2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Chev-boyar-sky]

This was more of a shot at the Charles Wangs/New York Islanders of the league. Basically, the league is saying try to field a competitive team instead of using loopholes and running your team in the ground and, while I agree something needs to be done about owners like Wang (well, really, just him specifically - there aren't really any others who have used bonuses this way consistently), I don't think this is the right way to go about it.

It may not be the right way, but at least the league is addressing a concern here.  If Wang types start fielding a better and more competitive (not to mention respectable) team on ice, then by all means it will be an improvement for the overall product in general.

And yet if they're already having trouble being profitable, this will only put them more in the red....

 

[bustaheims]

And yet if they're already having trouble being profitable, this will only put them more in the red....

Well, that depends on how much a better on-ice product will impact their gate revenue. They're moving into a new arena in a couple seasons, so, if they improve their product at the same time, they can probably increase their ticket prices without seeing a reduction in attendance - in fact, they could very well see an increase (albeit, a limited one, since the Barclay's Center is a smaller arena). I mean, this is a team that draws ~13K a game despite playing in the large sports market in the US. Sure, they'll always be the #2 team in the city, but, even the #2 team in NYC can draw good numbers if they're good enough. With the changes to revenue sharing that have been proposed (the Islanders would now be eligible, whereas they weren't previously due to the size of their market), the almost certain decrease in the players' share and some increases in gate revenue, the team should be able to at least break even - or, at least, one would hope.

 

[Brian Glennie]

This was more of a shot at the Charles Wangs/New York Islanders of the league. Basically, the league is saying try to field a competitive team instead of using loopholes and running your team in the ground and, while I agree something needs to be done about owners like Wang (well, really, just him specifically - there aren't really any others who have used bonuses this way consistently), I don't think this is the right way to go about it.

It may not be the right way, but at least the league is addressing a concern here.  If Wang types start fielding a better and more competitive (not to mention respectable) team on ice, then by all means it will be an improvement for the overall product in general.

Why is everybody jumping on Wang?

 

[Corn Flake]

Why is everybody jumping on Wang?

Have you SEEEN that guy play??!!

 

[Champ Kind]

This was more of a shot at the Charles Wangs/New York Islanders of the league. Basically, the league is saying try to field a competitive team instead of using loopholes and running your team in the ground and, while I agree something needs to be done about owners like Wang (well, really, just him specifically - there aren't really any others who have used bonuses this way consistently), I don't think this is the right way to go about it.

It may not be the right way, but at least the league is addressing a concern here.  If Wang types start fielding a better and more competitive (not to mention respectable) team on ice, then by all means it will be an improvement for the overall product in general.

Why is everybody jumping on Wang?

HIYO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lamajama]

I heard something interesting on the "make whole" issue and it coming from the owner's side....

Apparently there is some disagreement amongst the owners on this provision coming from the owner's side as the intent of "making these contracts whole" should only apply to those teams who have blown
their brains out on big-ticket deals ala the Wild as an easy example.

Teams that have not signed players to mega deals and mega-years
feel they should not have revenue taken from them to make these deals whole.

Interesting.

 

[Kin]

I think the intent is to discourage offering bonuses at all. Though it certainly wouldn't have any impact on the teams above the floor.

But the bonuses being discussed are mainly on entry level contracts which individual teams have no say in.

 

[Redleaf]

I heard something interesting on the "make whole" issue and it coming from the owner's side....

Apparently there is some disagreement amongst the owners on this provision coming from the owner's side as the intent of "making these contracts whole" should only apply to those teams who have blown
their brains out on big-ticket deals ala the Wild as an easy example.

Teams that have not signed players to mega deals and mega-years
feel they should not have revenue taken from them to make these deals whole.

Interesting.

Ok, Mr. Burke. You may sit back down. The board acknowledges your concern.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think the intent is to discourage offering bonuses at all. Though it certainly wouldn't have any impact on the teams above the floor.

But the bonuses being discussed are mainly on entry level contracts which individual teams have no say in.

So what you're saying is that I should have read the article and not just assumed it was about signing bonuses?

 

[bustaheims]

NYP_Brooksie: Told by several sources NHL is not committed to contract term limit but is committed to ending dramatically front-loaded deals.

NYP_Brooksie: Also told that amnesty buyouts are on table.

NYP_Brooksie: Two sources report NHL would assume entire make-whole with at least a portion deferred but unclear whether that applies only to first 2 yrs

 

[Kin]

NYP_Brooksie: Told by several sources NHL is not committed to contract term limit but is committed to ending dramatically front-loaded deals.

It would strike me as really, really dumb if that were a significant roadblock. At least let something actually become a problem before you're willing to go to the wall to change it.

