Is history about to repeat itself? President Obama getting involved today issuing statement to NHL and PA... Could we be hours away from US military intervention?
http://www.mycenturylink....0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=994
- MnGump

Shock and awe

Does this mean they are doing it? Planning to do it? Or players giving up essential "power of attorney" in the situaion to Fehr's to make the decision to blow it up if they chose? Mother of god...
- mrhattrick27

More PR Smoke to try and put pressure on the Owners

Does this mean they are doing it? Planning to do it? Or players giving up essential "power of attorney" in the situaion to Fehr's to make the decision to blow it up if they chose? Mother of god...
- mrhattrick27

Not really ,they simply voted to allow the players to vote if they want a disclaimer of interest , meaning Fehr is starting to play his ace in the hole , we will see if Bettman and the owners will budge.

Obama says owners and players "make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of the fans, so do right by your fans."
- MnGump

GASP!!!!! ....Am I actually going to agree with something obama said!!??

Well I wonder what kind of tom foolery and skullduggery Ek will have for us today after yesterdays highly controversial blog pitting owners and players against him in an epic battle of who's right and who's wrong!

Let the games begin!
- MnGump

Ek is at the bottom of a river somewhere, it is the only thing the players and owners could agree on yesterday.

Is history about to repeat itself? President Obama getting involved today issuing statement to NHL and PA... Could we be hours away from US military intervention?
http://www.mycenturylink....0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=994
- MnGump

interesting... an empty populist statement urging other people to get things done coming for one known for empty populist statements and a complete inability to get things done.

Future deals will have more to do with what teams can outright afford to offer high dollar deals. Simple as that. Teams like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Philly, Chicago will have little cap space in the immediate future to go after big name UFA's. If nothing else, the 5 year limit should keep top teams from hording all the top players when they hit UFA.
- MnGump

How is that different then now? The top teams will pay to the salary cap just like they have been. I was referring to average prices per year and how the 5 year limit will raise the AAV.

But I do have to ask. How can the top teams be hording all of the top UFA's? Is/was the Wild a "top team" before they signed Parise and Suter? Bolts before they signed Carle? Sabres last year before they signed Ehrhoff last year? Jackets before they signed Wisniewski? The top teams haven't been hording the top players in UFA, if anything because the reason they were a "top team" is they have a solid team already, and with that solid comes the payroll to keep that solid team together and thus little room under the cap to go horde all of the top UFA's.

Ek is at the bottom of a river somewhere, it is the only thing the players and owners could agree on yesterday.
- Oilhab

E5

Does this mean they are doing it? Planning to do it? Or players giving up essential "power of attorney" in the situaion to Fehr's to make the decision to blow it up if they chose? Mother of god...
- mrhattrick27

Fehr as Executive Director does not have a vote on anything.

I don't think there is any doubt the 5 year limit will raise top end salaries and hurt the middle class players. History is the only indicator needed, as teams when given the opportunity in free agency will go ABOVE the norm to get the player they need to win. Look at it from the past CBA and how contracts evolved. When Dipietro got his deal everyone was shocked at the 15 years. As the CBA continued to evolve more of those long term decade long deals were getting handed out whether in free agency or team's resigning their own players. Well with those long term deals came the other side of the equation with lower year to year salaries (and I'm not talking about the back end diving salaries of those deals). If you take the ability to go long term away, teams will have to up the annual salaries to "entice" players to sign and consequently teams will bid against each other to get players. It's simple supply and demand economics. These owners want to win and will continue to go above and beyond to do just that. No CBA parameters will save them as when the new CBA comes out, if one owner won't play the higher annual salary to sign the big free agent, well there's 29 others standing next to him so the chances are one of them will have the need and desire to hand out the big $.
- uf1910

This is such a narrow-minded point of view. Basically PA propaganda for the most part.

Think the big picture, all the teams, and all the factors that go into creating market-value for these players.

I spent hours in the last thread typing many of the ways that that theory is flawed, and don't plan on repeating it all.

