Kali, you finally opened your eyes yet?

[Zeus]

NHL Proposal
- 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue, $300M "Make Whole" (directly between what it had previously tabled ($211 million) and what the NHLPA had asked for ($393 million))
- A 10-year term for the CBA, with a mutual re-opener after eight years
- no compliance buyouts (buyouts of player contracts that don't count against a team's salary cap)
- unrestricted free agency eligibility rules and salary arbitration rules would stay the same as in the previous CBA
- contract term limits of five years (7 for re-signing own players) with 5% variance year to year, which Daly described as "the hill we will die on."

NHLPA Counter Offer
- acceptance of the 50/50 split and $300M "Make Whole"
- eight years term for CBA, with an option to opt out after Year 6
- no compliance buyouts (buyouts of player contracts that don't count against a team's salary cap)
- unrestricted free agency eligibility rules and salary arbitration rules would stay the same as in the previous CBA
- contract term limits of seven years with 25% variance year to year

Make note of Daly's "the hill we will die on" comment. Couple that with just how close these two proposals are. Yet, somehow, the counter-offer was enough to have Bettman literally shaking mad at a press conference (that was pretty funny and shocking at the same time) and the owners so pissed off they stormed out of the room? Why? The owners simply felt it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer and were offended that not only did the players not take it but insisted that Fehr come back in the room to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" (don't believe me, read this: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2 ... key-strike) on what they felt was a pretty strong basis for a mutual deal. You know, things that lawyers and hired negotiators do. Last time I checked, not too many players have law degrees.

Make no mistake about it, owners are insisting on dry-fisting the players who are simply asking that they use "only" 3-fingers and some canola oil as lube. They simply believe they are entitled to break the players and (again) get the exact deal they want and are willing to throw away the season to get it. I guess Jacobs has convinced them it's still the 50s or something. AND let's not forget that this is all in a salary-cap world where the top players are already limited to 24% of the team's salary cap from the prior CBA. All this is on top of that.

If there was even the smallest shred of blame I could have possibly reasoned to put on the players, these last few days have completely wiped it away. On a positive note, I blame Bettman himself less than before. That blame and a helluva lot more has been shifted to Jacobs and his crew of owners who are running this shit (not necessarily the 6 who were in the room; maybe the Calgary and Tampa guys, but I don't think the others are part of it)

[kali o.]

Why would my eyes need to be opened? I told you a month ago or so what it would take (at the time). I am still right. The players will agree or there will be no season. Period. The most likely scenario is talks resume quickly and the NHLPA agrees to 5yr/~8%(I have no idea what you mean by variance at this point but for the sake of argument). Who knows though. Here's the thing, the longer the players take to agree, the worse the CBA is gonna get -- Fehr is just making worse and worse.

By the way "open your eyes" and "don't be fooled" aren't synonyms for "please agree with the players Kali". And I am gonna start a topic that is titled something like "stop being a bleeding heart rim licker for the rich members of NHLPA that don't give two shits about you" if you keep it up...lol.

At no point have I blamed the players. I've simply addressed the REALITY.

[Zeus]

You backed the owners before. I was just commenting on how no reasonable person could possibly do so after the shit they pulled last week.

The owners want a max variances from year to year in any signed contract to be 5% in order to stop the long-ass contracts with almost minimum level salary to drop the average for salary cap purposes. Basically, not allow contracts like Luongo, Kovalckuk, and Pronger to exist. This is a huge deal for the owners.

And I don't agree on the players having to take the dry fisting for the season to start. I honestly believe one of the reasons Bettman wanted the players to talk directly to the owners was for them to see that it was truly Jacobs and his crew who were really behind all this and to un-demonize himself in their eyes.

Part of the fallout may end up being some dissection in the ranks of the owners. I can promise you a large contingent of them would gladly accept the offer the players put forth. It's a helluva lot more likely of a scenario than the owners breaking the union. The players at least appear to only be digging in their heels. Certainly, we're one step closer to what happened in the NFL CBA when the players clearly broke the owners' resolve

[kali o.]

You backed the owners before. I was just commenting on how no reasonable person could possibly do so after the shit they pulled last week.

The owners want a max variances from year to year in any signed contract to be 5% in order to stop the long-ass contracts with almost minimum level salary to drop the average for salary cap purposes. Basically, not allow contracts like Luongo, Kovalckuk, and Pronger to exist. This is a huge deal for the owners.

