly will happen with the CHL trade deadline.

For example, if the NHL does indeed get set for a Jan 18/19th start date that means the teams will need to have a training camp starting around Jan 11th. The CHL trade deadline is Jan 10th.

Where this becomes an issue is that there was a recall exemption list filed by each team in the middle of September for up to 3 players that the NHL teams could invite to camp in the event a lockout ended. For the CHL teams currently sitting in a quality playoff spot they could very well lose their best players right at or after the deadline so they will not know if they need to replace those players as the NHL teams would not yet have decided if the player makes the squad. Also teams not in a playoff spot wopuld likely not be able to trade their best players to retool for the coming years.

Seeing as the CHL has certain roster limits for overagers and imports this could make it impossible for any big name deals to happen this year. Why would a GM trade for a top player he may never get or, conversely, not have roster room for?

The most likely candidates to compete for spots immediately would be Dougie Hamilton, Ryan Strome, Mark Schiefele, Boone Jenner among others.

I can't find a full list of the players marked but I did find a partial list.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406102

Edited by theminister, 03 January 2013 - 02:03 PM.

  • 0

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


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#5824 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,295 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:04 PM

One thing I was pondering last night regarding the timing of this is what exactly will happen with the CHL trade deadline.

For example, if the NHL does indeed get set for a Jan 18/19th start date that means the teams will need to have a training camp starting around Jan 11th. The CHL trade deadline is Jan 10th.

Where this becomes an issue is that there was a recall exemption list filed by each team in the middle of September for up to 3 players that the NHL teams could invite to camp in the event a lockout ended. For the CHL teams currently sitting in a quality playoff spot they could very well lose their best players right at or after the deadline so they will not know if they need to replace those players as the NHL teams would not yet have decided if the player makes the squad. Also teams not in a playoff spot wopuld likely not be able to trade their best players to retool for the coming years.

Seeing as the CHL has certain roster limits for overagers and imports this could make it impossible for any big name deals to happen this year. Why would a GM trade for a top player he may never get or, conversely, not have roster room for?

The most likely candidates to compete for spots immediately would be Dougie Hamilton, Ryan Strome, Mark Schiefele, Boone Jenner among others.

I can't find a full list of the players marked but I did find a partial list.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406102


Here's the full list:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=9539
  • 1
Posted Image

#5825 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:05 PM

@JSportsnet
The reality of today in the CBA talks... There is a real chance that there are no meetings today. #NHL#NHLPA
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5826 theminister

theminister

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,299 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:06 PM

Here's the full list:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=9539


You're a good man, Squeak.

Looking at that list.... Huberdeau and Grigorenko both have excellent shots at making their teams. Galchenyuk too.

Edited by theminister, 03 January 2013 - 02:12 PM.

  • 0

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


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#5827 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,802 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:16 PM

*
POPULAR

Starting to get the idea that this is going to fall apart again. The League is holding onto things that aren't big deals for them (like next year's cap) and not letting the PA have any wins at all in this.

On top of that, it always seems that when the two sides think they have an agreement, it turns out the NHL is really just agreeing in principle and then trying to screw them in the details (eg. "Make Whole"... woo that sounds good. Oh wait, it doesn't mean make whole?" or "Amnesty buyouts... sounds good... oh wait, you want players to pay for them"

They haven't polished off most of the details so I fully expect the NHL to have a bunch of things in the nitty gritty that isn't as good as the PA thinks it is.


It didn't take long for the first big hiccup that I anticipated in this post.

Apparently hidden in the 300 page document the NHL gave was some changes to the HRR clause even when the sides had already agreed on not changing it. The PA got steamed about it quite understandably.

Apparently the NHL has backed off on it, but doing crap like that at this late date is pretty likely to derail the process. It means that the players can't make an "agreement in principle" because they can't trust the NHL to not do everything they can to screw them in the fine print.

Why at this point do you keep trying to ensure that there is no trust between the parties? This is the time when you should be starting to talk up the other side in order to start making it possible to having a working relationship when the business starts up again.