The short form is that the NHL seeks these restrictions as it is neccesary to stop the cap-circumventing contracts that the teams with rich owners seem so fond of giving out...ie..cheating.

The cap is there for a reason, and some players do benefit greatly from the ability of some GM's to cheat. But it is still cheating, and not something that i feel the players are rightous to try to protect.

As far as the effect of said restrictions... There are only a MINORITY of all teams that even sign contracts that would not be allowed. The Oilers for example just signed Hall, and Eberle to deals that would be complicent under the new rules. While they could have easily cheated and had every motivation to do so with all thier upcoming talent, they didn't, and neither do most teams.

This would mean that the MAJORITY of teams would be not at all affected, nor would thier cap-structure.

Of the remaining cheater teams, many of them don't fill up to the cap anyways so a few extra mill to a superstar won't change anything for them either.

Wile i agree that a few teams will be marginally affected by those rules, and have to tighten up thier spending accordingly, the vast majority of the league would not even notice te difference.

How is that different then now? The top teams will pay to the salary cap just like they have been. I was referring to average prices per year and how the 5 year limit will raise the AAV.

But I do have to ask. How can the top teams be hording all of the top UFA's? Is/was the Wild a "top team" before they signed Parise and Suter? Bolts before they signed Carle? Sabres last year before they signed Ehrhoff last year? Jackets before they signed Wisniewski? The top teams haven't been hording the top players in UFA, if anything because the reason they were a "top team" is they have a solid team already, and with that solid comes the payroll to keep that solid team together and thus little room under the cap to go horde all of the top UFA's.
- uf1910

Well said!

aaronward_nhl: NHLPA Executive Board voted last night,to give players a vote to AUTHORIZE Exec Board to chose to proceed on Disclaimer of Interest #TSN

You make good points the players feel Gary treats them bad so they don't want to take his offers, yet they should because they aren't going to play NHL hockey ever again if they don't.

You make good points the players feel Gary treats them bad so they don't want to take his offers, yet they should because they aren't going to play NHL hockey ever again if they don't.
- Thehabsfan93

seems odd that some of the most vocal players will likely never play another NHL game now

Brenden Morrison what on earth are you thinking

This is such a narrow-minded point of view. Basically PA propaganda for the most part.

Think the big picture, all the teams, and all the factors that go into creating market-value for these players.

I spent hours in the last thread typing many of the ways that that theory is flawed, and don't plan on repeating it all.

The short form is that the NHL seeks these restrictions as it is neccesary to stop the cap-circumventing contracts that the teams with rich owners seem so fond of giving out...ie..cheating.

The cap is there for a reason, and some players do benefit greatly from the ability of some GM's to cheat. But it is still cheating, and not something that i feel the players are rightous to try to protect.

As far as the effect of said restrictions... There are only a MINORITY of all teams that even sign contracts that would not be allowed. The Oilers for example just signed Hall, and Eberle to deals that would be complicent under the new rules. While they could have easily cheated and had every motivation to do so with all thier upcoming talent, they didn't, and neither do most teams.

This would mean that the MAJORITY of teams would be not at all affected, nor would thier cap-structure.

Of the remaining cheater teams, many of them don't fill up to the cap anyways so a few extra mill to a superstar won't change anything for them either.

Wile i agree that a few teams will be marginally affected by those rules, and have to tighten up thier spending accordingly, the vast majority of the league would not even notice te difference.
- steveb12344

First off there is no PA propaganda in this reasoning, it is simple ECONOMICS. Second, as I typed. I was referring to the AAV of deals, not the cap circumventing effects on deals. The cap circumventing deals are and will be gone, that much is certain. What does the 5 year limit have to do with cap circumvention? The answer is little to nothing. The 5% variance takes care of the cap circumvention b/c they can't back load to hold down the AAV. However, as I clearly wrote. The 5 year limit WILL push up the AAV of UFA deals b/c again as history has shown us, the owners will do whatever they can to sign FA's, so since they can't offer LONG TERM deals (at the expense of AAV), they will offer higher AAV since they won't be able to offer long term.

