Dee Karl: Taking Sides on the CBA -- Ours Yeah, it's an early morning rant.

The main issue that needs to be resolved in this CBA is the front-loading of contracts. It has to be banned. That is one major item that still separates the big-market teams from the small market ones. Big market teams can blow away offers from small market teams not because they can offer more per year, but because they can withstand writing a huge signing bonus check and front-loading the compensation during the beginning of the contract, something that small market teams cannot do. If they don't eliminate the signing bonuses or front-loading, the disparity between small market and big market teams will remain as it is now.

Personally, I don't see how the players are entitled to 57% of the revenue split, so I think the split should be 50-50. The league is a partnership between owners and players and the revenue split should reflect that. If I were the players, I wouldn't accept a roll back of current salaries just because the idiot owners weren't smart enough to hand out more reasonable contracts during the last CBA. There is no reason to limit the length of contracts. If owners are still dumb enough to give out those long, ridiculous contracts in the wake of the Luongo, RDP, etc. contracts, they should be forced to live with those mistakes, just don't allow front-loading or signing bonuses. I don't see why anything needs to be altered with respect to RFA/UFA status, leave it as it is. Revenue sharing? I have an issue with it to the extent that small market franchises shouldn't be carried by revenue sharing. However, the definition of a team being eligible for revenue sharing should be based on how much $$ the team brings in, not on its geographical location.

The league has been thriving. I really don't think much needs to change. The players are still handomely compensated and there is more parity now then before the last lockout. Get rid of the front-loading and signing bonuses, re-define "small market team", split the revenue 50-50 and fix some of the players safety issues that both sides agree need to be fixed, and done. And for God's sake, please make this CBA at least 10 years. I don't want to go through this crap again so soon.

The main issue that needs to be resolved in this CBA is the front-loading of contracts. It has to be banned. That is one major item that still separates the big-market teams from the small market ones. Big market teams can blow away offers from small market teams not because they can offer more per year, but because they can withstand writing a huge signing bonus check and front-loading the compensation during the beginning of the contract, something that small market teams cannot do. If they don't eliminate the signing bonuses or front-loading, the disparity between small market and big market teams will remain as it is now.

Personally, I don't see how the players are entitled to 57% of the revenue split, so I think the split should be 50-50. The league is a partnership between owners and players and the revenue split should reflect that. If I were the players, I wouldn't accept a roll back of current salaries just because the idiot owners weren't smart enough to hand out more reasonable contracts during the last CBA. There is no reason to limit the length of contracts. If owners are still dumb enough to give out those long, ridiculous contracts in the wake of the Luongo, RDP, etc. contracts, they should be forced to live with those mistakes, just don't allow front-loading or signing bonuses. I don't see why anything needs to be altered with respect to RFA/UFA status, leave it as it is. Revenue sharing? I have an issue with it to the extent that small market franchises shouldn't be carried by revenue sharing. However, the definition of a team being eligible for revenue sharing should be based on how much $4 the team brings in, not on its geographical location.

The league has been thriving. I really don't think much needs to change. The players are still handomely compensated and there is more parity now then before the last lockout. Get rid of the front-loading and signing bonuses, re-define "small market team", split the revenue 50-50 and fix some of the players safety issues that both sides agree need to be fixed, and done. And for God's sake, please make this CBA at least 10 years. I don't want to go through this crap again so soon.
- Jethro09

I don't know how I feel about front loading. Like in life, there are rich and poor people. Should the rich be punished? If a team wants to offer ridiculous contracts, front loaded, they should be able to.....and will have to live with it. It's easy for isles fans to say yeah get rid of it cause Wang doesn't spend anyway. But, if our team was a real player......id want every and any option to put together a winner. As the saying goes, let the buyer be where....

I say this let the players play the season and depending on how they do is how much they get paid. That simple. In that case every team with be competitive and playing a hundred percent since they will be playing for a contract. To easy I know but probably the smartest thing

The main issue that needs to be resolved in this CBA is the front-loading of contracts. It has to be banned. That is one major item that still separates the big-market teams from the small market ones. Big market teams can blow away offers from small market teams not because they can offer more per year, but because they can withstand writing a huge signing bonus check and front-loading the compensation during the beginning of the contract, something that small market teams cannot do. If they don't eliminate the signing bonuses or front-loading, the disparity between small market and big market teams will remain as it is now.

Personally, I don't see how the players are entitled to 57% of the revenue split, so I think the split should be 50-50. The league is a partnership between owners and players and the revenue split should reflect that. If I were the players, I wouldn't accept a roll back of current salaries just because the idiot owners weren't smart enough to hand out more reasonable contracts during the last CBA. There is no reason to limit the length of contracts. If owners are still dumb enough to give out those long, ridiculous contracts in the wake of the Luongo, RDP, etc. contracts, they should be forced to live with those mistakes, just don't allow front-loading or signing bonuses. I don't see why anything needs to be altered with respect to RFA/UFA status, leave it as it is. Revenue sharing? I have an issue with it to the extent that small market franchises shouldn't be carried by revenue sharing. However, the definition of a team being eligible for revenue sharing should be based on how much $4 the team brings in, not on its geographical location.