Edited by Provost, 03 January 2013 - 02:20 PM.

  • 6
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5828 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

"But if you think about it, Jensen only has to be as good as Raymond, and Schroeder has to be as good as Malhotra or Hodgson, which time will tell.

I think Tanev can be as good as Ballard, but beyond that I think our depth on D will be significantly weaker if we don't make some upgrades."


Dear me, talk about fantasy hockey. DN you've been spending too much time on this lockout bull, your hockey judgement has just evaporated.
These 3 "only has to be as good as" are never going to happen. Not for a good few years at any rate.

Jensen is 4 years away from coming near to Raymond. (on a bad day)
As for putting Schroeder in Malhotra's or Hodgson's shoes, have you been watching the Wolves? (I know you have been which makes your statement even more jaw dropping)
I like the way you leave the best till last. Tanev "might" one day show Ballard's skills, speed, pushback, shot, stretch pass, checking ability..........but not in the next 5 years, if that.

I like optimism as much as the next guy but COME ON!


Are we talking about the same Raymond? Or maybe you don't know who Jensen is...

Either way, he's not 4 years away from reaching that level. I think you're in for a shock there.

And you don't think Tanev can be as good as Ballard? A guy who has put up 14 points in the last two seasons, and has been questionable defensively at times.

If put with the right linemates, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Schroeder to put up 30-40 points. If he got the same powerplay time Hodgson got on a better team, the points would come. You can't use the Wolves as a basis, that team is not very good. He's actually doing pretty well, considering he's on one of the lowest scoring teams in the AHL.

I don't think my evaluation of these players is that off. Maybe your lack of faith in them is. The bottom line is, Raymond and Ballard have been average at best the last couple seasons. The bar hasn't been set very high.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5829 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:37 PM

@benkuzma: Henrik Sedin on CBA negotiations: "I'm hoping they get it done, but I've seen things happen. It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't happen."
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5830 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

@ElliottPap: Canuck D Dan Hamhuis on another disclaimer of interest vote: "I think leverage is important whenever you're negotiating." #willthiseverend
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5831 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:55 PM

holy frack this is just retarded
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5832 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the players.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and alot of people don't even have jobs.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could be playing anywhere else, or doing anything else. Passing up a full years pay because of principle is not a smart thing.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5833 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:02 PM

Are we talking about the same Raymond? Or maybe you don't know who Jensen is...

Either way, he's not 4 years away from reaching that level. I think you're in for a shock there.

And you don't think Tanev can be as good as Ballard? A guy who has put up 14 points in the last two seasons, and has been questionable defensively at times.

If put with the right linemates, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Schroeder to put up 30-40 points. If he got the same powerplay time Hodgson got on a better team, the points would come. You can't use the Wolves as a basis, that team is not very good. He's actually doing pretty well, considering he's on one of the lowest scoring teams in the AHL.

I don't think my evaluation of these players is that off. Maybe your lack of faith in them is. The bottom line is, Raymond and Ballard have been average at best the last couple seasons. The bar hasn't been set very high.


DN I will be delighted if you are proved right.

That said, I have a lot of faith in Raymond, unlike many on here. I have seen the few times Jensen played in the AHL and the pre season he had a year+ ago. He is far from being near to Raymond imo,however he MAY be a good player for us (2nd/3rd line maybe) in 3/4 years. How is he doing in Sweden anyway?

Tanev lacks agression, he lacks the swagger of Ballard (playing on his natural side) He has NOT looked good with the Wolves despite what some say. (Not helped I admit by his playing partners/coach)

I get most of the Chicago Wolves games over here. He DOES lack in all the departments I've mentioned above and until imo the coaches bring him out of himself he will stall. Ballard showed the type of player he is and how wasted he has been here in the closing stretch of last season and despite coming back from injury, in the playoffs.

