I assure you. Luongo will be moved
- vancity787

Thank jeebus, i was worried there for a while...

I been drinking alot, If i got brownie points for this please log off so you don't have to see me making a fool of myself the next hour
- MindFr3eak

This always helps with the clear thinking.

Yup...it's funny how simple it sounds when we talk about it. I only wish the two parties felt a true desire for compromise.
- p_zub

It's because the two sides are in it for themselves. Each side automatically assumes the other side is completely full of crap is simply trying to screw the other side as fast and as hard as possible.

Yes, I was, but it’s when certain kids come off all cocky and arrogant, thinking they know it all…….
- prock

You're the same way, and you're an old dude...

OMG HE HAS ACCENT HE FOREIGN DEVIL
- AdamFrench

You should know best.

Hi Leafs fans, what's new today?!

You should know best.
- ShootingSemin

Just because you're a sweet talking newf doesn't mean you're safe.

It's because the two sides are in it for themselves. Each side automatically assumes the other side is completely full of crap is simply trying to screw the other side as fast and as hard as possible.
- Two_For_Truth

Gaurenteed if the owners offered a luxery taxed salary cap the players would go 50/50. The owners are clearly being idiots

Just because you're a sweet talking newf doesn't mean you're safe.
- AdamFrench

It helps that I'm pretty too.

* flicks hair, bats eyes*

Gaurenteed if the owners offered a luxery taxed salary cap the players would go 50/50. The owners are clearly being idiots
- Bieksa#3

The owners position is, we own everything, our rules, our game, we overpay you because we have so much money that when free agency rolls around we go retarded, please help save us from, well, ourselves....

The owners position is, we own everything, our rules, our game, we overpay you because we have so much money that when free agency rolls around we go retarded, please help save us from, well, ourselves....
- ShootingSemin

basically yes.

basically yes.
- Bieksa#3

Well, i mean look at it from the players point of view, we want you to roll back 30% or more of what we negotiated to pay you ( long term in some cases) in good faith. And they are supposed to just jump at this? I dunno bout but id tell them to go (frank) themselves and enjoy playing in Europe, for even more cash in some cases, while i waited for the owners to get a (frank)ing clue...

It helps that I'm pretty too.

* flicks hair, bats eyes*
- ShootingSemin

Well, i mean look at it from the players point of view, we want you to roll back 30% or more of what we negotiated to pay you ( long term in some cases) in good faith. And they are supposed to just jump at this? I dunno bout but id tell them to go (frank) themselves and enjoy playing in Europe, for even more cash in some cases, while i waited for the owners to get a (frank)ing clue...
- ShootingSemin

I agree. What bettman/the owners need to realize is the NBA and MLB have teams that can't compete economically. The Lakers, Heat, Nets, Knicks etc will bspend to win and the league is successful. Same goes for the Yanks, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies, Angels etc. The lower teams don't loose money because they don't try to play with the big boys.
You stick the money from the $ for $ into the revenue sharing. Leafs, Rangers, Philly, canucks, canadians etc are gonna spend when need be. I would however like something put in where once a contract is so high you pay against the luxery tax regardless of whether or not the player is in the NHL or ahl. And once you go over the cap you don't qualify for revenue sharing benefits

Gaurenteed if the owners offered a luxery taxed salary cap the players would go 50/50. The owners are clearly being idiots
- Bieksa#3

The owners wouldn't offer a luxury tax system. That's more of an offer the players would make.

And the players don't want to go 50/50 because the owners don't include everything in HRR. The players would go for 50/50 if the owners actually included everything in HRR. But they don't.

The owners wouldn't offer a luxury tax system. That's more of an offer the players would make.

And the players don't want to go 50/50 because the owners don't include everything in HRR. The players would go for 50/50 if the owners actually included everything in HRR. But they don't.
- Two_For_Truth

Did you miss the conversation UG?

Hi Leafs fans, what's new today?!
- hankthetank

Prock's an old dude.

