@JoeR

JBo for a first plus Read or Simmonds
Do you want J Bo for that?
Cause I think that's what it takes.

Calgary needs J Bo, and they aren't going to take a prospect + 2nd rounder.

Also I think Detroit will offer them a better package then the Flyers if they decide they want him.
- Marc D

sorry I'm getting back so late, Mark, had family stuff and i lost track of time talking on here too long earlier but anyway to answer your question, no I don't want jbo for 1st plus read or simmonds I just feel that might be the price asked, however if Holmgren isn't confident about this group and makes that move I can understand it. I will however cringe a bit but I won't take it out on JBO as a player here. IF Detroit is going to pay a larger sum then that should tell us all something about the quality of player he is. Quite frankly if I had my way Meszaros would never get hurt and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again tho if the flyers make a move for JBO even tho not a fan, I'll give him a fair chance to win me over.

That may create an interesting debate amongst the haves and the have nots of the league.
- 77rams

Absolutely. And it may expose some things. Which may be part of the plan. There may be some lines drawn in the sand. We'll see what the League's response is.

Also heard teams could go over the salary cap and pay a luxury tax.
- stveshdy

I don't believe that was in the players proposal. I could be wrong.

I still question how committed big market clubs are really interested in helping small market clubs with revenue sharing. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. Also, I can't believe the players would give back percentage of revenue and at least not get some kind of concession from the owners' on the current free agency structure and/or rookie scale. It is going to be an interesting couple of weeks of negotiations because I do think both sides have some urgency to get the season started on time. Just my opinion.
- ravishingone

The players want the Free Agency structure and EL contracts to stay the same. They're happy with the way it is now.

One thing I don't understand from the players' side is UFA can't be reached until the player is 27 years old currently. Shouldn't a more equal system be based upon accured seasons at the NHL level. Why should Coots who was good enough to make the NHL at 19, have to wait 8 years for potentially UFA status. While Matt Read only has to wait 3 years. Just seems unfair, obviously splitting revenue is the big piece to be negotiated right now by both sides.
- ravishingone

He doesn't. The rule is 7 Accrued Seasons or 27 years of age. Whichever comes first. It's why Scott Hartnell was reached Free Agency at what, 25 I think

He doesn't. The rule is 7 Accrued Seasons or 27 years of age. Whichever comes first. It's why Scott Hartnell was reached Free Agency at what, 25 I think
- MJL

Yup, Hartsy was the youngest Group 3 guy in NHL history at the time he became a UFA

how is this kind of thing not forseen when all this damn expansion was proposed?

what a mess

i know this is laught as things changed alot today, but friggin brooks of all people has a pretty interesting take on things here
http://www.nypost.com/p/s...ty_I72It2kiVeijZpbgII0lnN
- Crimsoninja

Good article by Brooks. He is exactly right. They have a small market problem, not a players share problem. And the players proposal addresses that.

Good article by Brooks. He is exactly right. They have a small market problem, not a players share problem. And the players proposal addresses that.
- MJL

Fantastic article.... The biggest problem the NHL has is Bettman and his desire to make the game bigger in smaller areas..

I understand that its tough to start and keep up a franchise... I understand its tough to establish a fan base and make it flourish. I understand that in order for a team to succeed, and inturn have the NHL benefit and succeed, that team needs to make money. I know that putting teams in areas that are not traditional markets is a HIGH risk (relatively)LOW reward possibility.. So here is my question:

If I know all this, and certainly Bettman knows this, WHY do we have so many (frank)ing teams in "non-traditional" markets?

Phx, Florida, TB, Nashville, Anaheim, Columbus, Atl (when it was still Atl)...

Seriously?

Why do we have 3 teams playing within an hour drive from each other?
The Rock to Madison Sq Garden is a 25 minute drive.. from MSG to Nassau Col. is 40 minutes..

LA to Anaheim is 30 minutes.. Seriously? Two teams in Souther Cali 30 minutes from each other?

Stop trying to push the sport to non-traditonal fans... Go places that you can predict better success.. Quebec, Portland, Milwaukee, hell Kansas City.. but trying to force success is what getting us into this mess.

Fehr is an evil genius.

He has put the owners squarely on the spot with a reasonable offer from the players where the players are actually taking the majority share of the hits to their financial status.