Schroeder is my biggest worry. For a small player he just doesn't have enough game for me. Like you I would like to see him with some decent line mates. However he needs to be more aggressive, he is a wee guy who needs to adopt a "wee man" attitude and fight for the right to play. Too often he is being shut out and marginalised.
Small players, if they are to play in the NHL, especially in the 1st/2nd line have to have a "spark" I don't see it..........yet and time is running out for him.

In closing, yes I do believe we over-estimate our prospects. Part of the reason for that as I've said is imo they are not getting coached to sufficient intensity. To me they give the impression they either "think they have made it" or they are quite happy to sleep walk to obscurity.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#5834 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

A little off topic, but an interesting article about how much public money the NHL gets:

The battle between the NHL and NHLPA gets uglier once public money is taken into account

Partial quote:

Looking solely at public money poured into financing current NHL arenas built since 1993, various governments in the United States have spent a total of $2.67 billion in today’s dollars on homes for NHL teams. Only two arenas – facilities in Boston and Columbus – have been built without the aid of public funds. In Canada, arenas have primarily been built solely with private money over the last two decades; only $52.9 million in today’s dollars has been spent on arenas (that’s set to change as both Calgary and Edmonton are hoping for public sector money for their new homes; but that’s a different discussion).

Combine those two figures and the respective governments in North America have paid $2.72 billion dollars in direct funding for arenas currently used by NHL teams since 1993, which works out to an annual average of $143 million.

Of course, this is back of the envelope calculation. Those arenas also serve as the homes to other professional sports teams in many cases, and those teams are sharing in this sort of public subsidy. The arenas are used to host events that aren’t professional sports as well.

On the other hand, teams also receive a number of subsidies both arena and non-arena related. For example, the deal negotiated by the Edmonton Investors Group saw the Oilers pay just one dollar in rent for the use of Rexall Place, as well as providing a contribution to operating costs.


  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5835 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,802 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the players.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and alot of people don't even have jobs.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could be playing anywhere else, or doing anything else. Passing up a full years pay because of principle is not a smart thing.


You are definitely missing some serious legs to your logic there.

Who cares about the world recession? The business THESE PEOPLE are in (the NHL) is making money like gangbusters. In times of trouble the entertainment industries have historically done really well... presumably because people want to have a little escape.

People who are the best at what they do on the planet have jobs. The players are the best at what they do on the planet. They spend a decade preparing to get drafted, and then spend a couple years getting paid low dollars, and if they are incredibly lucky they get the the NHL where they have to earn all the money for their entire careers in an average 4 year span.

I have known a few NHL players fairly well. I can tell you that what it takes to make it to that level means that they have virtually no other skills in life. It is a very few players who go to college and can make themselves a decent second career after hockey... most just go back to the farm or play in lower leagues where they earn under $50k per year for the rest of their lives.
  • 3
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5836 Garrison

Garrison

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 12

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:38 PM

losing hope
  • 0

#5837 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

You are definitely missing some serious legs to your logic there.

Who cares about the world recession? The business THESE PEOPLE are in (the NHL) is making money like gangbusters. In times of trouble the entertainment industries have historically done really well... presumably because people want to have a little escape.

People who are the best at what they do on the planet have jobs. The players are the best at what they do on the planet. They spend a decade preparing to get drafted, and then spend a couple years getting paid low dollars, and if they are incredibly lucky they get the the NHL where they have to earn all the money for their entire careers in an average 4 year span.

I have known a few NHL players fairly well. I can tell you that what it takes to make it to that level means that they have virtually no other skills in life. It is a very few players who go to college and can make themselves a decent second career after hockey... most just go back to the farm or play in lower leagues where they earn under $50k per year for the rest of their lives.


You don't think these Billionaires are getting their a$ses kicked in this economy? I can assure you they are. I'm sure there are some that are doing quite well, but the majority of them are hurting too. It's easy to just say "oh well they're billionaires, they can afford it". But the reality is, they've got businesses to run too, and they've got shareholders to earn money for.

The truth is the NHL is making money, but it's only about 10 teams that are making all of the money. That's a broken system. You can't have a third of the league supporting the rest of the league, it's not gonna last. Expenses for these owners have gotten too high relative to the amount of money they're making.

