How am I not making much sense. When I state the same thing as you did in your opening point? That both sides need to give! If your saying that the players don't speak the language of the NHL, which is we want everything from you, yea you're right. They don't, nor should they.
They wan't make whole plus their entire contracts? Now that doesn't make any sense. The NHL Make Whole offer is based on NHL revenue continuing to grow, at a 5% rate to be specific. Is the NHL that stupid that they beleive revenue will not be impacted by the lockout? It seems as though you don't have the facts.
- MJL

As you say "if" that is what the NHL has proposed... why would the NHLPA not put that part of negotiations to bed.... your right that is a great deal if offered because the 5% is generous considering the damage done to the game. The fact is the 50/50 split is not done.. why becuase players continue to want more. Free agency and arbitration is not done why... The players believe it is their right to sign long contracts which are heavily front loaded. Do I like the fact that the NHL needs to limit contract length... no... but the reason for this is to protect all team within the NHL. The easiest solution would be to fold 10 team, but that can't happen. It is important for the NHL to get their 50/50 split, but it is also equally important that contract length are shorterned and front loaded deals are eliminated. The players believe that since the have "somewhat" agreed to 50/50 that everything should go their way.

My personal favorite solution to that dilemma is to keep the contracts at full value but get rid of guaranteed contracts. If you can't afford Parise under the salary cap then you have to release him into the open market. Otherwise, pay him what you agreed to. If the player doesn't play up to the level we was when he signed the contract, cut him. It works out well for the NFL, I don't know why it wouldn't work out for the NHL. The only thing worse than overpaying for a player is when the player coasts after getting a longterm contract. It will result in a better product on the ice when players know they can't coast until the year their contract is up. It will also help sad sack teams turn around when they overpay someone like Yashin and are stuck paying him for years of mediocrity.
- Flyers_01

Yeah I agree. We would also see teams make much better trades and this could add even more parity in the league. If small teams take a risk on a trade and it doesnt work out then they can cut the contract. Do 50/50, honor in full the contracts and have that mold into the cap somehow. Then remove the guarantee.

Yeah I agree. We would also see teams make much better trades and this could add even more parity in the league. If small teams take a risk on a trade and it doesnt work out then they can cut the contract. Do 50/50, honor in full the contracts and have that mold into the cap somehow. Then remove the guarantee.
- KOS

This will never be agreed to and is pie in the sky union bashing nonsense. The NHLPA are there to protect player contract rights. They will not give those away. NHL hockey players have a short career window. The owners who sign players to lousy contracts should be held responsible for being lousy businessmen. My own team has done a spectacular job of it for 40+ years. My beef with the Leafs is exactly that - they have been colossally mismanaged for 40+ years.

The union would have to be broken to pieces before that would ever happen. Guaranteed contracts would NEVER be given up by a Fehr-led NHLPA, nor should they. The owners should take their responsibility and pay up for the poopty contracts they agree to signing. It's a business transaction, and if they are not good businessmen, well, tough poop.
- triggermartin

can you imagine if they decided to go the way of the NFL?

contracts are not guaranteed?

i think that will be the biggest problem with these long term deals.. players will earn the front loaded portion and then they might start to float (not all.. these guys are bred to be competitive for the most part)

i also think the NHL should consider adding a "franchise player" tag to one contract per team.. it does not effect that cap (or only a small portion of it does) and it opens up more money for the lesser players.

it would be up to the team itself on whether or not they want to apply the franchise player tag to one of their players.

this would allow for greater spending on salaries while putting limits on contracts to the support role players. it would also benefit the league when it comes to distributing talent, as star players will go to the places where they can get the franchise player contract

What's wrong with Fehr's handling of this? If anyone is unreasonable here, its the NHL.
- triggermartin

I have really tried to stay out of picking sides in this whole mess because honestly they both could do better. As Ek points out, the PA aren't really putting forth legitimate offers and have sat back and waited. And please do not come back withthe 3 proposals they came out with, a lot of top end reporters reported that they hadn't even done the math on one of those offers, that is flat out embarrassing.

can you imagine if they decided to go the way of the NFL?

contracts are not guaranteed?

i think that will be the biggest problem with these long term deals.. players will earn the front loaded portion and then they might start to float (not all.. these guys are bred to be competitive for the most part)

i also think the NHL should consider adding a "franchise player" tag to one contract per team.. it does not effect that cap (or only a small portion of it does) and it opens up more money for the lesser players.

it would be up to the team itself on whether or not they want to apply the franchise player tag to one of their players.

this would allow for greater spending on salaries while putting limits on contracts to the support role players. it would also benefit the league when it comes to distributing talent, as star players will go to the places where they can get the franchise player contract
- Dozzer

If the teams don't want players effing the dog on the back end of a long term deal, then don't sign players to them. It's that simple. They need to run their business and be held accountable for lousy business decisions by honoring poope contracts THEY offered.

