We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammer06

The 5% rule is the one I'd want to get away from. 3-4 year deals would be considered long and risky with that. 5 years I could handle as a player considering they are overall a small percentage of contracts let.

---

Getting this discussion back on course...I hate all the long term contracts that are obvious circumvention attempts, but the 5% rule is not the answer. Max deal length should be set at 6 years, and have a sliding scale for players 35 and older. This and eliminating the ability to hide bad contracts in the AHL would pretty much end it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CM Puck

https://twitter.com/Real_ESPNLeBrun

---

Did he delete the tweet? I didn't see it and it's not there now.

*Nevermind I see it now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doughtydiva

It wasn't hockey insider unless that was where they were getting their info.I understand you think my.comments were assinine or whatever but my question was the startup date.Even if a deal isn't done they have a target start up date.they have to reach an agreement by tommorrow.It can be hit and miss with Twitter but most of the baseball information I got yester

day was spot on.

---

Well a start up date is contingent on an agreement being in place. Who were the sources? If it wasn't someone reputable like McKenzie, Dregger or the big names it probably wasn't worth a damn. What does your baseball info have to do w/ the hockey info? The two are in no way related to each other.

I'm sorry if you think that this post in 'mean' but its not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pucker25

Getting this discussion back on course...I hate all the long term contracts that are obvious circumvention attempts, but the 5% rule is not the answer. Max deal length should be set at 6 years, and have a sliding scale for players 35 and older. This and eliminating the ability to hide bad contracts in the AHL would pretty much end it.

---

The long term contracts are just like any other, there's good ones and bad ones. I think in general the league wants to prevent long term cash commitments on guaranteed contracts for their own financial health, even if they would probably benefit in hindsight from the rate of player salary growth.

I was watching a twitter feed for a few minutes and based on the responses coming in from the media I was fascinating watching the NHL destroy itself right in front of my eyes. Good job guys!

Like I said a month ago these clowns should be sitting in that room until their done. Otherwise you can kiss this whole thing good-bye.

jom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Well, apparently for a lot of teams to get full payment of whatever sponsorship deals they may have, they must play 75% of the season. That works out to 61.5 games. I'm not sure how you play a half a game...

---

That makes sense, but then a hypothetical 61 game season wouldn't cut it because 61 games would only be 74.39% of the season. In order to play at least 75% of the season, the schedule would have to be at least 62 games. If this is true, hopefully it motivates those on the owners' side to get something done.

As for how to play half a game, I'll get back to you later after I go outside and dig half a hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pg1067

As for how to play half a game, I'll get back to you later after I go outside and dig half a hole.

---

I've never understood the confusion about half of a hole. All you need is half of a shovel to dig it.
Duh.

On topic...



I got nothin'. I admit I just wanted to make the half-shovel comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammer06

The long term contracts are just like any other, there's good ones and bad ones. I think in general the league wants to prevent long term cash commitments on guaranteed contracts for their own financial health, even if they would probably benefit in hindsight from the rate of player salary growth.

---

Agreed, but the owners/GMs have proven that if there is a loophole, they will exploit it. The only reason for a cap is to protect the owners from themselves, so they apparently need stricter rules about how they can structure a contract. I actually prefer long term contracts, because I'd prefer for players to stay in the same place so I'm not just rooting for laundry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRC1221

Well a start up date is contingent on an agreement being in place. Who were the sources? If it wasn't someone reputable like McKenzie, Dregger or the big names it probably wasn't worth a damn. What does your baseball info have to do w/ the hockey info? The two are in no way related to each other.

I'm sorry if you think that this post in 'mean' but its not.

---

I don't pretend to know nearly as much about hockey as anyone here does because I don't follow it like I did when I had season tickets years ago.My point was that the info I get on baseball is good so I guess being naive I trust some stuff I read on Twitter.My point was is when Twitter is going crazy with news on a deal getting done there is some truth to that wether you want to believe it or not.Twiiter is the main source of information for news.I choose to look at the glass half full as opposed to half empty call me naive but I still believe a deal is getting done and soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRC1221

So b/c people are smart asses to you they don't get laid? Sweet logic. Lets talk you down off the ledge. Its not that bad. Have fun and dish it back to people on a fun level. People can handle it.

---

smart asses is right !:female:I