I agree that the best people in their fields should get paid top dollar for it. However, it has to all be relative to what people in similar fields are making. The fact is, the NHL is a small time league when compared to the NFL or MLB. They have a fraction of the fans, and a fraction of the viewing audience. They're probably the 5th biggest sport in the US after college football, maybe even 6th if you include Nascar. So salaries have to be relative to what the size of the league is, and salaries should be compared to these other top athletes.

Shea Weber and Ryan Suter are arguably two of the best defenseman in the league. They're making 14 million and 12 million dollars a season respectively. When compared to Peyton Manning making 32 million a season, the salaries are not relative to the size of the league. The NHL isn't a third as big as the NFL, not even close.

Something needs to give. This is the owners hitting the reset button because things have gotten out of control. Salaries have inflated way beyond what they should be. And if anything these rules need to be put in place to protect themselves against themselves.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 03:50 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5838 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,858 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the players.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and alot of people don't even have jobs.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could be playing anywhere else, or doing anything else. Passing up a full years pay because of principle is not a smart thing.


If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the owners.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and a lot of businesses have gone under.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could are just leaving the doors closed. Passing up a full years revenues because of principle is not a smart thing.
  • 4
Posted Image

#5839 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:57 PM

If they don't get a deal done now, it will be all on the owners.

These guys have to realize that they've had it pretty good for the last little while, but it wasn't going to continue forever. The rest of the world is in a recession, and a lot of businesses have gone under.

Just check your egos and sign a deal. They're going to be making more than they could are just leaving the doors closed. Passing up a full years revenues because of principle is not a smart thing.


Except it doesn't work the other way around. Because the players need the NHL in order to make a very good living, the owners don't need the NHL; especially if they're not making money on it. They would just as soon walk away then continuously lose money.

The world being in a recession has affected these owners alot more than the players; who have only seen their salaries increase to record levels over the last few years.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 04:03 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5840 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

That said, I have a lot of faith in Raymond, unlike many on here. I have seen the few times Jensen played in the AHL and the pre season he had a year+ ago. He is far from being near to Raymond imo,however he MAY be a good player for us (2nd/3rd line maybe) in 3/4 years. How is he doing in Sweden anyway?


I too think Raymond's way better than people give him credit for. Even with his troubles last season as he came back from a MAJOR injury, he put up respectable numbers when compared to other players, like Booth, for example.

Booth: GP: 62, Pts: 30, GP/Pt Average: 0.48, Cap Hit: $4.25M
Raymond: GP: 55, Pts: 20, GP/Pt Average: 0.36, Cap Hit: $2.55M

Raymond played 49.39 SH minutes and still ended up with a +4, whereas Booth played less than 2 minutes SH ended with a -5. Even in shot accuracy, probably Raymond's biggest weakness, he wasn't that far beyond Booth.

Booth: S% 10.1, S/G 2.6
Raymond: S% 8 S/G 2.3

And I fully expect Raymond to be even better. I was happy to hear he went to Sweden. I only wish he'd done it sooner. I think the fast league will help him continue to improve his stability while maintaining his speed. Even as he was last year, though, if he'd re-sign for about $1.5M, at least for a year or two, he'd be hard to replace.

As for how he's doing in Sweden, it looks like he's only played one game there so far: 0 points, +1.


Interesting side fact: Ebbet had the best S% last season at 18.5% and Bitz was second with 16.7%, followed by Burrows with 14.1% (to match his jersey I suppose), and then the Sedins: D. 13.1% H. 12.4%.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5841 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,802 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

The truth is the NHL is making money, but it's only about 10 teams that are making all of the money. That's a broken system. You can't have a third of the league supporting the rest of the league,


They don't get to negotiate like a collective league and then argue that they are purely individual businesses who need to just look out for themselves... it has to be one or the other or it is just hypocrisy.

They have put in all sorts of rules (all on thebacks of the players) for the good of the league (draft, salary cap, RFA, etc) but balk when they need to put in rules that affect the owners? (eg. revenue sharing)?