And I don't agree on the players having to take the dry fisting for the season to start. I honestly believe one of the reasons Bettman wanted the players to talk directly to the owners was for them to see that it was truly Jacobs and his crew who were really behind all this and to un-demonize himself in their eyes.

Part of the fallout may end up being some dissection in the ranks of the owners. I can promise you a large contingent of them would gladly accept the offer the players put forth. It's a helluva lot more likely of a scenario than the owners breaking the union. The players at least appear to only be digging in their heels. Certainly, we're one step closer to what happened in the NFL CBA when the players clearly broke the owners' resolve

I think you are reading too many fringe articles. They do want to remove the possibility of cap skirting contracts like Luongo. That's probably a good thing. As for the owners, I assure you more players want to get back to work than any dissenters in the owners ranks, despite whatever wild rumours you are reading. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the union is doing anything else other than representing the top 1% at this point. And that's why Fehr either needs to break immediately or leave an incredibly smaller share of revenue for the 99% next year. The NHLPA has NOTHING to bargain with at this point.

That's not precisely fair, nor am I siding with anyone. THAT IS REALITY.

[Eric]

Oui, you can't side with reality and use that face.

Also it occurred to me we need an emoticon that licks the tears off the face of another emoticon on these boards.

[kali o.]

Oui, you can't side with reality and use that face.

Also it occurred to me we need an emoticon that licks the tears off the face of another emoticon on these boards.

I am trying hard to not come off as a dick quite so often and part of that is not using the /roll eyes icon...

I did see if I had any power to mess with emoticons but sadly...



It's like an FTP thing.

[Don]

The difference between monkeys and humans is that monkeys would never take an option that hurts themselves even if it hurts someone else that messed with them but humans will.

[Zeus]

You backed the owners before. I was just commenting on how no reasonable person could possibly do so after the shit they pulled last week.

The owners want a max variances from year to year in any signed contract to be 5% in order to stop the long-ass contracts with almost minimum level salary to drop the average for salary cap purposes. Basically, not allow contracts like Luongo, Kovalckuk, and Pronger to exist. This is a huge deal for the owners.

And I don't agree on the players having to take the dry fisting for the season to start. I honestly believe one of the reasons Bettman wanted the players to talk directly to the owners was for them to see that it was truly Jacobs and his crew who were really behind all this and to un-demonize himself in their eyes.

Part of the fallout may end up being some dissection in the ranks of the owners. I can promise you a large contingent of them would gladly accept the offer the players put forth. It's a helluva lot more likely of a scenario than the owners breaking the union. The players at least appear to only be digging in their heels. Certainly, we're one step closer to what happened in the NFL CBA when the players clearly broke the owners' resolve

I think you are reading too many fringe articles. They do want to remove the possibility of cap skirting contracts like Luongo. That's probably a good thing. As for the owners, I assure you more players want to get back to work than any dissenters in the owners ranks, despite whatever wild rumours you are reading. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the union is doing anything else other than representing the top 1% at this point. And that's why Fehr either needs to break immediately or leave an incredibly smaller share of revenue for the 99% next year. The NHLPA has NOTHING to bargain with at this point.

That's not precisely fair, nor am I siding with anyone. THAT IS REALITY.

Kali, if the union was only representing the top 1%, they woulda already taken the offers from the NHL and gone home. What the owners want is exactly the opposite of what you think, they want to give the money to ONLY the top 1%. This entire fight has been about eliminating the large contracts to the middle class, the Grabovski's who make $5M a year over 5+ years (why do you think there's been no discussion about the max $ level of the contract, just length and variance?). Yes, they want to get rid of the insanely long, back-diving ones too to give smaller markets a chance. No one is sayin' Ovechkin and Crosby don't deserve their coin. What they don't want are owners taking enormous risks on guys like Holik or Phaneuf with $7M or $8M a year contracts over 5+ years just because they had a few good years in a system that makes them better than they really are. They want the GMs and owners to have to decide to only have very few of those contracts and really limit it to the top 1% or 2% of the players.