The NHLPA has played this as well as anyone could.

Fehr is an evil genius.

He has put the owners squarely on the spot with a reasonable offer from the players where the players are actually taking the majority share of the hits to their financial status.

The NHLPA has played this as well as anyone could.
- MBFlyerfan

I wouldn't say evil. If this proposal eliminates a work stoppage, I think it's great. The NHLPA has addressed the real problem in the NHL, the disparity between the Nashvilles, Tampa Bays and the Philadelphias and New Yorks.

The NHL seems to ignore this issue in it's proposal

how is this kind of thing not forseen when all this damn expansion was proposed?

what a mess

i know this is laught as things changed alot today, but friggin brooks of all people has a pretty interesting take on things here
http://www.nypost.com/p/s...ty_I72It2kiVeijZpbgII0lnN
- Crimsoninja

I just love how Brooks has to take his potshot at Snider, while ignoring the Rangers contributions to the financial disparity.

I wouldn't say evil. If this proposal eliminates a work stoppage, I think it's great. The NHLPA has addressed the real problem in the NHL, the disparity between the Nashvilles, Tampa Bays and the Philadelphias and New Yorks.

The NHL seems to ignore this issue in it's proposal
- Jsaquella

I don't think the NHL is ignoring it. I think ,just like it says in Brooks article, they are well aware of it. They just want the players to pay the bill for the disparity between the teams. The players are offering to share the bill with the richer teams. Right now, I'm squarely aligned with the players on this.

I don't think the NHL is ignoring it. I think ,just like it says in Brooks article, they are well aware of it. They just want the players to pay the bill for the disparity between the teams. The players are offering to share the bill with the richer teams. Right now, I'm squarely aligned with the players on this.
- MJL

The NHL plan barely touched on the revenue sharing aspect. It was a one size fits all proposal that keeps the current revenue sharing plan in place. And Brooks is right, Snider has been quite vociferous in his distaste of having to cut a check to the weaker financial teams.

I was squarely on the side of the players for the last stoppage, because they attempted to negotiate, while the owners stood steadfast with their cap or nothing proposal.

In 2004, the players offered a 24% across the board salary rollback. They proposed a luxury tax system that would have greatly helped the revenue sharing troubles the league had then and continue today under the current CBA.

Once again, the NHLPA has done some outside the box thinking and proposed a workable plan that would take great steps to address the real issues that face the NHL. It will be interesting to see how the owners respond.

I wouldn't say evil. If this proposal eliminates a work stoppage, I think it's great. The NHLPA has addressed the real problem in the NHL, the disparity between the Nashvilles, Tampa Bays and the Philadelphias and New Yorks.

The NHL seems to ignore this issue in it's proposal
- Jsaquella

I only say evil from the most loving point of view. Being a right winger and all, I know all about appreciating evil genius.

I only say evil from the most loving point of view. Being a right winger and all, I know all about appreciating evil genius.

- MBFlyerfan

He's approached the PR aspect of things much better than Bob Goodenow did 7 years ago

I also am squarely on the players side this time around. Last time, I was kind of down the middle because I thought the health of the game was out of control.

This time, after seeing both proposals, I'm backing the players. I think the vast majority of fans will too.

Like I said, Fehr - Evil Genius!

Fear the Fehr!

I also am squarely on the players side this time around. Last time, I was kind of down the middle because I thought the health of the game was out of control.

This time, after seeing both proposals, I'm backing the players. I think the vast majority of fans will too.

Like I said, Fehr - Evil Genius!

Fear the Fehr!
- MBFlyerfan

He's approached the PR aspect of things much better than Bob Goodenow did 7 years ago
- Jsaquella

Reading about some of the crap Goodenow pulled was almost shocking. I love that Fehr has kept every player seemingly in the loop about every little thing. Whereas, the one thing I always read about Goodenow was how he only told the players what he thought they wanted to hear.

One thing I don't understand from the players' side is UFA can't be reached until the player is 27 years old currently. Shouldn't a more equal system be based upon accured seasons at the NHL level. Why should Coots who was good enough to make the NHL at 19, have to wait 8 years for potentially UFA status. While Matt Read only has to wait 3 years. Just seems unfair, obviously splitting revenue is the big piece to be negotiated right now by both sides.
- ravishingone

7 accrued seasons or 27 years old. So if you played in the NHL as an 18 year old you could be UFA at 25.

