2012 NHL Offseason Thread: ROCK OUT WITH YOUR LOCKOUT

**Sepukku** · 2012-12-08 00:17

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...6638--nhl.html

For what its worth during the lockout, more Leafs lulz - Ontario Santa told a 3 year old the Maple Leafs suck and made the boy cry.

**Ratatapa** · 2012-12-08 07:07

He should've got a promotion

Leafs do suck

**Thoronas** · 2012-12-08 11:25

Good story about the risks one player has to deal with for being on the NHLPA's negotiating committee.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...s-bad-cop.html

**Brill Weave** · 2012-12-08 12:10

He's too decent a player to not receive a contract once his current one expires. I don't buy it and I'm sure he doesn't either.

**Wulfgang** · 2012-12-08 14:35

Fehr speaking now.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...kout-coverage/

Guy uses emphatic pauses wayyy too much.

**Wulfgang** · 2012-12-08 14:41

Christ dispense with the history lesson and get to the point. If he's giving this much background, I think they might be decertifying.

EDIT: NM this is a speech for the canadian autoworkers. Twitter misled me.

**Thoronas** · 2012-12-08 14:47

Donald Fehr: "I don't want to take up too much of your time."

He then proceeds to check his notes for a minute.

**BadKarma** · 2012-12-08 14:51

Jacobs needs to be relieved of ownership in the same way Fehr needs to go

**Thoronas** · 2012-12-08 14:57

So if what Bill Daly says is true and "Contract term limits is the hill we die on" what exactly happens with all the old contracts that go 12 years? Is Luongo's deal now five years? Is Crosby's?? If there is a five year term limit (or seven for home teams) on all contracts and Crosby gets to renegotiate his contract when he's in his late twenties there is no way in hell he isn't taking over 10 mil a season.

**Callisto** · 2012-12-08 15:05

Originally Posted by Thoronas

So if what Bill Daly says is true and "Contract term limits is the hill we die on" what exactly happens with all the old contracts that go 12 years? Is Luongo's deal now five years? Is Crosby's?? If there is a five year term limit (or seven for home teams) on all contracts and Crosby gets to renegotiate his contract when he's in his late twenties there is no way in hell he isn't taking over 10 mil a season.

Old deals stay as they were. The whole issue with the clawbacks/make whole is that the contracts already on the books are legally binding, they don't change in face value, there is just a larger percentage siphoned off into escrow, which would then be redistributed back to the owners.

If the league tried to change the actual terms of existing contracts they'd get sued into oblivion.

**Thoronas** · 2012-12-08 15:13

Originally Posted by Callisto

Old deals stay as they were. The whole issue with the clawbacks/make whole is that the contracts already on the books are legally binding, they don't change in face value, there is just a larger percentage siphoned off into escrow, which would then be redistributed back to the owners.

If the league tried to change the actual terms of existing contracts they'd get sued into oblivion.

Makes sense, wasn't totally clear on terms since contract dollars were declining. Wonder what Edmonton is gonna do about RNH and Yakupov then. If Yakupov is as good in the NHL as he has been in the KHL he could be asking for close to Ovechkin money.

**Wulfgang** · 2012-12-08 15:22

I love how "the hill they die on" only pertains to ~8% of the contracts in the NHL (rest are under 5 years). Makes no sense.

**Ishido** · 2012-12-08 15:45

Originally Posted by Wulfgang

I love how "the hill they die on" only pertains to ~8% of the contracts in the NHL (rest are under 5 years). Makes no sense.

In reality though it should not be a hard things for the players to give up if it means that they can come closer together in the bargaining. Obviously if they give that up the owners should also be willing to move on some other issue, but this should not be a huge sticking point.

**Sepukku** · 2012-12-08 17:33

Originally Posted by Wulfgang

I love how "the hill they die on" only pertains to ~8% of the contracts in the NHL (rest are under 5 years). Makes no sense.

The contracts teams and owners (or the GMs on their behalf) agree to sign.

**Sepukku** · 2012-12-08 17:34

Originally Posted by Thoronas

So if what Bill Daly says is true and "Contract term limits is the hill we die on" what exactly happens with all the old contracts that go 12 years? Is Luongo's deal now five years? Is Crosby's?? If there is a five year term limit (or seven for home teams) on all contracts and Crosby gets to renegotiate his contract when he's in his late twenties there is no way in hell he isn't taking over 10 mil a season.

I don't know, apparently owners think its acceptable to reduce promised pay - better hope they don't set precedent for your boss to decline your pay 15% Monday. Why wouldn't they just reduce term to? Fuck everything, who cares about an agreement between men? Who cares about a man's word, his promise, his handshake?

**Thoronas** · 2012-12-08 18:08

Roenick and player agent Allan Walsh are having a slap fight on twitter right now. Roenick played the "You havent played game" card, which is amusing considering its usually the players saying that about Bettman and the owners.

**Palin** · 2012-12-08 18:57

Originally Posted by Sepukku

I don't know, apparently owners think its acceptable to reduce promised pay - better hope they don't set precedent for your boss to decline your pay 15% Monday. Why wouldn't they just reduce term to? Fuck everything, who cares about an agreement between men? Who cares about a man's word, his promise, his handshake?

Contract payments are contingent upon HR%. It's not like they signed a deal saying "you get this amount of dollars." There's legal wording in contracts that specifically mentioned it as a function of HR%.

Also if my salary had risen 300% in the past 7 years and my boss told me he needed to scale it back once by 15% (with the guarantee that there'd be no more scale backs for the next 10 years and tied it to company revenue, so the chance to grow it back was very high)... I'd probably understand.

**Vaspinne** · 2012-12-08 19:48

Originally Posted by Wulfgang

I love how "the hill they die on" only pertains to ~8% of the contracts in the NHL (rest are under 5 years). Makes no sense.

At the time of the 04/05 lockout, there was only like 5~10 contracts in total that had more then 5 years. To date, it's increased to something like 80~ish. It's mainly a measure to stop the rise of new long-term contracts

**Ratatapa** · 2012-12-08 22:50

Originally Posted by Callisto

Old deals stay as they were. The whole issue with the clawbacks/make whole is that the contracts already on the books are legally binding, they don't change in face value, there is just a larger percentage siphoned off into escrow, which would then be redistributed back to the owners.

If the league tried to change the actual terms of existing contracts they'd get sued into oblivion.

Not sure that they are staying some players went on rds to comment saying that the reason they don't want the 5 years is that some people just signs new contracts like Parise a s the owners don't want to honor them anymore

So one of the key items that the players are fighting was for the owners to honor the already signed contracts

**Sepukku** · 2012-12-08 22:54

Originally Posted by Ratatapa

So one of the key items that the players are fighting was for the owners to honor the already signed contracts

Shocker.

Thread: 2012 NHL Offseason Thread: ROCK OUT WITH YOUR LOCKOUT

Thread Tools