What the owners want is the remaining 98% to make less than $1M each to lower the overall salaries they pay by producing a system which promotes this (max overall salaries, minimize variance so the top players get tons of money throughout, max length so you can get rid of the middle guys who ain't performing, minimizing salary abitration rights, an extra year to free agency, etc.). Why do you think so many mid-level players are a part of the negotiating team while Crosby, Nash, Ovechkin, etc., are all playing elsewhere or joining in very late because they're asked while you have guys like Malholtra, Hainsey, etc., as the main negotiators with Fehr? Make no mistake about it, the players are fighting for the middle class. Why do you think they've been so unified so far other than a couple of comments by a few Europeans? There's no fear of enormous fines to shut them up like the owners have (as the Detroit VP found out) and there's 700 of them yet you've barely heard a peep. That's not a coincidence

FYI: I only read articles from the big sites (TSN, Sun, Star, ESPN, etc). Everything I said in my last post was my opinion, I didn't read it anywhere

Nothing to bargain with? You'd be right.....if there was any bargaining going on at all. From the beginning this was always about the players giving up what was shoved down their throats in 2004 that the owners now say they can't live with. Even if look SOLELY at the NHLPA's offers / counter-offers, you'd see that in every single aspect of the agreements they're putting forth they're actually losing from where they were last year.

In "bargaining", there's give and take, even in the NBA and NFL disputes last year. The NHLPA is gaining zero anywhere, they're just trying to minimize what they're losing (3 lubed fingers vs dry fist comment from before). What the owners are doin' is forcing them to lose more than they're comfortable losing. All I was tryin' to prove with this thread is just how much they wanna dry fist them and to try and reason with you regarding your clear favourtism of the owners side that you've admitted to in the past. And also to say that my previous venom towards the Gremlin may have been misplaced as he more and more appears to be the messenger as opposed to the dictator.

If you want, I can go and dig up the old post and prove you've always sided with the owners. I just think it's a waste of time and not the point

[Don]

In these strike discussion I think most fans just side with the side that is making the demands because for the most parts the players and the owners are people making way more money than you ever will so it's not like the fans actually care who's being screwed. If today the players are on strike demanding 99% of the revenue you'd still see people say things like 'owners should give in their demand so we can have hockey again'.

I think the middle class are way overpaid in profesional sports in general but as far as I know there's nothing stopping the owners from offering say $4 million instead of $5 million to some joe average guy. I see in all sports you've this guy who was sort of good for a year and then he gets $5, $10, $15 or whatever million for the max number of years and then he turns out to suck and then owners say these contracts are destroying their viability. But of course the owner sure don't complain if that guy turned out to be really awesome and was obtained for a bargain. It just turns out that usually you end up grossly overpaying the middle class but that's not the middle class's fault.

[kali o.]

Zeus...not only do you make up things I say, you make up random facts (or you are pulling false info from fringe writers you read). Pointform seems to work best when you get a little random like this:

- Never sided with anyone -- I called everyone greedy fucks and pointed out simple reality.
- The two issues on the table (contract length and year to year variance) caters to very few people. The average players career at the NHL level is under 5 years. Roughly 10% of players are in contracts five years or over, 39 players at 6 years (~5%) and 17 at 7 years. There are 19 players (or ~2.5%) with contracts that had terms of 10years +, meant purely to skirt the cap. If you believe the NHLPA is "fighting for the middle", you are not only delusional, you have nothing to base that on. EVERY OTHER ISSUE WAS SETTLED up to that point.
- Your aol link in this very thread is the epitomy of bias nonsense. You don't know what a measured and unbias opinion looks like, I guess.
- Crosby was there at the last meeting, what are you talking about?
- I think you missed my point. The NHLPA has NOTHING to bargain with, the deal is just going to get worse the more Fehr screws around. The owners don't need to "bargain". There is less for the players the longer this drags on.

[Don]

How can any pro sports negotation NOT be about the middle class? The superstars are chronically underpaid but they're also the guys who actually make enough money that they don't care (as much) that they're only getting $20 million instead of the $30 million in a perfectly competitive world. The problem is always that you're paying some guy $5 million who is barely better than some guy who would take the minimum and a minor injury away from being a lot worse than the guy who will take the minimum, and yet owners are always taking chances on your joe average will somehow become a superstar. No leverage? If Kobe Bryant can consider playing for Turkey in a sports that's far more US-centric than hockey, so can the top players of the hockey. Yes the rest of the little guys still have no leverage but if all the superstars actually went to play in Europe then everyone loses horribly no matter what deal NHL ends up as because you're not going anywhere in a league with no superstars.

