The lower tickets prices will be great too
- Canada Cup

Three periods of shootouts will be awesome.

I don't know. I think if the NHL would bend on that, there would be a deal. I think the PA would accept the 5% variance and the longer CBA if they could get an increase on term limit. But it seems like Daly and the NHL are still defending that hill.
- MJL

A 7 year deal would be great for both... it's still a long deal.

7 years in the NHL with good money is great for the players.

Anything longer than that is just crazy on the NHL side.

Three periods of shootouts will be awesome.
- Symba007

Thank you fans painted with the blood of a different member of the PA every night.

Thank you fans painted with the blood of a different member of the PA every night.
- Canada Cup

Is that how they're handling contraction?!

Lap dances from the ice girls will keep me coming back...
- Flyfreaky

What is a lap dance????

What is a lap dance????
- jimmc7722

Three periods of shootouts will be awesome.
- Symba007

I vote for 4 and one period with the net turned around with a garbage can in front of it...

- Flyfreaky

I like Frosty smoking the pipe... where can I get a sweater like this???

Does Grandma Flyfreaky knit???

I like Frosty smoking the pipe... where can I get a sweater like this???

Does Grandma Flyfreaky knit???
- jimmc7722

One of the lap dance girls gave this to me to keep me warm during the lockout...

Yep all unproven. But yet pretty much the entire Hockey World has come to that conclusion. And how many players have 5 year contracts at the present, doesn't matter. That was all done in a CBA environment where there wasn't a 5% variance, and a 5 year term limit.
- MJL

So I guess the facts are currently in my favor. No? Approximately each team has an average of 3% contracts over 5 years, and that includes all the latest big deals signed right before the lockout began.

So obviously that rate skyrocketed over the last few months and it's still at a paltry average of 3% per team. What do you think the rate of new contracts over 5 years in length is going to be under the new 5 and 7 year plan? Based on the current rate, I'm guessing they'll be same or even less. History is pretty much already telling us this. Again, only 90 players as of right now. 90 out of an approximate 700. Less than 13% of all players currently have 5 year or greater contracts. So How do 5 year limits in any way change anything for middle or lower salary players? Based on the current and past percentages alone and the rate at which that percentage has increased, absolutely changes nothing. You and your PA supporting brethren are wildly grasping at straws. I get it though, it's a theory that supports your argument therefore it's got to be fact because someone printed it. Right?! It's a bull poop theory.

This post at 9:12pm......and they're still at lunch??

I don't know. I think if the NHL would bend on that, there would be a deal. I think the PA would accept the 5% variance and the longer CBA if they could get an increase on term limit. But it seems like Daly and the NHL are still defending that hill.
- MJL

I can't believe you are spewing this 5 yr restriction/killing the middle class theory as fact.

At this point it is merely speculation, and opinion. You are wrong to state the whole hockey world is agreeing with it. For every one that agrees with it you can find someone else who thinks it's baloney.

Here's the thing. For starters it really is a small % of players affected by it. Bob Mac himself tweeted that it might affect about 5% of players. The other thing is that many (more than half easily) of the teams don't sign those kind of deals. So for those teams there would be no effect whatsoever as a result of these new restrictions.

For the teams that do sign them it may be one or two of those per team, which would probably have some effect, though i'm pretty sure that that extra few million for the stars cap hit wouldn't be as catastophic as the PA would have you believe.

The other thing that you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that with these front-loaded deals there will come a time near the end of the contract that the team will still be incurring the higher cap hit, while the player may be done or at least rendered ineffective for the value of the cap-hit. We are already starting to see it with some guys already seriously in decline, with many years of cap-hit left for thier team. At this point those deals would be a drag on the teams cap, and wouldn't that have the same effect as the superstars taking up the cap at the beginning anyways. Also lesser term could actually help free up cap-space because those teams would be less likely to get stuck with cap hits for some stiff that should be out of the league anyways. (see Gomez)

The fact of the matter is that the differences would be negligable, and for whatever negative effect the lesser term would have. There are certainly arguements to be made for thier benefits as well. They call them CAP-CIRCUMVENTING deals, because it is CHEATING to do so. Fehr can dress it up however he wants to try to keep the lesser players happy. It doesn't change the fact that in the name of fairness, those loopholes need to be closed. The fact that Don has the PA holding out for the ability of a minority of teams to be able to continue cheating is mind-boggling

I still feel there will be no season

I still feel there will be no season
- Popcorn Kid

Gary Bettman is the reason for the season...

I can't believe you are spewing this 5 yr restriction/killing the middle class theory as fact.

- steveb12344

Not only that, but what if the salary spread really did get wider between upper and middle class. So what?

Wouldn't that just be the natural result of supply and demand?

Isn't supply and demand perfectly OK when it is used to describe why pro athletes make more money than nearly everyone else in society? But the same dynamic is no good here?

I can't believe you are spewing this 5 yr restriction/killing the middle class theory as fact.

At this point it is merely speculation, and opinion. You are wrong to state the whole hockey world is agreeing with it. For every one that agrees with it you can find someone else who thinks it's baloney.

