And why would a pro-player guy like you want to put artificial salary restrictions on rookies? Why should veterans and free agents get that money?

Why should a #1 overall pick be forced to make less money than Jody Shelley?
- Atomic Wedgie

This has zero to do with being pro-player. As it always has, it has to do with what I think is right. Years of service is why. You earn the big money over time. Players on EL deals making 3-4M a year is too much. Then it carries over to inflate on 2nd contracts. It drives salaries up.

lockout this season and the next!!!!!!! this is fun!!!

That's not always true. There are a lot of cases where they make a lot of it.
- MJL

Here's schedule A and B:

http://capgeek.com/faq/ho...ntry-level-contracts-work

Are a lot of guys in their first three years winning the Hart Trophy?

A lot of cases?

Here's schedule A and B:

http://capgeek.com/faq/ho...ntry-level-contracts-work

Are a lot of guys in their first three years winning the Hart Trophy?

A lot of cases?
- Atomic Wedgie

Take a look at the Cap Archives. Just look at the Edmonton Oilers. Both Hopkins and Hall made all thier bonuses. Start there.

This has zero to do with being pro-player. As it always has, it has to do with what I think is right. Years of service is why. You earn the big money over time. Players on EL deals making 3-4M a year is too much. Then it carries over to inflate on 2nd contracts. It drives salaries up.
- MJL

If an 18-year-old player can contribute more to his team than Jody Shelley, why should he make less?

And if overall salaries are capped, why does it matter if some individuals are making more?

And lastly, what do you have against driving salaries up?

The players aren't against fixing things. The players are against footing the entire bill to fix things. And paying for the mistakes that the Owners made. I don't get why some people can't get that!
- MJL

So how does it make ANY sense or them to miss pachecks which will more than total what they would lose? They have already lost out on at least 25% of this years salary. Thats money none of them will ever recoup.

I'm quite sure the players understand that they're losing paychecks. And I don't think that the players agenda is to stick it to the Owners. I think their agenda is to stand up for themsleves.
- MJL

They may or may not be aware that they are losing paychecks today(more on that later) but are they aware of the damage a lost season would cost the league in future seasons and by extension their future earning potential. Less revenue for the league means less income for the players in future years.

Regarding lost paychecks, there is every indication that the Fehr has told them that he will get them their full 2012-2013 salaries regardless of games played. It may be posturing for the media and the NHL but until I see something otherwise, I believe Fehr fully intends to have the NHL pay the players in full for this year.

Take a look at the Cap Archives. Just look at the Edmonton Oilers. Both Hopkins and Hall made all thier bonuses. Start there.
- MJL

WRONG!

Neither one of them made their full bonuses. Where in the HELL do you get your information?
The CAP number always includes their full bonus structure whether they make them or not. Neither of them got even close.

F them all.

They may or may not be aware that they are losing paychecks today(more on that later) but are they aware of the damage a lost season would cost the league in future seasons and by extension their future earning potential. Less revenue for the league means less income for the players in future years.

Regarding lost paychecks, there is every indication that the Fehr has told them that he will get them their full 2012-2013 salaries regardless of games played. It may be posturing for the media and the NHL but until I see something otherwise, I believe Fehr fully intends to have the NHL pay the players in full for this year.
- Flyers_01

This will NEVER happen. Gauranteed! If any player really believes this they need to see a brain surgeon stat.

If an 18-year-old player can contribute more to his team than Jody Shelley, why should he make less?

And if overall salaries are capped, why does it matter if some individuals are making more?

And lastly, what do you have against driving salaries up?
- Atomic Wedgie

Veteran role players that contribute more to a team can make less then Jody Shelley does. Player on EL deals should not be making the high salaries that many of them are making in my opinion.

What do I have against driving salaries up? One word answer. Lockout!

I wonder how much of this BS is due low education of NHL Players. Sure some have obtained degrees outside of hockey, but I imagine they are much fewer than the ones who barely finished highschool or dropped out of college.

Take a look at the Cap Archives. Just look at the Edmonton Oilers. Both Hopkins and Hall made all thier bonuses. Start there.
- MJL

15 guys made bonuses of $1,000,000 or more last year.

Only 15.

WRONG!

Neither one of them made their full bonuses. Where in the HELL do you get your information?
The CAP number always includes their full bonus structure whether they make them or not. Neither of them got even close.
- Iggysbff

LOL Take a look at Cap cost line. You should really know the facts before you tell someone they're wrong!

http://www.capgeek.com/oilers/archive/

15 guys made bonuses of $1,000,000 or more last year.

Only 15.
- Atomic Wedgie

It's not just the bonus money for EL players. It's bonus money in combination with salaries that are too high.

So how does it make ANY sense or them to miss pachecks which will more than total what they would lose? They have already lost out on at least 25% of this years salary. Thats money none of them will ever recoup.
- Iggysbff

The players have decided that they're willing to lose salary to get the deal they want.

I think it is a misconception that the Owner's are willing to do that. They want to get the Season going. They can't build their business or make money if they're not playing. That is what they want to do. If what you say was true, the League would have never come back with their latest make whole offer.
- MJL

Of course they want to get the season going, but at the same time, why continue allowing a business to run in a broken system where many actually would still lose money? So why play at all if many owners are going to continue to lose even more money by allowing them to play? Besides, to a lot of these owners the NHL is just an investment/hobby. Most of these guys have made and continue to make their millions/billions in real world business.