You call my reply rhetoroic. I call your reply spin. The NHL is absolutely trying to take contract rights away from the players. No matter how you spin it, that's what it comes down to. What's not good business for the players is accepting make whole and losing all the contract rights. And closing those loopholes aren't neccesarily better for the players.
The NHL says there is room for negotiation. The PA says they were told that if they want to talk they have to accept that there is no room there for negotiation. So who do you want to beleive?
- MJL

i think the NHL will be happy as long as they get protection against front-loaded deals and will relinquish in many other contracting areas. once you introduce that 5% rule, you change a lot of things about NHL contracts. you won't need a "years" cap because no owner will want to be paying $7 million to a 39-year-old.

This will never be agreed to and is pie in the sky union bashing nonsense. The NHLPA are there to protect player contract rights. They will not give those away. NHL hockey players have a short career window. The owners who sign players to lousy contracts should be held responsible for being lousy businessmen. My own team has done a spectacular job of it for 40+ years. My beef with the Leafs is exactly that - they have been colossally mismanaged for 40+ years.
- triggermartin

This is done in every big business. People sign contracts with out clauses. We do it all the time. I agree that the owners should be held responsible. And with existing contracts that may be the case.

I have really tried to stay out of picking sides in this whole mess because honestly they both could do better. As Ek points out, the PA aren't really putting forth legitimate offers and have sat back and waited. And please do not come back withthe 3 proposals they came out with, a lot of top end reporters reported that they hadn't even done the math on one of those offers, that is flat out embarrassing.
- xxCHRISTOFIRExx

The NHL has basically said "If you don't agree to this, this, and this, no deal". So why make a proposal that will be shot down in under ten minutes like they were the last time? That's disrespectful and completely obnoxious. Frank the owners. They are the ones who are saying 'let's take a two week break'. How can you blame the PA for that?

This is done in every big business. People sign contracts with out clauses. We do it all the time. I agree that the owners should be held responsible. And with existing contracts that may be the case.
- KOS

Yes, 'free agent' people without unions or associations sign such contracts. I agree. To expect a labour union to give up those contractual rights is pure pie in the sky nonsense.

can you imagine if they decided to go the way of the NFL?

contracts are not guaranteed?

i think that will be the biggest problem with these long term deals.. players will earn the front loaded portion and then they might start to float (not all.. these guys are bred to be competitive for the most part)

i also think the NHL should consider adding a "franchise player" tag to one contract per team.. it does not effect that cap (or only a small portion of it does) and it opens up more money for the lesser players.

it would be up to the team itself on whether or not they want to apply the franchise player tag to one of their players.

this would allow for greater spending on salaries while putting limits on contracts to the support role players. it would also benefit the league when it comes to distributing talent, as star players will go to the places where they can get the franchise player contract
- Dozzer

I think there should be an amnesty clause, like in the NBA. You are able to drop 1 player a year. You pay half of what is owed to them and they become a free agent with no cap hit.

If the teams don't want players effing the dog on the back end of a long term deal, then don't sign players to them. It's that simple. They need to run their business and be held accountable for lousy business decisions by honoring poope contracts THEY offered.
- triggermartin

i agree

the problem is that its causing an unfair advantage in the league.. the handful of teams willing to offer these deals are getting all the star players while managing to stay under the cap while the majority of the teams who refuse to take part in that kind of thing immediately are at a disadvantage.

its one of those cases of one bad apple ruins the bunch.. if all the owners/gms flat out refused to sign those deals there wouldnt be a problem but there is that one small contingent who are.... which is frankly screwing it up for everyone.

think of it this way.

if nobody ever sped in their car, would there be a need for speeding laws? no. though since there is a small percentage of people who choose to drive recklessly so we all need to be subjected to rules that govern us and penalize those who do.

I think there should be an amnesty clause, like in the NBA. You are able to drop 1 player a year. You pay half of what is owed to them and they become a free agent with no cap hit.
- Jimmygrazz

that works too.. that way.. it keeps teams from bailing out on multiple contracts but it gives the teams the advantage of backing out of a deal if the player doesnt live up to expectations.

something needs to be put in place to make players accountable for not meeting up to their expectations when they signed their deal. hell.. make the expectations a provision of the deal.

i agree

the problem is that its causing an unfair advantage in the league.. the handful of teams willing to offer these deals are getting all the star players while managing to stay under the cap while the majority of the teams who refuse to take part in that kind of thing immediately are at a disadvantage.

its one of those cases of one bad apple ruins the bunch.. if all the owners/gms flat out refused to sign those deals there wouldnt be a problem but there is that one small contingent who are.... which is frankly screwing it up for everyone.

think of it this way.

if nobody ever sped in their car, would there be a need for speeding laws? no. though since there is a small percentage of people who choose to drive recklessly so we all need to be subjected to rules that govern us and penalize those who do.
- Dozzer

It's not a small contingent. Those contracts are all over the league. It is a small contingent who DON'T have at least one of those contracts on their books.