The league has been thriving. I really don't think much needs to change. The players are still handomely compensated and there is more parity now then before the last lockout. Get rid of the front-loading and signing bonuses, re-define "small market team", split the revenue 50-50 and fix some of the players safety issues that both sides agree need to be fixed, and done. And for God's sake, please make this CBA at least 10 years. I don't want to go through this crap again so soon.
- Jethro09

The front loaded contract do need to be fixed, but they are not the reason for the current negotiations. Just like you mentioned, the lower revenue teams can't afford them. Yet they are the one in trouble. In the end, the salary cap is determined by the entire league revenue. Tickets, merchandise, sponcers, TV deal. The players get 57%, so the owners get to spend that 57% on players. This is how the salary cap is determined. They take 57% of the players share and devide through 30 teams. They then have a % calculator on where the top and bottom will be.
Yes the players took a "24%" pay cut in 2004, but they make 3x as much as they did in 2003. The salary cap helped grow the game. Made it more competitive all around. People had hopes on July 1st that their team could get better. More people watched as their teams could get in the playoffs.
Now in 2012, the floor is the same than the ceiling was in 2004. Lower revenue teams, although more profitable, can't afford the higher salaries. Bettman did something great for the game. He made it better. He doubled revenues by implementing a great system. Now the game has gotten too big for that system. They need to redesign the system so that even though the game keeps growing, and revenues get higher, they don't go towards increasing the cap, ultimately raising player salaries.
The players will never except this, rightfully so as they beleive it's their money. The only way to fix this is lower players revenue share to where the owners can keep profiting to grow the game.

I'm not for the owners because they need to have a better revenue share world. I'm not for the players because they fail to realize that all of them are now millionaires because of the owners. (Fans pay them, but owners made it possible).
Although I'm politically conservative and believe people with money earned it and shouldn't feed the lazy and dumb, this is a business, and all businesses are socialists. The rich teams need to give more to the needy.

I really hope your Islanders get back to where they once were. Maybe you'll get lucky enough and be blessed with new ownership and management sooner than later....

I don't know how I feel about front loading. Like in life, there are rich and poor people. Should the rich be punished? If a team wants to offer ridiculous contracts, front loaded, they should be able to.....and will have to live with it. It's easy for isles fans to say yeah get rid of it cause Wang doesn't spend anyway. But, if our team was a real player......id want every and any option to put together a winner. As the saying goes, let the buyer be where....
- kindlyrick

The NHL competitive landscape shouldn't be about "rich v. poor". Its about competitive equality. Nobody is "punishing" a rich franchise by saying "hey, you can pay a guy however much you want to per year for as long as you'd like to sign him, but you can't give him 30% of the money in week one of the contract".

Every team should have an equal chance to compete for players. I'm not condoning an owner being too cheap to pay a contract. However, there are small market teams that might not object to a front-loaded contract, but don't have the resources to offer one. If you allow front-loading, its akin to erasing the salary cap. Front-loading is nothing more than a legal way to usurp the salary cap, based on the language of the expiring CBA. The original purpose of the salary cap was a) to limit player costs, and b) to prevent big-market teams from using their virtually unlimited financial resources to spend small market teams into the ground. The league didn't want the Rangers and Stars with $70M payrolls and small market teams with $25M payrolls. It essentially allowed big market teams to take up every talented UFA and left the small market teams scrounging for table scraps.

The goal of the league (and players, for that matter) should be to have as much competitive balance as possible. Of course, Ed Snider, Dolan and the other big-market owners don't want this, but its better for hockey as a whole. When a sizable group of franchises simply cannot compete financially with the very few financially elite franchises, then you have competitive imbalance and you've taken hockey back to its late 90's days.

I say this let the players play the season and depending on how they do is how much they get paid. That simple. In that case every team with be competitive and playing a hundred percent since they will be playing for a contract. To easy I know but probably the smartest thing
- kasperrko

Vince McMahon tried that. It was called the XFL. It ended horribly.

The NHL competitive landscape shouldn't be about "rich v. poor". Its about competitive equality. Nobody is "punishing" a rich franchise by saying "hey, you can pay a guy however much you want to per year for as long as you'd like to sign him, but you can't give him 30% of the money in week one of the contract".

