Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

2012 NHL Offseason Signings/Trades/Rumors and so on
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Other Sports
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
1BackInBlackFan


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 7272
Location: 19-19, PA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

redsoxsuck05 wrote:
Lots of misplaced anger towards Bettman. If you want to blame a guy blame Donald Fehr. His hardline stance is what ended the 1994 baseball season and contributed to the demise of the Expos.

Now his goal is to abolish the salary cap in hockey, which is detrimental to pretty much most teams in the league. The only reason an Oiler/Islander dynasty could exist pre-cap was due to lack of free agency. Do you want MLB disparity in the NHL?


The hiring of Fehr was not good news at all for the fans.
_________________


Many thanks to UniversalAuthor for Big Ben's sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
playmaker8267


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9322
Location: University of New Hampshire
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last Hour extensions: 5 years, $29.5M, [url=https://twitter.com/VogsCaps/status/246628126271107072]Capitals/Carlson: 6 years, $23.8M

I like Washington's deal much more. They get a developing d-man who's already pretty steady for a hit under $4M, and will get every opportunity to extend him when his deal comes up after his age 28 season. Until then, they have a lynch-pin on the blue line for six more years. That's not insignificant for the Capitals.

Dallas' deal with Lehtonen is a little more questionable. Lehtonen was lights out last year and was very consistent. In fact, he hasn't had a month (min 10 games started) with a GAA over 3.00 since March 2009. His two best seasons have come as a Dallas Star. It's hard to question he's a tender worthy of an extension, but for $5.9M/season? That's a higher hit than Luongo, Bryzgalov, and Fleury. I'd take all three of them over Lehtonen for the immediate future and Fleury and Bryz in the long-term. He doesn't deserve to leapfrog them just yet.

Your thoughts?
_________________

Bruins // Patriots // Red Sox // Chelsea
#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
diehardlionfan


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25777
Location: Ottawa
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?
_________________


Sig by El Ramster

Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
playmaker8267


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9322
Location: University of New Hampshire
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ducks, Cam Fowler agree to 5 year/$20M extension
Sabres, Tyler Ennis agree to 2 year/$5.625M extension

Ennis: http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/hockey/other_nhl/view/20120915sabres_re-sign_tyler_ennis_to_2-year_deal/srvc=home&position=recent
Fowler: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=641606&print=true
_________________

Bruins // Patriots // Red Sox // Chelsea
#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bluesfreak74


Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 1738
Location: Illinois
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Officially a lockout. Crying or Very sad

The NHL & the owners are making themselves look even more dumb each and every day.

Owners have spent $200 million the last two days on contracts, but the system is broke! Rolling Eyes

Not that big of a deal, but NHL.com and all other team sites took off all the players on their page. Seriously? Laughing

When Bettman leaves this league, the NHL will be 10x better off. I don't understand how anyone can defend that weasel.
_________________


El Ramster on this beaut!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Eagles27


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 31190
Location: Vancouver, BC
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

diehardlionfan wrote:
The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?

Couldn't agree more.

This really comes down to certain franchises losing money, & the NHL expecting the players to pay for it. The players share of revenue was cut substantially during the last lockout, and I don't see why they should bail out the owners once again.

I really hope the players don't cave.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vikefan79


Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 29761
Location: Atlanta
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the NHL season doesn't happen I think the Cup goes to Minnesota for winning the offseason. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
56GiantPens66


Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Posts: 606
Location: A parallel universe called New Pittsburgh
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just hope there is still a hockey season even if it's like the 94,95 season when they only played 48 games.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redsoxsuck05


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 8186
Location: LI
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eagles27 wrote:
diehardlionfan wrote:
The NHL has a business model that doesn't work with league wide collective bargaining and a salary cap structure.

If I own a business I negotiate based on current and future profitability of my business. My competitor negotiates with his employee's based on the same criteria except for his business. The only time my competitions salary structure comes into play is in employee retention.

In the current environment there is a huge difference between the franchises and their revenues. Currently a host of teams lose money and that's one of the under pinnings of the NHL's bargaining position.

Unfortunately that isn't the players fault.

The long term solution to labor unrest in the NHL to take steps that will lead to long term growth in attendance and grow the game. The problem is the short sighted behavior of the most profitable franchises like Toronto, Philadelphia, Detroit and Montreal. The solution lies in all NHL revenue being shared equally amongst all franchises. Then a meaningful collective agreement using percentages can be achieved.

In the current environment players are being asked to take less to subsidize unprofitable franchises because they are a drag on total revenue.

