NHL Lockout Clock

[Bomm Bastic]

They did that already on November 3rd according to Dreger.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408711

November? lol....nothing like being proactive, eh?

[Carcillo]

November? lol....nothing like being proactive, eh?

Can you show similar proactivity from PA's side in these negotiations?

[Bomm Bastic]

Can you show similar proactivity from PA's side in these negotiations?

It's not their league. Owners can't have it both ways, Carcillo, if they demand the power they get the responsibility too.

Maybe I can clear my position on this...

When debating, you can argue your opponents conclusion (ie end result) or their premise (ie how they arrived).

Point being, I don't have a problem with the owner's end result or conclusion (they're entitled as owners). But I do have a problem with how they're attempting to get to their ultimate objective (if they even know what that is).

Owners need players, players need owners. Perhaps if the owners viewed this relationship from a symbiotic rather than adversarial POV, we could circumvent all this bullshit being laid at our feet at our expense.

[grindin griers]

Yes, but how many teams have been giving those deals? Not that many? There always some owners with deep pockets willing to sign those contract, just like there's always players willing to sign those deals. It only takes one of those contracts and others have to follow if they want the players because you know that players and their agents will demand those contracts after they see some other players getting that kind of sweet deal. So you can blame owners for giving them, sure, but not like they have any other means to try to correct the situation but through CBA negotiations. They can't agree not to give those deals unilaterally as a group as it would be collusion.

Yup, I completely agree with this.

[Carcillo]

It's not their league. Owners can't have it both ways, Carcillo, if they demand the power they get the responsibility too.

Maybe I can clear my position on this...

When debating, you can argue your opponents conclusion (ie end result) or their premise (ie how they arrived).

Point being, I don't have a problem with the owner's end result or conclusion (they're entitled as owners). But I do have a problem with how they're attempting to get to their ultimate objective (if they even know what that is).

Owners need players, players need owners. Perhaps if the owners viewed this relationship from a symbiotic rather than adversarial POV, we could circumvent all this bullshit being laid at our feet at our expense.

Agree to disagree then. I don't see why NHL and only NHL has to be the proactive side in these negotiations. Also I'd say they've been proactive. They wanted to start the negotiations multiple times during last year; didn't fit into PA's plans. NHL made the first offer to open up the negotiations (as they should have since they're the ones looking to change the CBA). They made another two offers (IIRC) before locking out players. They're the ones who made the first 50/50 offer to save the full season after there was no negotiations for the first month after the lockout began. They altered the proposition too to make the offer better for the players. So you may not agree with it, but I do see proactivity from the owners side.

As to the last point, it works both ways. The PA has to view the relationship as sympiotic too. Yet few years ago they fired their leader because he was seen too friendly with NHL and hired a hardliner to replace him with. PA wanted a fight and they got it. Blame Bettman all you want for the adversial relationship between NHL and PA and I'm not going to disagree with that, but share the blame with PA's leadership. I'm pissed at how they've handled these negotiations. They haven't looked into building relationship with NHL anymore than NHL has tried it with the PA. It's been a toxic environment and Bettman deserves the blame but so do PA. Bettman and Paul Kelly had good relationship and maybe there'd be no lockout if he was never forced out of the PA under ridiculous manner. But the PA wasn't willing to build up a working relationship, it seems.

[Bomm Bastic]

As to the last point, it works both ways. The PA has to view the relationship as sympiotic too. Yet few years ago they fired their leader because he was seen too friendly with NHL and hired a hardliner to replace him with. PA wanted a fight and they got it. Blame Bettman all you want for the adversial relationship between NHL and PA and I'm not going to disagree with that, but share the blame with PA's leadership. I'm pissed at how they've handled these negotiations. They haven't looked into building relationship with NHL anymore than NHL has tried it with the PA. It's been a toxic environment and Bettman deserves the blame but so do PA. Bettman and Paul Kelly had good relationship and maybe there'd be no lockout if he was never forced out of the PA under ridiculous manner. But the PA wasn't willing to build up a working relationship, it seems.