 

[bustaheims]

It would strike me as really, really dumb if that were a significant roadblock. At least let something actually become a problem before you're willing to go to the wall to change it.

Well, clearly the league disagrees with you. They feel it's already enough of a problem that they need to address it now.

Real_ESPNLeBrun: As I've said before, in the end the most important ``get'' for NHL on player contracts is killing back-diving deals (front-loaded deals)

Real_ESPNLeBrun: When push comes to shove, all along the belief is that the NHL would be willing I think to live without many of its player contracts demands

 

[Kin]

Well, clearly the league disagrees with you. They feel it's already enough of a problem that they need to address it now.

Well, hence my "it would be really, really dumb if..."

And it may be splitting hairs but I think the way that the NHL is actually looking at it, if I'm inclined to give them any credit, is that it's something that eventually could be a problem.

Because all of the front loaded deals in the world don't change the % of revenues the players get at the end of the year. The only thing it does is shift the burden from some teams to others. It' allows for a team to take on a proportionately bigger share of their 57 or 50%. Even if you think that's a bad thing, and I don't, it doesn't account for the back end of it. Near the end of these deals teams will have guys on long term deals, some with NMC's, with a big cap hit but being owed little in the way of real dollars. So all it really means is the teams signing these deals take on a bigger share of the expenses immediately but see it decrease over the life of the contract.

Now, I see how the NHL could see it as an eventual problem if players retire or get traded at the tail end of those deals but that hasn't happened yet. If it had, you could make a compelling argument that it makes for something of a soft cap or that teams who couldn't afford these deals were pressured to make them to land free agents(although the extent to which these deals actually help clubs competitively is, again, undetermined)

But until any of that actually happens, the NHL is going to the mattresses for a hypothetical problem. It's sacrificing things that might actually help them economically on the altar of parity.

 

[bustaheims]

I hate to be the bearer of less than great news, but . . .

TSNBobMcKenzie: Doesn't sound like things going well with NHL-NHLPA but doing play by play/making sense of offers we know so little about = mug's game.

 

[Redleaf]

I hate to be the bearer of less than great news, but . . .

TSNBobMcKenzie: Doesn't sound like things going well with NHL-NHLPA but doing play by play/making sense of offers we know so little about = mug's game.

The greater Fehr is that nothing gets hammered out during the meetings this week, and both parties step back into their cold rooms. In that case I would count on the season being abolished.

 

[Derk]

Interesting article on Yahoo Sports about the possibility of an amnesty buyout clause.

Yahoo Link

One one hand, I like the idea to be able to get rid of players that have not lived up to the contracts they signed, but on the other hand, it would be nice for teams who offered especially idiotic contracts to actually have to live with the consequences.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Interesting article on Yahoo Sports about the possibility of an amnesty buyout clause.

Yahoo Link

One one hand, I like the idea to be able to get rid of players that have not lived up to the contracts they signed, but on the other hand, it would be nice for teams who offered especially idiotic contracts to actually have to live with the consequences.

For teams such as the Islanders, let's say, it would actually help rid them of, as an example, DiPietro's monstrous albatross of a contract considering the fact that he is oft-injured.  If the team could buy out the remainder of his contract with no penalty going against the cap, then it would solve a big problem.

The above example won't apply to every team, albeit differently, depends on how it is interpreted and what it includes.  At the very least, it's not a bad idea to begin with.

 

[Corn Flake]

Interesting article on Yahoo Sports about the possibility of an amnesty buyout clause.

Yahoo Link

One one hand, I like the idea to be able to get rid of players that have not lived up to the contracts they signed, but on the other hand, it would be nice for teams who offered especially idiotic contracts to actually have to live with the consequences.

For teams such as the Islanders, let's say, it would actually help rid them of, as an example, DiPietro's monstrous albatross of a contract considering the fact that he is oft-injured.  If the team could buy out the remainder of his contract with no penalty going against the cap, then it would solve a big problem.

The above example won't apply to every team, albeit differently, depends on how it is interpreted and what it includes.  At the very least, it's not a bad idea to begin with.

$5 says the Islanders don't end up buying out DiPietro.

#crazytown

 

[LuncheonMeat]

33mChris Johnston‏@reporterchris
The NHLPA is having a conference call with its executive committee and negotiating committee tonight.
Retweeted by Bob McKenzie

34mChris Johnston‏@reporterchris
Donald Fehr says the NHLPA "has some things to consider."
Retweeted by Bob McKenzie

A counter proposal by the sounds of it?  The fact they are considering is somewhat positive I suppose.

 

[Derk]

Another leaked memo apparently:

Fehr: "While a step forward, a significant gap remains."