Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by aragorn

Interesting article at thehockeywriters.com
NHL Lockout 2012: Should Guaranteed Contracts Be Abolished? : The Hockey Writers

THIS!

Originally Posted by aaron

lol non guaranteed contracts. that's worth sitting out a season over.
nfl players get screwed all the time because of those. get hurt, get cut.
I do agree that contract length should be limited to 4 or 5 years.

Yeah, let the players enjoy everything they want. No way should they be afraid of sucking. Geez man, they would get MILLIONS up front! And when they DO get back from the injury, they can still prove their worth. Or do you support that if a player has a, let's say, 5 year (reasonable length), 6 million per season contract, and gets injured in year 2 and then SUCKS for 3 years, the team should just suck it up? That's insane.

This is a must have option if the NHL will prevent CAP burying in the minors (which is absolutely a must to do). But if there's really no way the players want to be "uncertain" there should be an option where it's impossible to terminate the contract if a player gets injured. Or, if he does get long term injury, his contract doesn't count against the CAP and can't be terminated.

But seriously, this is an option the player either agrees with or not. The reasons some people find to side with the NHLPA is really starting to bother me...

Originally Posted by keyTOarson

What part of the NHL's offer isn't a true 50/50 while honoring the current contracts? The "make whole" provision does exactly that. It just does it over time instead giving the players the 13% up front.

this has been said over and over and over again, so i'm not going to go into details. but the nhl's proposal from day one until today has been either accept an immediate salary roll back or pay for your current salaries yourselves. so as i said before, the nhl has not made any concessions from day one.

what's amazing is that the only thing that the players seem to be asking of the nhl now is that they soften the landing from 57% to 50% which again would not be a concession by the nhl, but a modified status quo.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

THIS!



Yeah, let the players enjoy everything they want. No way should they be afraid of sucking. Geez man, they would get MILLIONS up front! And when they DO get back from the injury, they can still prove their worth. Or do you support that if a player has a, let's say, 5 year (reasonable length), 6 million per season contract, and gets injured in year 2 and then SUCKS for 3 years, the team should just suck it up? That's insane.

This is a must have option if the NHL will prevent CAP burying in the minors (which is absolutely a must to do). But if there's really no way the players want to be "uncertain" there should be an option where it's impossible to terminate the contract if a player gets injured. Or, if he does get long term injury, his contract doesn't count against the CAP and can't be terminated.

But seriously, this is an option the player either agrees with or not. The reasons some people find to side with the NHLPA is really starting to bother me...

i don't think the teams pay injured players. insurance companies do.

Originally Posted by Bollocks

THIS!



Yeah, let the players enjoy everything they want. No way should they be afraid of sucking. Geez man, they would get MILLIONS up front! And when they DO get back from the injury, they can still prove their worth. Or do you support that if a player has a, let's say, 5 year (reasonable length), 6 million per season contract, and gets injured in year 2 and then SUCKS for 3 years, the team should just suck it up? That's insane.

This is a must have option if the NHL will prevent CAP burying in the minors (which is absolutely a must to do). But if there's really no way the players want to be "uncertain" there should be an option where it's impossible to terminate the contract if a player gets injured. Or, if he does get long term injury, his contract doesn't count against the CAP and can't be terminated.

But seriously, this is an option the player either agrees with or not. The reasons some people find to side with the NHLPA is really starting to bother me...

The only thing that non-guaranteed contracts will bring is holdouts. Lots of them. You see it in football precisely because of that. Guys who are drafted hold out because they've been underpaid for two or three years and they know that a team can tear up a contract whenever they want. So, they take what they can, when they can, for as long as they can. The good doesn't outweigh the bad so, no thanks.

Also, you won't get this anytime soon if they're willing to lose a season over 13% in pay cuts.

Originally Posted by D0wntime

this has been said over and over and over again, so i'm not going to go into details. but the nhl's proposal from day one until today has been either accept an immediate salary roll back or pay for your current salaries yourselves. so as i said before, the nhl has not made any concessions from day one.

what's amazing is that the only thing that the players seem to be asking of the nhl now is that they soften the landing from 57% to 50% which again would not be a concession by the nhl, but a modified status quo.

Except for the fact that what you said is not true at all. The NHL is not asking players to pay their own salaries any more than players pay their own salaries now. That is the biggest spin and misconception out there, and it's sad to see so many people buy into. Whenever you have a system where the players' share is a finite amount, players will always be paying players. If player X signs for Y amount, there is only B amount for player A.

The NHL's "make whole" provision doesn't literally require the players to pay themselves. The players would still receive the full amount of their contract, it would just be spread over the remainder of the contract plus one year. It's shame that Fehr dismissed it so flippantly, especially when the NHL said it was willing to negotiate on the "make whole" terms.

EDIT: Fixed iPhone-caused spelling errors.

Non-guaranteed contracts are just another method to bail teams out of the bad deals they sign.
Why not allow players to opt out of contracts if they over-perform?

Sign a contract, live with it.

Originally Posted by aragorn

But how do we push the players to a settlement?

By bargaining in good faith.

Originally Posted by keyTOarson

Except for the fact that what said is not true at all. The NHL is not asking players to pay their own salaries anymore than players pay their own salaries now. That is the biggest spin and misconception out there, and it's sad to see so many people but into. Whenever you have a system where the players' share is a finite amount, players will always be paying players. If player X signs for Y amount, there is only B amount for player A.

The NHL's "make whole" provision doesn't literally require the players to pay themselves. The players would still receive the full amount of their contract, it would just be spread over the remainder of the contract plus one year. It's shame that Fehr dismissed it so flippantly, especially when the NHL said it was willing to negotiate on the "make whole" terms.

Regarding the latest NHL offer, I've never read or considered anything close to what this says.

Well done!

Originally Posted by Bogey

Regarding the latest NHL offer, I've never read or considered anything close to what this says.

Well done!

The "players paying players" is slanted rhetoric from the PA camp. The money doesn't physically come out of one player's pocket and is then deposited into another player's pocket. The example I used in my previous post is pretty simplistic, but it covers the general idea. NHL teams have to spend a finite amount of money each year on player salaries. When you have a superstar that gets a raise from $6 million to $7 million a year, there is going to be less money in the market to spend on complimentary players.

The NHL's proposal is no different. The players still get the full value of their contract, but it's paid out in segmented deferrals. The "players paying players" rhetoric comes from the fact that the deferral money each year leaves less of the "pie" to be paid out to other players. Admittedly, I was not the one to do the math, but one poster on Hockey's Future did an amazing job of breaking down how the players' third offer compares to the NHL's latest offer with regards to the Kings. Basically, under the NHL proposal the Kings would have $22 million in cap space next season, minus $5 million in deferrals from this season (assuming this season happens). In sum, the Kings would have $17 million in cap space next year. Under the PA's infamous third proposal, the Kings would have $14 million in cap space next year. Obviously the deferrals hurt the players who are becoming free agents in the next year or two (which is over 50% of the union, ironically enough) as there will be less available to them in the market, but the players' third proposal actually leaves less money available for future free agents.

The NHLPA may claim it is looking out for the future interests of all its members, but the underlying evidence shows they're more concerned about the here and now instead of their future security.