2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[maplesyrup]

For those wondering;

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
Lockout burns a year on all existing NHL contracts. @PoulinMike
Retweeted by Spector's Hockey

 

[drummond]

For those wondering;

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
Lockout burns a year on all existing NHL contracts. @PoulinMike
Retweeted by Spector's Hockey

Like we will never see Mike Komisarek in Leafs jersey again  :'(

 

[Britishbulldog]

For those wondering;

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
Lockout burns a year on all existing NHL contracts. @PoulinMike
Retweeted by Spector's Hockey

Like we will never see Mike Komisarek in Leafs jersey again  :'(

Ofcourse not, I traded him for Luongo.

 

[hockeyfan1]

According to reports, to be included in new CBA...

"They want the player to be caught, whether it's on the ice by the referee or by us on video. They are all tired of diving. The object is to make them stop eventually and, by doing that, they can get it out there around the league, embarrass them. The referees will know it, too, so the divers don't get the benefit of the doubt."

- Colin Campbell relays several players' (Jason Spezza, Kevin Bieksa, John Michael Liles) request for a list of colleagues assessed embelishment penalties to be posted in all NHL dressing rooms under new CBA.

Source:  THN

 

[Joe S.]

How is that a cba issue?

 

[princedpw]

We are threatened with a lock out to secure a CBA that will outlaw contracts longer than 5 years. So what do the GMs do this summer?

Not only sign UFAs to 13 year contracts, they offer RFAs contracts and offer sheets of 10 years plus., but now on the cusp of a lock out they deliberately begin negotiations of 6 and 6 year contracts a year early to ensure that the Taylor Halls of this world get in on the gravy train they claim to be trying to stop.

The problem is not with the players, it is with the GMs. If they wanted to stop this crap, they could do so without the need for a new CBA and a lockout.

It is not inconsistent for: 

(1) an individual GM with a good player to sign that player to a long contract, while

(2) that same GM (or GM's owner) advocates for a system in which no GM is allowed to sign players to long contracts.

The calculus for the GMs is (obviously):  I must take big risks because all my competitors are taking big risks and if I do not, I will not win.  If I do not win, my owner will not make money.  Or alternatively:  I can gain advantage over my competitors by taking a bit risk available to me that they do not have access to.

The problem for the GMs is that no individual GM sets the market.  If an individual GM elects not to pay market prices, they won't get the players.  It's collusion when all GMs agree to pay lower than market prices, voluntarily giving up players to their competitors they might otherwise be able to sign to higher prices.  So, I would not agree that the GMs on the whole are acting irrationally.  Of course, some deals (Ville Leino) are stupid, but globally, the GMs are just paying market price.

Only through the changing the CBA can the GMs change the market.  The GMs aren't being dumb.  And this summer, the GMs should (must) continue to try to take advantage of current rules to gain an edge on their competition.  Weber, Hall, Suter, Parise, Crosby -- these seem like completely rational decisions by the GMs involved to me.  But that doesn't mean the league won't be better off globally with capped salary lengths.

Anyway, I'm not on one side or the other.  I just want hockey to start.  But I do not believe the GMs are, on the whole, stupid or irrational.  They cannot individually decide to change the market for players and doing so globally is collusion.  If they want the market to change, it must be through the CBA.

 

[hockeyfan1]

How is that a cba issue?

Players have suggested it be part of the CBA.  Nothing conclusive yet, just an idea some would like to see amalgamated  as part if any CBA agreement.

 

[Corn Flake]

How is that a cba issue?

Players have suggested it be part of the CBA.  Nothing conclusive yet, just an idea some would like to see amalgamated  as part if any CBA agreement.

If it's just a list, are they expecting that to embarrass guys out of doing it?  If that player keeps diving, one assumes the refs won't have any new special powers to do anything about it.  The diving penalty was rarely ever called without an offsetting penalty to the other team for the apparent trip or hit or whatever.. which has never made sense.

 

[Kaberle15]

Does Bettman hold the record for most sports lockouts by one commissioner yet?

He will break his own record on september 15th.

 

[Hampreacher]

I am afraid that a lock out of any length  beyond opening day of season and Nashville, Columbus and a few other teams might as well fold. Their already shaky market will be gone. it might be for the best anyways.