What the owners want is more or less collusion, as in something that says you can only pay $3 million for Joe Average instead of $5 million, because they're afraid right now if they did that, someone else would pay $5 million and that guy just might turn out to be the next superstar. Now I don't actually have a problem if they decided to wipe out the middle class because I don't watch pro sports for the middle class anyway, but honestly unless the split is like 90/10 you can't fix stupid. The NBA went through a lockout over the exact same thing and then you see teams handing out max contracts to people who don't deserve it and probably cry about it immediately. Jeremy Lin got $25 million for 3 years, including a cap destroying $15 million on the last year for playing well in a 10 game stretch, and I don't see any agreement that will stop someone from foolishly throwing a lot of money at someone, so this is all going to happen all over again unless the owner's split was so great that they can spend their money however they want and still be profitable. But then it's no longer a business because there's no such thing as a business where you're entitled to make money no matter how poorly you spent your resources and NHL isn't exactly like NFL where it's making so much money that you potentially could turn a profit no matter how badly you are spending your money.

[Zeus]

Zeus...not only do you make up things I say, you make up random facts (or you are pulling false info from fringe writers you read). Pointform seems to work best when you get a little random like this:

- Never sided with anyone -- I called everyone greedy fucks and pointed out simple reality.
- The two issues on the table (contract length and year to year variance) caters to very few people. The average players career at the NHL level is under 5 years. Roughly 10% of players are in contracts five years or over, 39 players at 6 years (~5%) and 17 at 7 years. There are 19 players (or ~2.5%) with contracts that had terms of 10years +, meant purely to skirt the cap. If you believe the NHLPA is "fighting for the middle", you are not only delusional, you have nothing to base that on. EVERY OTHER ISSUE WAS SETTLED up to that point.
- Your aol link in this very thread is the epitomy of bias nonsense. You don't know what a measured and unbias opinion looks like, I guess.
- Crosby was there at the last meeting, what are you talking about?
- I think you missed my point. The NHLPA has NOTHING to bargain with, the deal is just going to get worse the more Fehr screws around. The owners don't need to "bargain". There is less for the players the longer this drags on.

Not quite. In our original discussion, you tried to play the "I blame them both" card but the longer the thread went, the more it became obvious you were siding with the owners. Then you had enough of my prodding and finally admitted it

The owners should have more power is based on my personal distaste for unions and their longterm effect.

Now on to the actual issues:

- no, the restrictions on contract length and variance will affect all free agency, particularly the middle class. You'll have so much salary-wise tied up in the stars the middle class gets less and less. This isn't my opinion, it's all over the Internet if you care to look
- and no, not every other issue was settled. The owners gave a proposal, players counter-proposed, owners said "it was take it or leave it, not a negotiating point". The reason Bettman was shaking mad is because Fehr thought they were coming close to a conclusion since their proposals were close whereas Bettman thought they were clear that the only answer they wanted was yes or no and not to counter-propose
- you really have to get it out of your head my opinion is based on what I read. I never actually read that AOL article other than a quick skim to see if it had the facts I was referring to.
- Crosby joined those 3 days because he and Merkle were trying to bring people together. He's not been involved otherwise
- that very mentality is why the players have to drag it out. The owners players do have something to bargain with: their talents. As long as the owners continue to believe it's the 50s, the lockout will continue. This ain't 2004, the players are also helluva lot more unified and organized. Now we'll truly see just how unified the owners are since they're going so hardcore

[kali o.]

Wait...so you are basing my stance on this issue, DESPITE ME CLEARLY STATING OTHERWISE MULTIPLE TIMES, on a general take I have on a seperate issue (unions - which is actually more based on government), that you asked for and I refused to discuss? You are a fucking idiot for putting words in my mouth. Get bent.

Honestly, not interested in discussing anything with you if that's your ploy. I'll take your quote out of context next ("I dislike unions too") and conclude you now agree with me. That's 3 times you've been a Dickbag.

[Zeus]

Wait...so you are basing my stance on this issue, DESPITE ME CLEARLY STATING OTHERWISE MULTIPLE TIMES, on a general take I have on a seperate issue (unions - which is actually more based on government), that you asked for and I refused to discuss? You are a fucking idiot for putting words in my mouth. Get bent.

Honestly, not interested in discussing anything with you if that's your ploy. I'll take your quote out of context next ("I dislike unions too") and conclude you now agree with me. That's 3 times you've been a Dickbag.

No, that was the only time you came out and said it which is why I pulled out the quote. The reason I say it is because it's clearly evident in every argument you make on the matter.

Regardless, it don't look like we're gonna get any hockey unless the owners bend a bit and I doubt they're gonna do that this week. I'm really interested in seeing if it happens at all. There's a chance that they figured they had to bend and were just using all that as a ploy but the last lockout makes me think they may really think it's worth cancelling the season again. I really don't know at this point

[kali o.]

No, go back and read it in actual context. That is nothing like what I said (and for the record, my ACTUAL stance on who is in the "wrong" in terms of depriving me of hockey is NOTHING like you think).