Here's the thing. For starters it really is a small % of players affected by it. Bob Mac himself tweeted that it might affect about 5% of players. The other thing is that many (more than half easily) of the teams don't sign those kind of deals. So for those teams there would be no effect whatsoever as a result of these new restrictions.

For the teams that do sign them it may be one or two of those per team, which would probably have some effect, though i'm pretty sure that that extra few million for the stars cap hit wouldn't be as catastophic as the PA would have you believe.

The other thing that you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that with these front-loaded deals there will come a time near the end of the contract that the team will still be incurring the higher cap hit, while the player may be done or at least rendered ineffective for the value of the cap-hit. We are already starting to see it with some guys already seriously in decline, with many years of cap-hit left for thier team. At this point those deals would be a drag on the teams cap, and wouldn't that have the same effect as the superstars taking up the cap at the beginning anyways. Also lesser term could actually help free up cap-space because those teams would be less likely to get stuck with cap hits for some stiff that should be out of the league anyways. (see Gomez)

The fact of the matter is that the differences would be negligable, and for whatever negative effect the lesser term would have. There are certainly arguements to be made for thier benefits as well. They call them CAP-CIRCUMVENTING deals, because it is CHEATING to do so. Fehr can dress it up however he wants to try to keep the lesser players happy. It doesn't change the fact that in the name of fairness, those loopholes need to be closed. The fact that Don has the PA holding out for the ability of a minority of teams to be able to continue cheating is mind-boggling
- steveb12344

OMG facts!

Not only that, but what if the salary spread really did get wider between upper and middle class. So what?

Wouldn't that just be the natural result of supply and demand?

Isn't supply and demand perfectly OK when it is used to describe why pro athletes make more money than nearly everyone else in society? But the same dynamic is no good here?
- Aetherial

I have a novel idea. Maybe the superstar players would realize that if they want to be on a competitive team, they may have to sign more cap-friendly deals such as maybe 7-8 million/yr instead of 10-11 million sucking up too much of the cap-space.

There's also the fact that most teams now are not right up against the cap, so again even less teams that would be affected.

Also in the existing system there are many teams with buyouts of ineffective players taking from thier cap.

Really there is not much more than a handful of players of superstar calibre who deserve the bigger salaries. A team should have to use a little more cap-space on a superstar player to be fair to the other teams that don't have any.

Like i said before: Those contracts are a way for a select few GM's to cheat. Nothing more. The PA's contention of it hurting the middle class is just Fehr's way of convincing the rank and file that he's looking out for them too.

That whole theory is just laughable, and the fact remains. Those loopholes must be closed in the name of fairness to the majority of the teams that don't support cheating.

So I guess the facts are currently in my favor. No? Approximately each team has an average of 3% contracts over 5 years, and that includes all the latest big deals signed right before the lockout began.


- MnGump

First of all it's in a completely different scenario then one involving the proposed changes would be. Secondly, this is about the future. No one is saying that once this is signed this effect is going to kick in next year. It's going to happen gradually. As you correctly point out, a number of star players are already signed. So other then for that reason, how many players are currently singed to a contract over 5 years isn't really relevant. Think long term. The NHL wants a 10 year CBA. The environment is going to change. Thinking about what is happening now is missing the boat. It's not about now. Same reason why those so focused on the players missing paychecks this year, are not seeing the big picture.

So obviously that rate skyrocketed over the last few months and it's still at an average of 3% per team. What do you think the rate of new contracts over 5 years in length is going to be under the new 5 and 7 year plan? I'm guessing even a lesser rate than up to this point in history. Again, only 90 players as of right now. 90 out of an approximate 700. Less than 13% of all players. The rate will most likely either lessen or stay close to the same. How does this in any way change anything? Based on the current and past percentages alone and the rate at which the rate has increased, you and your PA supporting brethren are wildly grasping at straws. I get it though, it's a theory that supports your argument therefore it's got to be fact because someone printed it. Right?! It's a bull poop theory.
- MnGump

How does it change anything? It's not about more players being signed to 5 year deals or longer. It's about what happens with their Cap hits. It's not the length of deals that is going to affect the change on the Middle class. It's the affect that term limits will have on the Cap hits. That is what is going to change the environment. So I have no problem with you calling it an unproven theory, because it is. But based on your response here, you clearly don't understand the theory. There's a whole lot of people talking about it. And not just Players and Pro player writers. And I posted about it long before it was being widely written. And it has nothing to do with supporting my argument. You can call it a bull poop theory all you want. But based on your response here, that's all your doing is calling it one. Certainly not pointing out how it is.

I can't believe you are spewing this 5 yr restriction/killing the middle class theory as fact.

At this point it is merely speculation, and opinion. You are wrong to state the whole hockey world is agreeing with it. For every one that agrees with it you can find someone else who thinks it's baloney.


- steveb12344

I'd be happy to read anything you can provide from a credible source that thinks it's baloney.

I can't believe you are spewing this 5 yr restriction/killing the middle class theory as fact.

At this point it is merely speculation, and opinion. You are wrong to state the whole hockey world is agreeing with it. For every one that agrees with it you can find someone else who thinks it's baloney.