The NHL has basically said "If you don't agree to this, this, and this, no deal". So why make a proposal that will be shot down in under ten minutes like they were the last time? That's disrespectful and completely obnoxious. Frank the owners. They are the ones who are saying 'let's take a two week break'. How can you blame the PA for that?
- triggermartin

this isnt about blame

this is business. the owners want one thing and so long as they stand firm they will get it.

the union can female dog and moan all they want, but the truth is, they wont start getting paid until they concede to an offer the owners are okay with.

this isnt about right and wrong, its about who can sit out the longest to get the deal they want, and to me, thats the owners.

That is a reasonable speculation based on the PA saying that need to decide who pays for this lockout. But there are other possibilities there. I'm going to wait until that is actually made known what is going to happen, before passing judgement.
- MJL

MJL is winning this battle yet again...... Good Luck tho guys

That is a reasonable speculation based on the PA saying that need to decide who pays for this lockout. But there are other possibilities there. I'm going to wait until that is actually made known what is going to happen, before passing judgement.
- MJL

MJL is winning this battle yet again...... Good Luck tho guys

that works too.. that way.. it keeps teams from bailing out on multiple contracts but it gives the teams the advantage of backing out of a deal if the player doesnt live up to expectations.

something needs to be put in place to make players accountable for not meeting up to their expectations when they signed their deal. hell.. make the expectations a provision of the deal.
- Dozzer

I agree with this, sure. But this is surely not a sticking point that is keeping a deal from being done. I was originally responding to some pie in the sky nonsense of no guaranteed contracts whatsoever - that will never happen while there is still a union.

reminds me of a piece of property i picked up from the bank. it went into foreclose so i offered bank a price and they declined, said it was too low.

2 weeks later with no buyers they asked me if i still wanted it? i said sure, but this time i had leverage. i offered less than my first offer. they took it.

moral of the story?

don't be greedy.

and yes, sometimes offers do get worse.

this isnt about blame

this is business. the owners want one thing and so long as they stand firm they will get it.

the union can female dog and moan all they want, but the truth is, they wont start getting paid until they concede to an offer the owners are okay with.

this isnt about right and wrong, its about who can sit out the longest to get the deal they want, and to me, thats the owners.
- Dozzer

I agree about the waiting out part. But it IS about blame as well while we go through this process. Why are we waiting out and not seeing any hockey right now, hurting the game, yadda yadda yadda? Yep, the owners.

It's not a small contingent. Those contracts are all over the league. It is a small contingent who DON'T have at least one of those contracts on their books.
- triggermartin

i am not against long terms deals.. just front loaded ones.

and yes.. i believe most teams dont have the richards type contract... just take a look through capgeek and see how many contracts over 5 years depreciate in value.. i think you might be surprised how few there actually are.

dont get me wrong.. sign a guy for 10 years.. no quams with that.. but make the cap hit the exact amount that the player receives that year.

do you really think parise intends on playing the last 3 years of his deal when he makes a combined 4million?

doubt it.

I agree with this, sure. But this is surely not a sticking point that is keeping a deal from being done. I was originally responding to some pie in the sky nonsense of no guaranteed contracts whatsoever - that will never happen while there is still a union.
- triggermartin

oh i agree with guaranteeing contracts.. i just used the NFL as an example of how it works differently.

i am not against long terms deals.. just front loaded ones.

and yes.. i believe most teams dont have the richards type contract... just take a look through capgeek and see how many contracts over 5 years depreciate in value.. i think you might be surprised how few there actually are.

dont get me wrong.. sign a guy for 10 years.. no quams with that.. but make the cap hit the exact amount that the player receives that year.

do you really think parise intends on playing the last 3 years of his deal when he makes a combined 4million?

doubt it.
- Dozzer

Yep, those deals are cap circumvention, the GM's and owners submarining their own vaunted 'cap system', then when CBA runs out, they come and want to take more from the players to fix it. It's Bullpoop.

I agree about the waiting out part. But it IS about blame as well while we go through this process. Why are we waiting out and not seeing any hockey right now, hurting the game, yadda yadda yadda? Yep, the owners.
- triggermartin

blame wont get a deal done..

fact is its both sides fault period.

simplest solution would be to hire a third party mediator.. the guy who worked out the NFL deal has stated publicly he would do it for free.

a neutral mediator would get this done since there would be no bias.. he would deem what is fair and both sides would have to accept it.

I agree about the waiting out part. But it IS about blame as well while we go through this process. Why are we waiting out and not seeing any hockey right now, hurting the game, yadda yadda yadda? Yep, the owners.
- triggermartin

blame wont get a deal done..

fact is its both sides fault period.

simplest solution would be to hire a third party mediator.. the guy who worked out the NFL deal has stated publicly he would do it for free.

a neutral mediator would get this done since there would be no bias.. he would deem what is fair and both sides would have to accept it.