You are still being a dickbag by pretending you are clever and decyphering some sort of cryptic hidden agenda I have -- but all that amounts to is you getting it wrong and insulting me by expressly placing close-minded, non-rational bias on everything I've taken the time to write and engage you with in this discussion. If you don't understand why that makes you a dickbag, then...enjoy being a dickbag.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I am now reverting to a posting style I am more comfortable with regardless of how you choose to engage going forward.

No, that was the only time you came out and said it which is why I pulled out the quote. The reason I say it is because it's clearly evident in every argument you make on the matter.

Regardless, it don't look like we're gonna get any hockey unless the owners bend a bit and I doubt they're gonna do that this week. I'm really interested in seeing if it happens at all. There's a chance that they figured they had to bend and were just using all that as a ploy but the last lockout makes me think they may really think it's worth cancelling the season again. I really don't know at this point

Your pathetic paranoia over the owners motivation and secret plot to cancel the season + lose money aside (*cough*yeah,urnotcrazy*cough*), there is still a good chance to run a 48 game season. The two sides are not that far apart, especially with the concessions the owners made with Make Whole in the last deal, and the NHLPA knows they have nothing to bargain with at this point. If the season goes, the deal is even worse over the summer and the players share of the pie shrinks SIGNIFICANTLY. It all comes down to Fehr and whether that nutbag realizes this isn't baseball -- if the season goes, only a few million give a shit.

[Zeus]

What are you talking about? Bettman's shaking mad was showing you just how insane the owners were being with their "take it or leave it" approach last week. If I had heard the same PR rhetoric coming out of Bettman like with Fehr, I wouldn't have this position. It was his body language that made the biggest noise and that's why I started this thread to begin with and shirted blame from Bettman to Jacobs and his crew.

I'd be shocked if the players accepted anything shorter than 7-yr max deals. That's really the deal breaker right now as it severely limits free agency. The rest of the stuff is practically there already unless the owners decide they will "die on that hill" and cut the season on principle as they've given their "best offer"

[kali o.]

What are you talking about? Bettman's shaking mad was showing you just how insane the owners were being with their "take it or leave it" approach last week. If I had heard the same PR rhetoric coming out of Bettman like with Fehr, I wouldn't have this position. It was his body language that made the biggest noise and that's why I started this thread to begin with and shirted blame from Bettman to Jacobs and his crew.

Let's play a game...where do I mention Bettman? Nowhere? Ok. See, if you don't follow some sort of consistent logic when sharing your thoughts, other people have zero idea what you are babbling about.

Here is what you did: [what are you talking about] -----> [completely unrelated statement to anything I said].

Here is an example of a line that makes sense: "What are you talking about? I am not being paranoid, Bettmans body language made it clear the owners have a secret agenda, just like I said and Bettman is frustrated".

I'm 50/50 that's the actual thought you are trying to convey...and if that is correct, sure I'd call you a paranoid tard with no concept of Bettmans actual role....but at this point, who knows what you are actually getting at. Try again if you feel up to it.

...lol.

[Zeus]

OK, you clearly read that wrong. Let me explain it a different way:

Your pathetic paranoia over the owners motivation and secret plot to cancel the season + lose money

In response to this, I wrote:

What are you talking about? Bettman's shaking mad was showing you just how insane the owners were being with their "take it or leave it" approach last week. If I had heard the same PR rhetoric coming out of Bettman like with Fehr, I wouldn't have this position. It was his body language that made the biggest noise and that's why I started this thread to begin with and shifted blame from Bettman to Jacobs and his crew.

Basically, I was sayin' "it ain't my paranoia, man. It's what happened for everyone to see". My interpretation of what I saw as I was quite surprised to see him act that way. So you were right in that respect but went off on a huge paranoia tangent for no reason.

The owners' attempt to again break the union like they did in 2004 by using the threat of a cancelled season is not a secret agenda, it's been their clear strategy all along. How else do you explain all the grandstanding by Bettman and Daly (with the requisite response grandstanding by Fehr), the insane opening offer that did nothing but completely make the NHLPA dig in for the long-haul, the ridiculous publication of a proposal on the NHL.com website, the constant walk-away from negotiations, the "take it or leave it" approach last week, etc, that they've shown from the beginning? I'd love to hear your opinion as to the motives of their actions. We already know the facts of what they did, I just wanna know why you think they've been acting this way.