Oh I agree, both sides screwed the pooch on this one.

[Carcillo]

Oh I agree, both sides screwed the pooch on this one.

Finally we're in agreement! If only Bettman and Fehr could reach an agreement too.

[Bomm Bastic]

Finally we're in agreement! If only Bettman and Fehr could reach an agreement too.

lol...and with quick efficiency too, I may add! If only we were sitting in a pub and could seal the deal over a beer and a shot.

[ericdaoust]

Finally we're in agreement! If only Bettman and Fehr could reach an agreement too.

lol...and with quick efficiency too, I may add! If only we were sitting in a pub and could seal the deal over a beer and a shot.

Replacing Bettman: Carcillo
Replacing Fehr: Bomm

I like it.

[arctic_rogue]

Yes, but how many teams have been giving those deals? Not that many? There always some owners with deep pockets willing to sign those contract, just like there's always players willing to sign those deals. It only takes one of those contracts and others have to follow if they want the players because you know that players and their agents will demand those contracts after they see some other players getting that kind of sweet deal. So you can blame owners for giving them, sure, but not like they have any other means to try to correct the situation but through CBA negotiations. They can't agree not to give those deals unilaterally as a group as it would be collusion.

Good point. Never looked at it from that perspective before.

How does Bob Naegele or Chuck Fletcher (just for an example) face Suter or Parise with their scrolled back contracts just months after signing them. Just to throw this out there, any player who has their contract affected by more than a certain percentage have the option of electing to immediately become a free agent.

It would never happen, but would be interesting. Even if it was added as a claus to future CBAs.

[Carcillo]

How does Bob Naegele or Chuck Fletcher (just for an example) face Suter or Parise with their scrolled back contracts just months after signing them. Just to throw this out there, any player who has their contract affected by more than a certain percentage have the option of electing to immediately become a free agent.

I don't see those guys having any issues facing Suter or Parise as their contracts won't be scrolled back. If anything Suter and Parise should have trouble facing those guys as they collected $10 million signing bonuses this summer and don't have to put full seasons work for it. It's no coincidence why they wanted those signing bonuses with the CBA expiring so they have nothing to complain to Minnesota's front office.

I doubt Parise or Suter have much interest in paying back that $10 million to become UFA's again and having to sign much shorter length contracts.

Besides, under the old CBA players rarely got exactly 100% of their contracts nominal value because of escrow. Actually there was one season where players got more than 100% of their contract value that year.

[Bomm Bastic]

I don't see those guys having any issues facing Suter or Parise as their contracts won't be scrolled back. If anything Suter and Parise should have trouble facing those guys as they collected $10 million signing bonuses this summer and don't have to put full seasons work for it. It's no coincidence why they wanted those signing bonuses with the CBA expiring so they have nothing to complain to Minnesota's front office.

I doubt Parise or Suter have much interest in paying back that $10 million to become UFA's again and having to sign much shorter length contracts.

Besides, under the old CBA players rarely got exactly 100% of their contracts nominal value because of escrow. Actually there was one season where all players got more than 100% of their contract value that year.

Why should the players feel some ethical pull to pay back any amount of their pay? They didn't lock themselves out.

[Carcillo]

Why should the players feel some ethical pull to pay back any amount of their pay? They didn't lock themselves out.

The players have always had the option to sign a new CBA, stop the lockout and get back on the ice.

Sure the owners locked the players out but the players did nothing to stop that from happening. There was no effort from them to start negotiating in time and have a new CBA before September 15th.

[Bomm Bastic]

The players have always had the option to sign a new CBA, stop the lockout and get back on the ice.

lol...said the torturer to his victim.

[Carcillo]

lol...said the torturer to his victim.

I'd let the NHL owners torture me any day of the week by paying me millions of dollars for playing hockey.