Did you miss the conversation UG?
- Bieksa#3

I tried to skip your Luongo sales pitch.

quote=Two_For_Truth]I tried to skip your Luongo sales pitch.
I think you skipped to far

I agree. What bettman/the owners need to realize is the NBA and MLB have teams that can't compete economically. The Lakers, Heat, Nets, Knicks etc will bspend to win and the league is successful. Same goes for the Yanks, Dodgers, Red Sox, Phillies, Angels etc. The lower teams don't loose money because they don't try to play with the big boys.
You stick the money from the $ for $ into the revenue sharing. Leafs, Rangers, Philly, canucks, canadians etc are gonna spend when need be. I would however like something put in where once a contract is so high you pay against the luxery tax regardless of whether or not the player is in the NHL or ahl. And once you go over the cap you don't qualify for revenue sharing benefits
- Bieksa#3

Or a soft cap with a heavy revenue sharing tax, Rags, Leafs, Nucks, Philly, Habs can all overspend on the cap as much as they want to, only dollar for (frank)ing dollar that they go over goes into the revenue sharing pot for the small markets that must reach the cap floor of say 30 mill. Have a constant cap roof at say 50 mill. Make ELCs 6 years long, plus player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap. And raise 1 mill or whatever it is cap off of ELCs, make it 3 mill say... and and when a player gets to their second contract they can cash in as much as they want as a UFA, everybody is happy. Owners can find a great way to circumvent their system by paying huge player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap, and the players get paid more going into the league, win/win really.

Or a soft cap with a heavy revenue sharing tax, Rags, Leafs, Nucks, Philly, Habs can all overspend on the cap as much as they want to, only dollar for (frank)ing dollar that they go over goes into the revenue sharing pot for the small markets that must reach the cap floor of say 30 mill. Have a constant cap roof at say 50 mill. Make ELCs 6 years long, plus player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap. And raise 1 mill or whatever it is cap off of ELCs, make it 3 mill say... and and when a player gets to their second contract they can cash in as much as they want as a UFA, everybody is happy. Owners can find a great way to circumvent their system by paying huge player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap, and the players get paid more going into the league, win/win really.
- ShootingSemin

They can't let the teams go over the cap by too much. I'd say 10% over the cap would be the maximum. Allowing the big markets to go over by any more than that would be going backwards.

Six year ELC and then UFA? That's certain death for small market teams. You have players that can become UFAs by 24 years old.

Or a soft cap with a heavy revenue sharing tax, Rags, Leafs, Nucks, Philly, Habs can all overspend on the cap as much as they want to, only dollar for (frank)ing dollar that they go over goes into the revenue sharing pot for the small markets that must reach the cap floor of say 30 mill. Have a constant cap roof at say 50 mill. Make ELCs 6 years long, plus player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap. And raise 1 mill or whatever it is cap off of ELCs, make it 3 mill say... and and when a player gets to their second contract they can cash in as much as they want as a UFA, everybody is happy. Owners can find a great way to circumvent their system by paying huge player bonuses that doesn't count against the cap, and the players get paid more going into the league, win/win really.
- ShootingSemin

Well I would want signing bonus to count against the cap, and as presently no other bonus' allowed on a contract. Even the ELC should be a flat rate. And I would want the cap around 60 mil.

They can't let the teams go over the cap by too much. I'd say 10% over the cap would be the maximum. Allowing the big markets to go over by any more than that would be going backwards.

Six year ELC and then UFA? That's certain death for small market teams. You have players that can become UFAs by 24 years old.
- Two_For_Truth

Raise the years then? Say 20 % over the cap then. Big market teams want to spend lots while crying poor, the UFA thing can be worked out better no doubt, i do however think the rest would work for all.

- bobbyisno1

They can't let the teams go over the cap by too much. I'd say 10% over the cap would be the maximum. Allowing the big markets to go over by any more than that would be going backwards.

Six year ELC and then UFA? That's certain death for small market teams. You have players that can become UFAs by 24 years old.
- Two_For_Truth

The further they go over the more it benifits the teams requiring help from the revenue sharing. Small market teams will have a hard time competing with big ones, but it is no different in the NBA and MLB.