And, praytell, explain to me what Bettman's role is in this whole thing. I'd love to hear your version of it. I told you that my view of his role changed from Dictator to Messenger, how do you see him?

[Oracle]

Is the point of this thread for you two to emulate how productive the actual bargaining is going?

[Eric]

Oracle wins.

[kali o.]

Is the point of this thread for you two to emulate how productive the actual bargaining is going?

We don't need mediators in this thread.

[Zeus]

Is the point of this thread for you two to emulate how productive the actual bargaining is going?

We don't need mediators in this thread.

Yeah. Either join the fight as a third party of grab your popcorn and watch. Let us Canadians have our fun!

[Don]

What I don't get is aside from the minimum payroll there isn't a law that says you must spent this much on whoever just because you COULD spend that much. Yes I know they're afraid of missing out on whoever but honestly they're acting like the joe averages are dime a dozen in this negotation, which is probably true anyway, so it seems like a pretty safe bet that you'll still get a lot of joe averages lining up to play hockey for $1 million instead of $3. I'm assuming the pool of joe averages greatly exceeds the total roster size of NHL, so you won't have a case where if you're being cheap you actually have no joe averages left to add.

[Zeus]

What I don't get is aside from the minimum payroll there isn't a law that says you must spent this much on whoever just because you COULD spend that much. Yes I know they're afraid of missing out on whoever but honestly they're acting like the joe averages are dime a dozen in this negotation, which is probably true anyway, so it seems like a pretty safe bet that you'll still get a lot of joe averages lining up to play hockey for $1 million instead of $3. I'm assuming the pool of joe averages greatly exceeds the total roster size of NHL, so you won't have a case where if you're being cheap you actually have no joe averages left to add.

The problem with hockey is it's not basketball. Your 3rd and 4th liners and your 4th-6th defensemen are the difference between being a good team and being a championship team. Pittsburgh didn't win the Cup because they had Crosby, Letang, and Malkin. Yes, they were instrumental but without guys like Talbot on the wing and Staal centring the 3rd line (he'll be a first-liner for Carolina whenever they start playin' again) and the depth on D, they would never have come close to winning the Cup.

Because of that, the price for these "middle" free agents gets huge. Bobby Holik netted an $8M per year contact (I THINK it was 5 years but can't remember) for being a defensive-minded second- or third-line centre who was shut-down against the other team's top line. That enormous money for someone who isn't a 100-point threat (you SHOULD still need the points to get that kind of coin). Dion Phaneuf got a $7M a year contract for having two very solid, mostly defensive seasons early in his career. These guys are fine players and very important to help you win, but that kind of coin for guys who ain't superstars? The reason they got the coin is because that's how much of a difference these second-tier players make in hockey.

It's what the owners are trying to stop, the possibility of these contracts being handed out to anyone aside from the top 20 or 30 players in the league. That's what the contract length and variance coupled with the cap and reduced salary arbitration rights is supposed to do. Crosby will still get his $9-10M a year and deserves it. But Dion Phaneuf will max out at $4M rather than some desperate GM taking a huge flyer on him. And with these insane lifetime contracts given out just before the lockout (13- and 14-year deals to Suter, Parise, and Weber) to even guys who are top-20 they want to stop other GMs from "following the market" on them with the next 30-50 (agent: "if Suter makes $9M per year by playing 25 min and scoring 50 points, my guy should make $7M for playin' 22 min and scoring 35 points"....and the GM who really needs that guy and has the room will pay it forcing other GMs to follow).

You put these other restrictions in place and the GMs won't be able to hand out these kinds of contracts even if they want to because of all the rules hindering them or they'll be limited to those lucky 10 guys

[Don]

Unless the total salary is so low to prevent handing out money at all you're not going to stop some random GM thinking soandso is really about to become the next superstar even though he's just an average guy. As far as I can tell the cap numbers isn't going down that much and there's still a minimum payroll, and I'm guessing the number of obvious superstars in NHL is considerably less than the number of teams. Just as in the NBA everyone knows if you got LeBron you should pay him the max but only one team can have LeBron, you'll have some team that have no clear superstar to spend their money on just because there isn't that many superstars in the league and to even meet the minimum payroll they'd have to throw a lot of money at someone who they think could be the next superstar.