Reading about some of the crap Goodenow pulled was almost shocking. I love that Fehr has kept every player seemingly in the loop about every little thing. Whereas, the one thing I always read about Goodenow was how he only told the players what he thought they wanted to hear.
- MBFlyerfan

Yep. His refusal to attend sessions unless Bettman was there was also a colossal mistake.

The worry for me is that the owners last time offered only demands and not concessions. If that's the case again...

Basically the players proposed a luxury tax, salary rollbacks, tweaks to arbitration, the free agent process and several other things that the owners rejected out of hand because there wasn't a cap.

They focused so hard on the cap that they ignored a lot of the other aspects of the situation and gave us the flawed CBA we have now.

The NHL plan barely touched on the revenue sharing aspect. It was a one size fits all proposal that keeps the current revenue sharing plan in place. And Brooks is right, Snider has been quite vociferous in his distaste of having to cut a check to the weaker financial teams.

I was squarely on the side of the players for the last stoppage, because they attempted to negotiate, while the owners stood steadfast with their cap or nothing proposal.

In 2004, the players offered a 24% across the board salary rollback. They proposed a luxury tax system that would have greatly helped the revenue sharing troubles the league had then and continue today under the current CBA.

Once again, the NHLPA has done some outside the box thinking and proposed a workable plan that would take great steps to address the real issues that face the NHL. It will be interesting to see how the owners respond.
- Jsaquella

Well said!

Yep. His refusal to attend sessions unless Bettman was there was also a colossal mistake.

The worry for me is that the owners last time offered only demands and not concessions. If that's the case again...

Basically the players proposed a luxury tax, salary rollbacks, tweaks to arbitration, the free agent process and several other things that the owners rejected out of hand because there wasn't a cap.

They focused so hard on the cap that they ignored a lot of the other aspects of the situation and gave us the flawed CBA we have now.
- Jsaquella

This time around it is going to be a public relations nightmare for Bettman and the owners. Fehr knew this from the get go and made sure the players crafted a deal that would put the owners in that position without hurting the players too much.

The players smell like roses right now while the owners look like money grubbing bullies. In todays economic climate that will be a hard thing for the owners to overcome.

I think something gets done now, I am almost positive there will be no lockout. The owners will just look too bad if it happens now.

Fehr is also smart enough to have given the owners an offer where the players would be willing to move on a few things.

It is frankly amazing that on the surface he was so completely able to outmaneuver the owners and Bettman on this.

This time around it is going to be a public relations nightmare for Bettman and the owners. Fehr knew this from the get go and made sure the players crafted a deal that would put the owners in that position without hurting the players too much.

The players smell like roses right now while the owners look like money grubbing bullies. In todays economic climate that will be a hard thing for the owners to overcome.

I think something gets done now, I am almost positive there will be no lockout. The owners will just look too bad if it happens now.

Fehr is also smart enough to have given the owners an offer where the players would be willing to move on a few things.

It is frankly amazing that on the surface he was so completely able to outmaneuver the owners and Bettman on this.
- MBFlyerfan

No doubt about it. The owners look bad in this. Fehr has completely outmanevered them from a PR standpoint.

Fehr is an evil genius.

He has put the owners squarely on the spot with a reasonable offer from the players where the players are actually taking the majority share of the hits to their financial status.

The NHLPA has played this as well as anyone could.
- MBFlyerfan

They obviously dont want a lock out.. If the owners cant accept this or totally balk at it.. we could be in for a long one.

No doubt about it. The owners look bad in this. Fehr has completely outmanevered them from a PR standpoint.
- MJL

The thing that is so crafty about it is that Fehr was able to push what they want, while pretty much taking the NHLPA out of the middle. Its not a Big vs Little (org/owners) battle.

The luxury tax facet will be the make or break portion of it I think...

I think its a fantastic idea... if you want to continue to have small market teams that repress the spending of capable orgs, you almost have to have a luxury tax. A hard cap wont, and isnt working, when you have teams like the Flyers, Rags, Leafs, etc.. and then teams like Phx, Florida, Nashville..