You want to solve the economic issues that were created by the league (not the players)? Relocate a couple of crappy revenue teams. Have all the teams evenly share all TV revenue including local deals. Everyone makes money then.

You say that the players need the NHL, that simply isn't true. If the NHL dissolved then another league would take it's place. There have been other leagues and there will be again. If the NHL dissolved each owner would lose $100 million to $1 billion dollars as their franchise values move to zero. The players can find work in the new leagues, but the owners would have to start from scratch again and deal with empty arenas.

Edited by Provost, 03 January 2013 - 04:05 PM.

  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5842 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

Does anyone else think something's a little fishy with the 60 million salary cap?

Who has Bettman always catered to since day one?.. The big market teams, right?

This 60 million would hurt those teams greatly. And hurt the league in general with the degraded bottom six talent and leaving good players without jobs. You don't think doing this and forcing "the old boys club" big market teams to lose core players they drafted and developed would seriously piss them off?

It just seems to go against everything Bettman stands for and I'm thinking this is all a move to get the players to give in on something the owners actually want... This entire process has been about taking from the players and not hurting the owners an ounce. There's no way they actually want the cap at 60 million so bettmans big dogs can give up a core player and great role player just to fit under the cap.

Every move he has made from day one has been shady and this is going to derail real quick if he doesn't start giving the players reasons to trust him.

I understand your point Deniro, but my opinion is if this derails, it's on the shady commisioner not willing to negotiate in good faith from day 1. Everything he does is some sort of trick and he has called a stop to negotiations as soon as the players don't buy it.
  • 0

#5843 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,467 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:10 PM

Except it doesn't work the other way around. Because the players need the NHL in order to make a very good living, the owners don't need the NHL, especially if they're not making money on it. They would just as soon walk away then continuously lose money.

The world being in a recession has affected these owners alot more than the players, who have only seen their salaries increase to record levels over the last few years.


The owners are NOT losing money. Teams may be, but owners are not. Owners buy a team and then never put another penny into it. If a team is losing money it does NOT come out of the owners' pocket. And, as I've posted multiple times with facts and figures to prove, even teams that are losing money are more often than not selling for more than they're worth and significantly higher than what the owner originally paid for them. That means owners of teams losing money are actually making millions, often tens of millions, in profits when they sell the team. Even without selling the team, owners benefit by having their personal wealth increase as the value of their team increases (as almost all NHL teams have), even as it continues to lose money.

Look no further than the money suck hole that is Phoenix for proof: The NHL paid $140M for it (and then got $50M in taxpayer handouts...) in 2009 but they are likely getting $170M for it when the deal with Jamison is finalized sometime this year.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5844 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:12 PM

They don't get to negotiate like a collective league and then argue that they are purely individual businesses who need to just look out for themselves... it has to be one or the other or it is just hypocrisy.

They have put in all sorts of rules (all on thebacks of the players) for the good of the league (draft, salary cap, RFA, etc) but balk when they need to put in rules that affect the owners? (eg. revenue sharing)?

You want to solve the economic issues that were created by the league (not the players)? Relocate a couple of crappy revenue teams. Have all the teams evenly share all TV revenue including local deals. Everyone makes money then.


They are bargaining as a collective group, and like I said the majority of them simply aren't making money. So it's not just about individual owners, there's a majority group of them that want things to change. That's why there's a lockout.

The rules are for the league in order to protect it from going under. Because contrary to what Bettman will have you believe, this league is in serious trouble. There's about 3 teams right now that would be going bankrupt if it wasn't for the NHL. Giving less to the players is about the only thing these teams can do from saving themselves from bankruptcy.

I agree that they need to move teams, but that's not an easy process, or something that can be done quickly. Getting the Islanders into Brooklyn was one step. Next they need to get Phoenix and Florida out, and set up a team in Seattle. But until that happens, the NHL has to worry about the next few years, because things are not as rosy as they appear.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5845 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,858 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

Except it doesn't work the other way around. Because the players need the NHL in order to make a very good living, the owners don't need the NHL; especially if they're not making money on it. They would just as soon walk away then continuously lose money.