Here's the thing. For starters it really is a small % of players affected by it. Bob Mac himself tweeted that it might affect about 5% of players. The other thing is that many (more than half easily) of the teams don't sign those kind of deals. So for those teams there would be no effect whatsoever as a result of these new restrictions.

For the teams that do sign them it may be one or two of those per team, which would probably have some effect, though i'm pretty sure that that extra few million for the stars cap hit wouldn't be as catastophic as the PA would have you believe.

The other thing that you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that with these front-loaded deals there will come a time near the end of the contract that the team will still be incurring the higher cap hit, while the player may be done or at least rendered ineffective for the value of the cap-hit. We are already starting to see it with some guys already seriously in decline, with many years of cap-hit left for thier team. At this point those deals would be a drag on the teams cap, and wouldn't that have the same effect as the superstars taking up the cap at the beginning anyways. Also lesser term could actually help free up cap-space because those teams would be less likely to get stuck with cap hits for some stiff that should be out of the league anyways. (see Gomez)

The fact of the matter is that the differences would be negligible, and for whatever negative effect the lesser term would have. There are certainly arguments to be made for their benefits as well. They call them CAP-CIRCUMVENTING deals, because it is CHEATING to do so. Fehr can dress it up however he wants to try to keep the lesser players happy. It doesn't change the fact that in the name of fairness, those loopholes need to be closed. The fact that Don has the PA holding out for the ability of a minority of teams to be able to continue cheating is mind-boggling
- steveb12344

Yes! This.

I'd be happy to read anything you can provide from a credible source that thinks it's baloney.
- MJL

I don't need a source! I just clearly wrote why it is baloney, and i'd like to know how you disagree.

Like i said before: Those contracts are a way for a select few GM's to cheat. Nothing more. The PA's contention of it hurting the middle class is just Fehr's way of convincing the rank and file that he's looking out for them too.

That whole theory is just laughable, and the fact remains. Those loopholes must be closed in the name of fairness to the majority of the teams that don't support cheating.
- steveb12344

Do you think Fehr main concern on that issue should be trying to stop teams from cheating using those loopholes? Or should he be concerned about what is best for his constituents? What's laughable is this myth that Fehr has to use this to convince the rank and file that he's looking out for them. Because Fehr convinced the players of that a long time ago. And that is painfully obvious by how united the PA is, and how informed they've been kept. And if you don't know that and think that he's pulling a ruse here to fool the players. Then you just haven't been paying attention.

First of all it's in a completely different scenario then one involving the proposed changes would be. Secondly, this is about the future. No one is saying that once this is signed this effect is going to kick in next year. It's going to happen gradually. As you correctly point out, a number of star players are already signed. So other then for that reason, how many players are currently singed to a contract over 5 years isn't really relevant. Think long term. The NHL wants a 10 year CBA. The environment is going to change. Thinking about what is happening now is missing the boat. It's not about now. Same reason why those so focused on the players missing paychecks this year, are not seeing the big picture.

How does it change anything? It's not about more players being signed to 5 year deals or longer. It's about what happens with their Cap hits. It's not the length of deals that is going to affect the change on the Middle class. It's the affect that term limits will have on the Cap hits. That is what is going to change the environment. So I have no problem with you calling it an unproven theory, because it is. But based on your response here, you clearly don't understand the theory. There's a whole lot of people talking about it. And not just Players and Pro player writers. And I posted about it long before it was being widely written. And it has nothing to do with supporting my argument. You can call it a bull poop theory all you want. But based on your response here, that's all your doing is calling it one. Certainly not pointing out how it is.
- MJL

Of course you did Ek jr. DERP! I can go back about 6 threads and find it for you if you like. You linked an article pertaining to said theory in the same post in which the writer even had doubts whether it was water tight or not.

My point is, the rate of long term deals is minute, therefore why would the future rate of long term deals increase all that much with a 5 and 7 year limit?

And if that's the case, why would cap hits be any worse than they are now? Sure any new 5 year or more deals could prospectively shrink a teams cap limit quicker, but that still isn't a 100% guarantee depending on the team willing to dole out the contract. And if it does, then I guess teams will need to be a bit smarter in how they structure those deals and will need to be sure that player is absolutely worth it. Once again I'll point out, the players are making plenty of money, the league has conceded more money for the make whole, this is one issue I think the league knows MUST happen in order for them to get a grip on the leagues financial solvency issues. As someone else pointed out, the premise of this proposal is to shore up loop holes and cap circumvention. If you're not for that, if you're not for the betterment of the league by way of stopping teams from cheating, then you're not a true fan of the league.

I don't need a source! I just clearly wrote why it is baloney, and i'd like to know how you disagree.
- steveb12344

You told me that for every source I can find that thinks that's the case, you can find one that thinks it's baloney. I've been all over the Web and I can't find that. I've seen sources that aren't sure about it, but they agree it's a reasonable theory. So all I'm asking for is for one that thinks it's baloney. I'll be addressing your other post next.

And I posted about it long before it was being widely written.
- MJL