Every team should have an equal chance to compete for players. I'm not condoning an owner being too cheap to pay a contract. However, there are small market teams that might not object to a front-loaded contract, but don't have the resources to offer one. If you allow front-loading, its akin to erasing the salary cap. Front-loading is nothing more than a legal way to usurp the salary cap, based on the language of the expiring CBA. The original purpose of the salary cap was a) to limit player costs, and b) to prevent big-market teams from using their virtually unlimited financial resources to spend small market teams into the ground. The league didn't want the Rangers and Stars with $70M payrolls and small market teams with $25M payrolls. It essentially allowed big market teams to take up every talented UFA and left the small market teams scrounging for table scraps.

The goal of the league (and players, for that matter) should be to have as much competitive balance as possible. Of course, Ed Snider, Dolan and the other big-market owners don't want this, but its better for hockey as a whole. When a sizable group of franchises simply cannot compete financially with the very few financially elite franchises, then you have competitive imbalance and you've taken hockey back to its late 90's days.
- Jethro09

I hear what you're saying, but it works both ways. You want to have a competative league, great, i agree. If you're going to "punish" or should i say limit the large market teams from "overspending" what about the teams who underspend? What about a team like the islanders who only reach the cap floor last year, with the Yashin buyout, the injured Rick Dipietro and Rolston who played few minutes. That roughly 12 million dollars to reach the cap floor. To me that circumventing the system but just in another way. I personally have no problem with large market teams spending. Its a dollars and cents game. If everything was to be completely equal, then everyone should spend the exact same amount. It doesnt work like that.......there are large markets and small markets for a reason. Its just like the real world. Its sports. There's a reason why in almost every sport the teams who spend the most are the teams who field the most competative teams. I understand you dont think thats fair, but it is what it is. Its like any business, you take the risk and you get the reward.

I hear what you're saying, but it works both ways. You want to have a competative league, great, i agree. If you're going to "punish" or should i say limit the large market teams from "overspending" what about the teams who underspend? What about a team like the islanders who only reach the cap floor last year, with the Yashin buyout, the injured Rick Dipietro and Rolston who played few minutes. That roughly 12 million dollars to reach the cap floor. To me that circumventing the system but just in another way. I personally have no problem with large market teams spending. Its a dollars and cents game. If everything was to be completely equal, then everyone should spend the exact same amount. It doesnt work like that.......there are large markets and small markets for a reason. Its just like the real world. Its sports. There's a reason why in almost every sport the teams who spend the most are the teams who field the most competative teams. I understand you dont think thats fair, but it is what it is. Its like any business, you take the risk and you get the reward.
- kindlyrick

I agree about the floor. The floor should be reached with real dollars, provided a team has the money to reach the floor. If they get revenue sharing, all of those dollars should be required to be used on player personnel.

I agree about the floor. The floor should be reached with real dollars, provided a team has the money to reach the floor. If they get revenue sharing, all of those dollars should be required to be used on player personnel.
- Jethro09

Which is my point..........Wang has used his own "loophole" to get by with the bare minimum. I get the situation he's in, but its still circumventing the system. Works both ways..

Dee Karl: Taking Sides on the CBA -- Ours
Yeah, it's an early morning rant.
- Dee Karl

Dee: I love early morning rants.

But can we all drop the idea that the fans can stand up and force the owners and players do hammer out a new CBA?

It's just silly.

Setting up and participating in anti-lockout websites is not only futile, it actually gives comfort to both the owners and players that the fans' passion for the game will survive a lockout.

I realize the internet is a fantastic forum for everyone to solve the world's problems.

But really, let's just drop it. It's between the players and the owners. We aren't at the table.

Just accept it.

Dee: I love early morning rants.

But can we all drop the idea that the fans can stand up and force the owners and players do hammer out a new CBA?

It's just silly.

Setting up and participating in anti-lockout websites is not only futile, it actually gives comfort to both the owners and players that the fans' passion for the game will survive a lockout.

I realize the internet is a fantastic forum for everyone to solve the world's problems.

But really, let's just drop it. It's between the players and the owners. We aren't at the table.

Just accept it.
- Atomic Wedgie

XxNYIxX

Dee: I love early morning rants.

But can we all drop the idea that the fans can stand up and force the owners and players do hammer out a new CBA?

It's just silly.

Setting up and participating in anti-lockout websites is not only futile, it actually gives comfort to both the owners and players that the fans' passion for the game will survive a lockout.

I realize the internet is a fantastic forum for everyone to solve the world's problems.

But really, let's just drop it. It's between the players and the owners. We aren't at the table.

Just accept it.
- Atomic Wedgie

The fans arent at the table, but lets face it, without gasoline, a gas powered car cannot run........i dont care how good of a driver it has.

Greg Thomson @GThomsonNHL
So apparently Cody Franson has asked Leafs management for a trade. Will try to confirm.

If it's true, he probably wouldn't come with a hefty price tag. Could be a replacement for Viz if that falls through, or just a good addition, regardless.