The world being in a recession has affected these owners alot more than the players; who have only seen their salaries increase to record levels over the last few years.


NHL makes money. Lots and lots of money.

Even franchises that are claiming to lose money have submitted financial forms indicating overall profits. But minimizing the HRR and crying poor is far more advantageous. Hence the sneaky amendment lowering penalties for hiding HRR in the last NHL submission.

I don't understand how owners who signed players to contracts worth 73% of HRR, who then get an absolute coup in the last lockout with a 24% rollback and escrow to ensure the players only get 57%, just in time for revenues to nearly double, can stand there with a straight face and say their business model is flawed, and they need more...well, everything...

...And in the end, you suckers actually buy all of it!
  • 1
Posted Image

#5846 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

The owners are NOT losing money. Teams may be, but owners are not. Owners buy a team and then never put another penny into it. If a team is losing money it does NOT come out of the owners' pocket. And, as I've posted multiple times with facts and figures to prove, even teams that are losing money are more often than not selling for more than they're worth and significantly higher than what the owner originally paid for them. That means owners of teams losing money are actually making millions, often tens of millions, in profits when they sell the team. Even without selling the team, owners benefit by having their personal wealth increase as the value of their team increases (as almost all NHL teams have), even as it continues to lose money.

Look no further than the money suck hole that is Phoenix for proof: The NHL paid $140M for it (and then got $50M in taxpayer handouts...) in 2009 but they are likely getting $170M for it when the deal with Jamison is finalized sometime this year.


It's hard for an owner to stay motivated about a league that makes them 0 dollars. That's not a good investment no matter how you spin it.

Sure franchise values go up, but when a team is losing an average of 5 million a season, for 15 years like the coyotes did, the fact that their value went up 30 million really means nothing. Especially when you factor in inflation too.

There are also alot of owners who's teams aren't increasing in value too. I would imagine the St.Louis Blues and Carolina Hurricanes aren't increasing in value, they may be even decreasing.

This lockout is more important than the owners just sucking as much money as they can out of the players. They need this lockout to get the league back on track, cause right now it is in pretty rough shape when you look at the low market teams. What's complicated this whole thing is Bettman trying to hit a home run for the owners, instead of just making a fair deal.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5847 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

NHL makes money. Lots and lots of money.

Even franchises that are claiming to lose money have submitted financial forms indicating overall profits. But minimizing the HRR and crying poor is far more advantageous. Hence the sneaky amendment lowering penalties for hiding HRR in the last NHL submission.

I don't understand how owners who signed players to contracts worth 73% of HRR, who then get an absolute coup in the last lockout with a 24% rollback and escrow to ensure the players only get 57%, just in time for revenues to nearly double, can stand there with a straight face and say their business model is flawed, and they need more...well, everything...

...And in the end, you suckers actually buy all of it!


So you think teams like the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Predators, Blues, Hurricanes, Panthers, Islanders, and Lightning are actually making money? If you think that, maybe you should do some research on these teams. Any money these teams get is from revenue sharing, and even that isn't enough.

Revenues don't mean profits. Record revenues mean nothing when you couple them with record expenses.

Who`s the sucker? The people thinking the owners are having a hard time making money? Or the people thinking the players are the victims, despite making record salaries, and making an average wage of 2.5 million?
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5848 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:36 PM

Wow NHL has agreed to 30% variance. Quite a move
  • 0

#5849 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,000 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

@SpectorsHockey: #NHL & #NHLPA are having a small group meeting tonight at NHL HQ to discuss the pension issue.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5850 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 03 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

Wow NHL has agreed to 30% variance. Quite a move


Wow. That likely means they're not gonna budge on pensions or the cap.

I doubt that is enough of a concession to make the players budge on those issues.

Edited by DeNiro, 03 January 2013 - 04:41 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"





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.