At any rate the example you make is kind of like why Derek Fisher makes $5 million or so during the Laker's championship run even though his production is about the same as any PG making the minimum. Of course people, including a lot of expert talked about Derek Fisher's 'intangible championship experience' which is basically his ability to hit wide open 3 pointers, and when he left the Lakers he sure didn't look any better than any random PG making the minimum. So you can say this guy was overpaid by about $4.5 million given his production on the court is basically replacement level. If you misjudge talent you get burned and I don't see how that's changing without leaguewide collusion + significantly lower cap. Let's say they passed a rule in NBA that Derek Fisher cannot make more than $3 million because he sucks, but you're still paying him $2.5 million more than a replacement level character who could've identical, possibly better production, and since hockey has way more people on a team compared to basketball, $2.5 million here and there adds up rather quickly.

Basically the owners want a way to stop themselves from their stupidity, but unless you've some kind of draconic restriction on cap space, the GMs will find a way to throw away a ton of money on guys who suck like they always have. I think the middle class in all pro sports make too much money, but it can hardly be the player's fault when the cause is because GMs are too stupid with their money. See the San Antonio Spurs or Oklahoma City Thunder for a well-managed team that thrives in a small market. Everyone swore James Harden was the secret sauce to the Thunder's success but they let him walk when he wanted the max, and it's turning out that it's not that hard to put up impressive numbers when you have Westbrook and Durant on your team. Of course the Thunder could've been wrong too, but you win some and you lose some.

[Zeus]

That's why the definition of HRR was a point of contention before as it didn't include all hockey-related revenue lowering the players' pie. But they stopped talking about that as it was gonna be too contentious to change the definition now.

The issue with the NHL is that the lack of large national TV contracts and minimal revenue sharing (6%) leaves about 6-10 "have not" teams who truly don't have the coin to pay anyone. They get priced out of the market for those middle guys completely...except for the salary floor which forces them to severely over-pay for a middle guy just to meet the salary floor. So what was happening is they were getting severely overpaid because that combination of items in the old CBA.

By limiting contract lengths and variances, what the NHL wanted was essentially an "out clause" (ie. 5 years) for those types of contracts where teams were forced to take a flyer on a "budding superstar" (I would put Suter in that category) or someone middle guy they needed to get to the floor or even for depth. This results in a lower earning potential for the middle guys and higher for the top-end guys (if a budding superstar turn out, he gets that much more the next contract) as more money is freed up from "bad" contracts

[Don]

I'm not seeing why the structure changes anything. Let's say minimum cap is $50 million, so right now maybe you pay 1 guy $10 million and 8 guys $5 million. Assuming you're not messing with the cap number (lower cap obviously means lower salary for everyone on average), so now you say pay 3 guys $10 million and 10 guys $2 million. But what's stopping you from doing this now? Okay you can say offering $2 million then nobody currently in the 'joe average' tier is going to sign up, but isn't the point that you're already way overpaying the 8 guys making $5 million who really aren't worth that money? If you're sure those guys are just the dime-a-dozen guys that you can call up from whatever the backup league is, then you can already hold your ground and say '$2 million or nothing'. There certainly isn't a shortage of replacement level players that are willing to play for $2 million. At any rate I'm guessing the number of legitmate stars in NHL is significantly less than the number of teams instead of overpaying a lot of people slightly you just end up overpaying a few guys by a lot, because there's no way there are that many stars worth $10 million or whatever is considered as 'a lot of money' in NHL.

The notion that owners have some kind of right to make money despite their stupidity is ridiculous. I am aware pro sports players, especially the middle class, is generally grossly overpaid but that's the responsibility of the owners/GM to figure out who's actually worth the money and who is just another replacement player. Now the minimum payroll obviously distorts the market and that should be looked at. The Clippers are one of the best managed team financially (or perhaps just the cheapest) and some years they literally had to throw a ton of money at some random guy just because they're so cheap they've to spend another $10 or $20 million just to make the minimum payroll. Obviously the minimum payroll shouldn't be so high that a small market team has no chance of even covering that outside of some miraculous success in the playoffs. That said San Antonio and Oklahoma City does fine in the NBA for being in relatively small markets. Usually I find these small market teams have problem because they're in a small market and then they end up spending some crazy amount of money on a halfway decent guy and going well above the minimum payroll because they argue this is the only way they could possibly compete and hope that the halfway decent guy turns out to be a superstar. Of course most of the time the halfway decent guy turned out to be just halfway decent so the team goes nowhere but now loses a ton of money. I mean you got teams in NBA winning single digit games and is there really a reason to spend more than the minimum payroll if you're sure your team isn't going anywhere? Yeah they say you got to have some names for the fans but the fans aren't coming to see quasi-star player either. The ads for the Clippers used to all show stars of the teams they play against until they've a legitmate superstar (Blake Griffin) since the Clipper didn't have any. It's not like your fan is going to get fooled into thinking paying Joe Average superstar money means Joe Average is now a superstar.