Completely disagree with your last sentence. Obviously the owners know they still have to negotiate terms, and the players at some point have to agree to them. Even if their plan was to wait until the PA caves, they need to have deals and offers ready and on the table for them to agree to. They still have to provide a reasonable offer to entice the PA to "want" to end the lock out. So I think your logic is a bit flawed. These men of power didn't get to their status in life by being dumb. I think they know within reason just how far they can push the players and I think they know exactly what offer(s) the players will bite on that will satisfy the needs of the owners and players in order to push things in the right direction.

The longer the owners wait them out, the more reasonable and willing the PA will become. Sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening...

They may or may not be aware that they are losing paychecks today(more on that later) but are they aware of the damage a lost season would cost the league in future seasons and by extension their future earning potential. Less revenue for the league means less income for the players in future years.


- Flyers_01

That also affects the Owners. Like I said, both sides are losing here.

Regarding lost paychecks, there is every indication that the Fehr has told them that he will get them their full 2012-2013 salaries regardless of games played. It may be posturing for the media and the NHL but until I see something otherwise, I believe Fehr fully intends to have the NHL pay the players in full for this year.
- Flyers_01

I think that is reasonable speculation. But I'm going to reserve judgement until I see exactly what they ask for in that regards. I will say this, if they do ask for that, I will be in the Owners corner on that issue.

F them all.
- Aliaksandrhn

This!

The players have decided that they're willing to lose salary to get the deal they want.
- MJL

At the end of the day they will not get what they want and will lose a year's salary. Idiots!

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

I agree with this whole heartedly. But playing devils advocate for a minute, teams should then not be allowed to offer such lengthy and lucrative contracts merely in order to corner the market on big name RFA's. Say Parise or Suter turn out to be on the down trend of their careers, the Wild SHOULD be stuck paying them for offering them such ridiculous deals.

That said, I do agree that guaranteed contracts should be limited to say 2 - 3 years only.

This has zero to do with being pro-player. As it always has, it has to do with what I think is right. Years of service is why. You earn the big money over time. Players on EL deals making 3-4M a year is too much. Then it carries over to inflate on 2nd contracts. It drives salaries up.
- MJL

I think what you and the players (maybe those two are one in the same) are fogetting is the CBA as we knew it is gone. Negotiating back to the old system of 57% as the days pass are further and further from the reality that exists today. If players really believe that if they wait longer to settle they will get a better deal, they quite simply are delusional. As todays reality sets in, the CBA which expired in 2012 based on revenues from the previous year, will become less and less realistic. Right now both the players and owners are negotiating back to the old CBA. If this season is lost, it is quite possible that 50/50 won't cut it for the owners. That number may drop to give owners more of a share of revenue. And players who had 3 years left on contracts in Sept 2012 will now have 2 year left on that same contract... in SEPT 2013. Simple math states they lost 33%. The question is then simple.... IS IT WORTH IT?? Every paycheque that goes by is money that you will never recover. I get that players are p@ssed. I get that owners need a deal that protect them from themselves. This does include 50/50, it does include length of contracts, it does include free agency, it does include arbitation, it does include front loaded deals. Nobody will argue that the owners made this mess. I think deep down inside they know at well. It doesn't change the fact that the owners of a business will more times than not win.

Of course they want to get the season going, but at the same time, why continue allowing a business to run in a broken system where many actually would still lose money? So why play at all if many owners are going to continue to lose even more money by allowing them to play? Besides, to a lot of these owners the NHL is just an investment/hobby. Most of these guys have made and continue to make their millions/billions in real world business.


- MnGump

I don't buy into that it's a hobby for the owners hypothesis that is prevalent here on Hockeybuzz. The NHL is a big time multi billion dollar business. It is a serious business for the Owner's, not a hobby. If that was true, then why are we in a lockout?

Completely disagree with your last sentence. Obviously the owners know they still have to negotiate terms, and the players at some point have to agree to them. Even if their plan was to wait until the PA caves, they need to have deals and offers ready and on the table for them to agree to. They still have to provide a reasonable offer to entice the PA to "want" to end the lock out. So I think your logic is a bit flawed. These men of power didn't get to their status in life by being dumb. I think they know within reason just how far they can push the players and I think they know exactly what offer(s) the players will bite on that will satisfy the needs of the owners and players in order to push things in the right direction.

The longer the owners wait them out, the more reasonable and willing the PA will become. Sounds to me like that's exactly what's happening...
- MnGump

How can you not agree with my last sentence? That is what happened. The League came back with a better offer then the previous one. So what evidence is that the longer the Owners wait them out, the more reasonable and willing the PA will become?

I don't think either side here is dumb. We have 2 very shrewd negotiators here. That's part of the problem.

At the end of the day they will not get what they want and will lose a year's salary. Idiots!
- whipper334

I beleive that there is going to be a Season.

LOL Take a look at Cap cost line. You should really know the facts before you tell someone they're wrong!

http://www.capgeek.com/oilers/archive/
- MJL

Thats not what that is showing. Neither one made all of their bonuses.