Or lets put it another way (what I was trying to say in the first place). Under the expired CBA, the maximum salary for any player was 20% of the upper cap. Well, looking at past FA's and the deals they received, none of them even came close to that 20% value for a couple of reasons. First off with revenues being so high the cap was a high number therefor the 20% was ridiculous (this is the NHL not MLB). The second reason was teams were offering players 10+ year deals in exchange for a lower overall AAV. Yes in some cases the back end diving held down the AAV (but again the 5% variance takes care of that without any term limits), but overall it was the term length of the deals that was offered in exchange for a lower AAV. And again, if you take out the ability to offer term length from teams, they only have one other aspect of contracts to offer players and that is a higher AAV.

Fehr as Executive Director does not have a vote on anything.
- MJL

He must get a vote on Lunch options. Tries to get that 12 foot party sub everyday, no takers yet.

Yeah, it would probably go something like this:

Cheerleader: Oooooh, AW, I just think you are so cute, and I love your hockey knowledge. I'm going to do some really naughty things to you.

AW: Great, but I just gotta say: I find those stupid hip-hop dances you do at the games to be insulting to my intelligence. Does the NBA really think that I'm so ADD that I can't wait 30 seconds during a time out before the game starts again? Not that I watch basketball - I find the entire sport to be incredibly boring. But still, I find cheerleaders to be annoying.

Cheerleader: Why are you insulting me like that? I'm going home.

AW: Yeah, whatever. Just saves me the hassle of not calling you tomorrow...
- Atomic Wedgie

I thought for sure your really big sausage would somehow be involved in the story #lunchbagletdown

they are (frank)ing livid with him
- Crimsoninja

This just in....

Both the NHL and NHLPA have filed a disclaimer of interest, in Hockeybuzz.

This just in....

Both the NHL and NHLPA have filed a disclaimer of interest, in Hockeybuzz.
- Aetherial

seems odd that some of the most vocal players will likely never play another NHL game now

Brenden Morrison what on earth are you thinking
- flashfire

Yes, I think some of the players(not all) are more concerned with hating Gary than making a deal happen that would end the lockout, like those Puck Gary hats. I can understand a fan wearing one, but when NHL players are wearing them to meetings it just comes off as unprofessional and immature.

First off there is no PA propaganda in this reasoning, it is simple ECONOMICS. Second, as I typed. I was referring to the AAV of deals, not the cap circumventing effects on deals. The cap circumventing deals are and will be gone, that much is certain. What does the 5 year limit have to do with cap circumvention? The answer is little to nothing. The 5% variance takes care of the cap circumvention b/c they can't back load to hold down the AAV. However, as I clearly wrote. The 5 year limit WILL push up the AAV of UFA deals b/c again as history has shown us, the owners will do whatever they can to sign FA's, so since they can't offer LONG TERM deals (at the expense of AAV), they will offer higher AAV since they won't be able to offer long term.
- uf1910

Are you saying that the players have now agreed to 5% variance?

It's all opinion and theory at this point, but i feel my reasoning is very logical and i stand by it.

seems odd that some of the most vocal players will likely never play another NHL game now

Brenden Morrison what on earth are you thinking
- flashfire

He must have been one of the ones pushing hard for the pension package.

Are you saying that the players have now agreed to 5% variance?

It's all opinion and theory at this point, but i feel my reasoning is very logical and i stand by it.
- steveb12344

I wasn't writing about the 5% variance in my original post. Nor did the article I was responding to refer to the 5% variance. However, you mentioned that the NHL was trying to stop the back end diving cap circumventing deals (which I agree with) and I said the 5% variance takes care of those deals.

However, I don't see how the 5 year limit does anything to curtail those circumventing deals that the variance doesn't already accomplish. What I was saying is the 5 year limit will eventually raise the AAV of deals b/c again (and history is and should be the only proof you need)...the owners will in many cases do anything to win and without being able to offer contract length the only other "carrot" they can top each other with is AAV.

(frank) guns

(frank) guns
- HotSauceBlueChs

Sickening