If you're in Phoenix you probably shouldn't have any illusions about significant support from your local fanbase, and if putting a financially responsible roster still means you lose money in Phoenix then maybe having a team in Phoenix is just a bad idea. If Oklahoma City can turn out to be one of the more profitable franchise in NBA then you can't argue market size as the only factor. Yes they lucked out on some great draft picks but I think being able to figure out who the best players are is supposed to count for something.

[Zeus]

Don't forget about the length of contracts. If a guy like Suter or Parise (very good players but argument can be made they're not necessarily stars) only get 5 years instead of 13, if Nathan McKinnon's (likely #1 pick next year) contract is up in 5 years (arbitration after his 3-yr rookie contract) and Minnesota has him, they may not be able to pay him the coin because they have so much tied up in those two who, in 5 years, might be medicore players but, because of the current environment, they were forced into these insane contracts in order to get them. That's much less for the star (McKinnon, I'm assuming) because so much is tied up in the mid-level guys.

So if you build in the 5-year limit (no backdiving with the % variance restriction) you minimize the risk taken on guys who ain't Crosby or Stamkos due to the competitve market and force the teams into an out-clause.

And as I mentioned before, the 3rd and 4th line quality of players is very important nowadays with the parity. There's a reason a 4th line faceoff and defensive specialist centre makes $3M plus now. It's not necessarily that easy to replace these kinds of guys and they're making above league average playin' 7-10 minutes a game. They want a way to keep their salaries down too and doin' all this may be a part of all that.

I'm with you on the owners' right to make money thing but don't forget, the reason the NHL is going after all this is because of the large disparity between the strength of the teams. In a perfectly-competitve environment, you may only end up with 10 teams in the NHL. Guys like Carolina, Dallas, the Flordia teams, etc., wouldn't be able to survive and would just fold. That ain't good for anyone, especially the players (less jobs, less prospects for national TV contracts). So you gotta have a CBA that allows those teams to compete with Toronto, Detroit, Montreal, etc., otherwise it'll be what you have in basketball now, only 3 or 4 teams with a realistic chance every year.

[Don]

A long contract goes both ways. Magic Johnson got paid like $20 million over 20 years as a rookie, and people thought that was a ton of money back then and of course $1 million year is likely under the minimum wage halfway through the contract. Sure if you offer someone like 1 year for $5 million instead of 5 years for $25 million they might take it as an insult and leave but again it still boils down to whether you think this contract is worth it or not. If by offering 5 years for $25 million means you won't have enough money to get some surefire superstar guy 5 years later then you got to decide whether it's worth it to keep this guy now or just risk letting him walk. The specialized/backup/whatevers doesn't really change the arugment any. You spend money on some guy on some perceived value. The guy may or may not actually have that value and it's your fault if you guessed wrong. If I am the LeBron stopper as in I can completely neutralize his production due to my sheer presence and I charge $5 million/year for my services, plenty of NBA teams hoping for championship would consider this a bargain since the Heat are the heavy favorites and LeBron is pretty much the best basketball player in the world. Now if the team hired me ends up never facing the Heat for whatever reason that's not my problem that my specialized role never comes into play (clearly I can't contribute anything else toward the team). You pay $3 million for some faceoff specialist, maybe he wins some key faceoff and justifies his pay. Or that scenario never materializes and you just wasted $3 million. It's a gamble and I don't get why owners/GM take equivalent of gambles and then ask for a do-over when the gamble doesn't work out for them.

So far as parity goes, in terms of health of a league, dynasties are arguably better than parity so far as fans go since bandwagon fans are probably the biggest majority in any sports. I mean this is all just a business, isn't it? If I get to run the Phoenix whatevers and I make $1 million an year running them while the team goes 0-whatever because I put out the cheapest possible team out there, I'll happily take that job. The Clippers prior to Chris Paul's arrival were pretty much the laughingstock of the NBA but they're consistently profitable. Yes they're also in LA but everyone knows LA is dominated by Lakers. You don't see Clippers spending Lakers-level money just because they're in LA and that's one of the reason why they're profitable because Donald Sterling knows his limitations. And if a team that is consistently mediocore can't even get enough revenue to pay for the minimum payroll then that's either an issue of contraction or revenue sharing. It's pretty clear all the sports league probably expanded a bit too much and not every city can support a NHL or NBA team.