By equally sharing revenue the lesser franchises can compete financially with the rich teams. Providing a better on ice product will help grow the game and increase revenues. In the current model many franchises lose out unless ownership subsidizes the franchise from other businesses or out of his own pocket.

To further illustrate the point. A player in Philadelphia is adding value to his owner who reaps more profits than his counterpart in Florida. Why should a player contributing to high profits take less because the league is trying to help out the weaker franchises.

Either the league has to operate with total revenue sharing or they need to move away from collective bargaining league wide and each team bargains with their own players. The last example is much less desirable for the league.

The point is why should the players accept less when owners aren't willing to completely share with the poorer franchises?

Couldn't agree more.

This really comes down to certain franchises losing money, & the NHL expecting the players to pay for it. The players share of revenue was cut substantially during the last lockout, and I don't see why they should bail out the owners once again.

I really hope the players don't cave.


Eh, I kinda do.

I just want hockey!!! Crying or Very sad
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1BackInBlackFan


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 7272
Location: 19-19, PA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a shame that I never felt a sense of urgency by either side to get a deal done. That's why I never had any hope that a lockout could be avoided. Not once was there any positive news coming out of these meetings.

I never understand why, in any sport, when there is a chance for a lockout or strike that the two sides don't immediately start negotiations right after the season is over. I always hear that they will meet once a week or something like that. They should go somewhere and have meetings every day until a resolution is finalized. Lock the doors until they come to an agreement. If they don't like it then too bad.

Both sides are to blame here. It's ridiculous that once again we have to deal with this crap. Evil or Very Mad
_________________


Many thanks to UniversalAuthor for Big Ben's sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
playmaker8267


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9322
Location: University of New Hampshire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I came here about to ask a question regarding if the Hurricanes had to put Jeff Skinner through waivers in order to sent him to Charlotte of the AHL. They didn't. The Bruins didn't sent Tyler Seguin, who was drafted in the same year as Skinner, to the AHL because they didn't want to put him through waivers. I now know why the Bruins would have had to put Seguin through waivers but Carolina didn't have to with Skinner.

ESPNBoston wrote:
On Friday evening, an NHL source told ESPNBoston.com's James Murphy that "at this point, players such as Seguin who have played more than 160 games regardless of being on an entry level contract cannot be sent down to the AHL or sign a contract to play there during a lockout. But that could change as discussions are ongoing to determine their situation."


Skinner has 146 NHL games to his name, thus allowing Carolina to send him to the AHL without putting him through waivers. Same thing with Edmonton and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. If you're wondering about Taylor Hall, you should read this.

It's interesting stuff; the AHL is going to be really entertaining this year. OKC is going to dominate with a potential Hall/RNH/Eberle line.
_________________

Bruins // Patriots // Red Sox // Chelsea
#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
flyers0909


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 8666
Location: Rochester, NY
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

playmaker8267 wrote:
I came here about to ask a question regarding if the Hurricanes had to put Jeff Skinner through waivers in order to sent him to Charlotte of the AHL. They didn't. The Bruins didn't sent Tyler Seguin, who was drafted in the same year as Skinner, to the AHL because they didn't want to put him through waivers. I now know why the Bruins would have had to put Seguin through waivers but Carolina didn't have to with Skinner.

ESPNBoston wrote:
On Friday evening, an NHL source told ESPNBoston.com's James Murphy that "at this point, players such as Seguin who have played more than 160 games regardless of being on an entry level contract cannot be sent down to the AHL or sign a contract to play there during a lockout. But that could change as discussions are ongoing to determine their situation."


Skinner has 146 NHL games to his name, thus allowing Carolina to send him to the AHL without putting him through waivers. Same thing with Edmonton and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. If you're wondering about Taylor Hall, you should read this.

It's interesting stuff; the AHL is going to be really entertaining this year. OKC is going to dominate with a potential Hall/RNH/Eberle line.


I'm really debating buying half season tickets to the Rochester Amerks (Sabres AHL affiliate). I need my fix
_________________

^^^ Rammy on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bluesfreak74


Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 1738
Location: Illinois
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a feeling this is going to go on for a while..

I don't see Fehr backing down and we know the owners aren't afraid to sit out a whole season even though it's stupid as hell.
_________________


El Ramster on this beaut!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
tml_gogo


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 13743
Location: Montréal
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's be honest..the league doesn't give a crap about how fans actually feel. They know that fans will come flocking back whenever it's over, and because of that, this lockout has a very good chance of going the full season.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McNabbMcFadden


Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Posts: 34551
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under the old NHL CBA, what was the revenue split. The owners are completely out of line, they already got a fair amount last time. This is ridiculous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Other Sports All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 44, 45, 46 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 45 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group