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.
- MJL

I don't care what he's concerned about. My point is that he's at best seriously overdramatising, at worst outright lying about the effects of the 5-7 year terms.

There's just way too many factors that he leaves out when coming up with that theory. I've already listed many, and i was just looking at Capgeek and there's only a handful of teams that are up against, or near the cap. (ie teams that would even feel the effect of having to pay a superstar a little more upfront, if they even have any.) Of those teams only Minn. Van. and Philli. are close to the cap, with cap circumventing contracts on thier roster. Thus meaning that almost no teams would be significantly affected enough to have any real effect on the middling players on thier roster.

As Philli is one of the worst offenders it seems clear to me why you feel you have a dog in this fight. Your team would probably be most affected by those proposed changes.

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.
- MJL

I guess since you don't have an answer to what i wrote. You will just deflect and dodge.

It's ok, it's pretty much expected of you at this point.

Next time i come across some random blogger with an opinion that supports my POV on this matter, i will be sure to link it for you. OK?

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.


- steveb12344

First of all, I never stated it as a fact. It is an issue for the future, so it can't be a fact, as it hasn't happened yet. So you're incorrect there. Secondly there is a poop load of people in the Hockey World talking about it also. So I'm not alone.

I just re-read McKenzie's tweets on the subject. He is right in how many players currently have or could conceivably have a 5 year deal in the future. But it is not about how many players have a 5 year deal, or would get a 5 year deal in the future. It is about how it will affect top players Cap hits. And not about increasing or decreasing the amount of players on a 5 year deal.

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.


- steveb12344

That's all that is needed is one or two per team to have the affect proposed. Neither myself or the PA has stated it as being catastrophic. The PA has simply said they are against it for how it affects the middle class player. So a little too much dramatization on your part there.

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)


- steveb12344

Not conveniently forgetting anything. This is about the future. Not deals that are already signed. It will be a cycle. As one top players deal expires, another will take it's place. It's always been that way.
And I agree that there is less risk of getting stuck with a Gomez situation. That's one of the reasons why the League wants it. Less long term deals on a teams ledger is better.

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

Wait a minute, up at the top you were calling it a theory. Now you're stating that the difference would be negligible as a matter of fact? There absolutely are benefits for the League. Why do you think they want it? Nobody, myself included has denied that there are benefits to the League in the term limits and the variance.
But you're conveniently forgetting that Fehr works for the players. It's not his priority to close those loopholes. Those loopholes are good for his players. And do you really think that the PA is negotiating on the contract term limit so the minority of teams can continue cheating? What's mind boggling is that you think that.

I guess since you don't have an answer to what i wrote. You will just deflect and dodge.

It's ok, it's pretty much expected of you at this point.

Next time i come across some random blogger with an opinion that supports my POV on this matter, i will be sure to link it for you. OK?
- steveb12344

Still waiting to read somebody labeling it as baloney.

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?


- MnGump

I've linked a number of articles. I talked about this earlier in the week. I clearly wrote in my previous reply that the future rate of long term deals isn't necessarily going to increase. You either didn't read it, or didn't grasp what I wrote. Nobody knows for sure how it's going to play out. It hasn't happened yet. It's in the future. But there is a lot of people talking about it for it not be a possibility.

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.
- MnGump

Cap hits will be worse because regardless of the number of players signed to a 5 year deal, they won't be able to sign those deals that back dive. So Cap hits are going to be bigger.
Do you think that top players in Free Agency aren't going to command top salaries?
No one, myself included has denied that this is good for the League. Or that it's something that they don't need. Or that it's going to make the players poor. Just saying that the PA is against it. And that it is going to affect the middle class player more then the top player. The top player is going to get his money.

I don't care what he's concerned about. My point is that he's at best seriously overdramatising, at worst outright lying about the effects of the 5-7 year terms.


- steveb12344

But you can't back that up with anything of substance.

There's just way too many factors that he leaves out when coming up with that theory. I've already listed many, and i was just looking at Capgeek and there's only a handful of teams that are up against, or near the cap. (ie teams that would even feel the effect of having to pay a superstar a little more upfront, if they even have any.) Of those teams only Minn. Van. and Philli. are close to the cap, with cap circumventing contracts on thier roster. Thus meaning that almost no teams would be significantly affected enough to have any real effect on the middling players on thier roster.


- steveb12344

You're talking about a potential 10 year CBA deal, and your looking to see who is up against the Cap this year? Talk about being shortsighted. How about next year when they drop the Cap to 60M? I guess you seem to be mistaken that this is going to be an instantaneous affect, and isn't something that is going to happen over time. I thought that would be understood when dealing with a potential decade long CBA.

As Philli is one of the worst offenders it seems clear to me why you feel you have a dog in this fight. Your team would probably be most affected by those proposed changes.
- steveb12344

They will be. They are one of the worst offenders. I said when the Flyers made the Offer sheet to Weber. That as a fan of the Flyers, I was excited about getting Weber. But that it's bad for Hockey. And it was not how an Offer Sheet was intended to be used to attack a team financially to try and steal a franchise player.

Still waiting to read somebody labeling it as baloney.
- MJL

You didn't really adress the fact that for a variety of reasons there are very few teams that would be affected by those restrictions

As an example, the Oilers just signed Hall and Eberle to 7,and 6, year deals respectively. There is no varience for cap-relief, and the term would fall within the leagues proposed guidelines.

This is a team flush with budding superstars, and with every reason to try to cheat a little(afterall other teams are doing it) to try to eventually get all thier young stars under the cap.

They didn't though, they showed respect for the system and played it straight up. So i ask you, how would these proposed restrictions have any effect on any other players. Future or present on the oilers roster.

My point is its not just the Oilers. Most teams don't cheat, and of the ones that do, some of them do it without being backed up against the cap.

All that said, there is still only a select few that get superstar deals, and at the end of the day the vast majority of teams would be comepletely unaffected by those changes, and the ones that would feel it are the ones that were cheating anyways(ie Flyers)

The thought that mid level players will somehow become unimportant, and will not continue to be bid on when they hit UFA (Which the league agreed to leave unchanged, by the way) is a farce and is mostly only supported by the PA side.

The thought that mid level players will somehow become unimportant, and will not continue to be bid on when they hit UFA (Which the league agreed to leave unchanged, by the way) is a farce and is mostly only supported by the PA side.
- steveb12344

Another post that shows you don't understand the premise. Nobody stated that mid level players will somehow become unimportant. Just that there will be less money available to them. And were not talking about mid level free agents. Were talking about teams having less money to give to their mid level RFA's.

Good night, going to bed.

It shouldn't even be that difficult.. Is miller good? Absolutely. Top five? Maybe. Better then Quick? Does miller have a cup? Did he carry the team on his back when most nights we scored .. a goal? Maybe two if we were lucky? Did he lead the league in shutouts?
- Deadmau55

I dont know if you read reply's to posts or just ignore them.

I dont care what Quick did 1 year.

I want to see him do it for more than one year and then I will put him in the same breath as Miller , Lundquist etc.

1 year does not make a career. Ask Jim Carey about that.

Dont get offended by this. When Quick does more, then he will (in my book) get put in with those goalie. Not until then!

Bobby Ryan
- mrhattrick27

new jersey suburbs of philly don't count.