 

[jdh1]

I am afraid that a lock out of any length  beyond opening day of season and Nashville, Columbus and a few other teams might as well fold. Their already shaky market will be gone. it might be for the best anyways.

Do you think that the PA would want to sacrifice up to 100 or more players through having less teams?

Or would it be prudent on their behalf to take less as a whole to try to keep as many players as they can in the NHL?

 

[Hampreacher]

League would be back next time wanting even more cuts.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I am afraid that a lock out of any length  beyond opening day of season and Nashville, Columbus and a few other teams might as well fold. Their already shaky market will be gone. it might be for the best anyways.

Do you think that the PA would want to sacrifice up to 100 or more players through having less teams?

Or would it be prudent on their behalf to take less as a whole to try to keep as many players as they can in the NHL?

Can't just keep bending over and taking it up the rear end.

 

[princedpw]

I am afraid that a lock out of any length  beyond opening day of season and Nashville, Columbus and a few other teams might as well fold. Their already shaky market will be gone. it might be for the best anyways.

I'd be thrilled if a bunch of teams folded.  It improves Toronto's odds at winning.  But it's not going to happen.  The league has been funding Phoenix at 20-30 (whatever) million a year.  They aren't going to let franchises fold because of a 1-year lockout.

 

[Kin]

Part of the owner's effort in a given season as a contender is to try to win. Cherry picking a team who swung for the fences in a given season doesn't represent the entire league nor the entire financial problem.

It's not "swinging for the fences" if you announce that you don't care if your team makes money. That's a statement that represents something real about NHL owners that you continually refuse to acknowledge and really, renders most of this discussion pointless.

 

[Kin]

So the players have recognized and accepted the NHL's financial problem and the NHL's numbers to some considerable extent by offering right out the gate to take a cut in pay.

Again, that only holds true assuming the fairly naive premise you're operating under that holds that these deals aren't dictated by leverage.

 

[Kin]

They cannot individually decide to change the market for players and doing so globally is collusion.  If they want the market to change, it must be through the CBA.

Well, that's not entirely right. A GM can't unilaterally and universally dictate the market but a GM's actions absolutely can change the market. Both just in terms of raw numbers(if a market is only ever going to be 30 people strong than the individual actions of a GM is going to account for 3.3% of whatever determines the market) but also by means of his actions being fully capable of setting trends. You've seen that all the time in the closest thing that the NA sports scene has to a free market. Billy Beane was one GM but he had a drastic effect on baseball's FA market.

See, that's the inherent problem here. The position that these contracts are a bad thing for the league or teams who sign them is not something that is necessarily true. So while you're fundamentally right that there's no inherent contradiction between signing one of these contracts and wanting to not be able to sign one of these contracts I think there is a contradiction between signing one of these contracts and then thinking that these contracts are bad things.

 

[Kin]

Do you think that the PA would want to sacrifice up to 100 or more players through having less teams?

Or would it be prudent on their behalf to take less as a whole to try to keep as many players as they can in the NHL?

Can't just keep bending over and taking it up the rear end.

Exactly. The league and their supporters made that argument in 04-05, that if they didn't get the deal they wanted then teams would go out of business and players would lose jobs. They got the deal they wanted and now they say they need to get the deal they want now or else players will lose jobs.

At some point the players would have to decide to either take that risk or just agree to whatever the league wanted regardless.

 

[cw]

Part of the owner's effort in a given season as a contender is to try to win. Cherry picking a team who swung for the fences in a given season doesn't represent the entire league nor the entire financial problem.

It's not "swinging for the fences" if you announce that you don't care if your team makes money. That's a statement that represents something real about NHL owners that you continually refuse to acknowledge and really, renders most of this discussion pointless.

Of course, using your circular logic, the last reason we can derive for a potential lockout is the owners caring about money!! The reality is, according to your circular reasoning, the owners like lockouts because it's just a heck of a lot of fun - money is no object: "who gives a a crap about losing money!!" and has absolutely nothing to do with it!!!

I think you could have one heck of a debate with yourself.

 

[Kin]

The reality is, according to your circular reasoning, the owners like lockouts because it's just a heck of a lot of fun - money is no object

That's not my reasoning. That's essentially a verbatim quote from the owner of the Buffalo Sabres.