Something like:

Streit - Hammer
Franson - Viz
Mac - Carkner

looks way better than tossing a rookie in there for third pairing minutes.

Which is my point..........Wang has used his own "loophole" to get by with the bare minimum. I get the situation he's in, but its still circumventing the system. Works both ways..
- kindlyrick

Right, but CW's legal cap floor circumvention does not create an unfair competitive advantage for the isles. It makes his team more uncompetitive. I think the cap floor issue needs to be fixed as well, but if were talking about maintaining a competitive balance in tie game, floor circumvention does not affect it at all. Cap circumvention does and that is what needs to be addressed.

Right, but CW's legal cap floor circumvention does not create an unfair competitive advantage for the isles. It makes his team more uncompetitive. I think the cap floor issue needs to be fixed as well, but if were talking about maintaining a competitive balance in tie game, floor circumvention does not affect it at all. Cap circumvention does and that is what needs to be addressed.
- Jethro09

It doesnt create an advantage for the isles as far as winning goes. But, it does allow him to squeak by year after year without spending the minimum amount.


The purpose of all of this is to create a more balanced NHL. Charles Wang reaching the floor through buyouts and IR players with big salaries does not make the isles competitive.

Greg Thomson @GThomsonNHL
So apparently Cody Franson has asked Leafs management for a trade. Will try to confirm.

If it's true, he probably wouldn't come with a hefty price tag. Could be a replacement for Viz if that falls through, or just a good addition, regardless.

Something like:

Streit - Hammer
Franson - Viz
Mac - Carkner

looks way better than tossing a rookie in there for third pairing minutes.
- eichiefs9

If he's a good replacement you cant have him playing WITH Viz ha. I think Donovan and DeHaan make this team.

Greg Thomson @GThomsonNHL
So apparently Cody Franson has asked Leafs management for a trade. Will try to confirm.

If it's true, he probably wouldn't come with a hefty price tag. Could be a replacement for Viz if that falls through, or just a good addition, regardless.

Something like:

Streit - Hammer
Franson - Viz
Mac - Carkner

looks way better than tossing a rookie in there for third pairing minutes.
- eichiefs9

Thought he'd have been a decent fit the first time it was rumored they might be moving him. Back then he was upset about not getting ice time. Don't think that'd be a problem here.

If he's a good replacement you cant have him playing WITH Viz ha. I think Donovan and DeHaan make this team.
- kindlyrick

I worded that kinda crappy but I meant that even if Viz stays he'd still be a good addition. I'd be thrilled to see either deHaan or Donovan make the team, but I wouldn't be the least bit upset if we added Franson over them and let them get another year of top-4 minutes in Bridgeport.

I worded that kinda crappy but I meant that even if Viz stays he'd still be a good addition. I'd be thrilled to see either deHaan or Donovan make the team, but I wouldn't be the least bit upset if we added Franson over them and let them get another year of top-4 minutes in Bridgeport.
- eichiefs9

I hear ya, but i just dont see the isles bringing in someone, UNLESS they lose Viznovsky. That whole situation is just a mess, and im really baffled that a trade that took place in late June, wont go to arbitration until Sept 4th??

I hear ya, but i just dont see the isles bringing in someone, UNLESS they lose Viznovsky. That whole situation is just a mess, and im really baffled that a trade that took place in late June, wont go to arbitration until Sept 4th??
- kindlyrick

No answers on that one, but my best guess is the NHLPA is far more concerned about working out a new CBA and avoiding the lockout than about Visnovsky's grievance regarding the trade.

I say this let the players play the season and depending on how they do is how much they get paid. That simple. In that case every team with be competitive and playing a hundred percent since they will be playing for a contract. To easy I know but probably the smartest thing
- kasperrko

im sure the players would agree to this.....

Dee: I love early morning rants.

But can we all drop the idea that the fans can stand up and force the owners and players do hammer out a new CBA?

It's just silly.

Setting up and participating in anti-lockout websites is not only futile, it actually gives comfort to both the owners and players that the fans' passion for the game will survive a lockout.

I realize the internet is a fantastic forum for everyone to solve the world's problems.

But really, let's just drop it. It's between the players and the owners. We aren't at the table.

Just accept it.
- Atomic Wedgie

nailed it

The fans arent at the table, but lets face it, without gasoline, a gas powered car cannot run........i dont care how good of a driver it has.
- kindlyrick

thats not an equivalent example... for every fan you get to boycott the nhl there will be 100 that dont.

its a very minor voice

I hear ya, but i just dont see the isles bringing in someone, UNLESS they lose Viznovsky. That whole situation is just a mess, and im really baffled that a trade that took place in late June, wont go to arbitration until Sept 4th??
- kindlyrick

why?