Official NHL 2012 Off-Season & Lockout Thread

[Círyatan]

SOme would say prematurely.

Yeah, well, some always come prematurely...

Sorry, that was weak.

Semin (it's actually Syomin) for one year is a no-risk deal. 7M$ is a more than decent payout for him, and if he produces, he can get more from where that came from. If he doesn't, it's just a year for the 'Canes. Nothing to be worried about.

In today's NHL, especially with the CBA not agreed upon for next year, the price for Doan can prove to be steep. Frankly, I'd say he can be the difference maker to put a good team over the top. The market's gonna decide, I guess.

[philou21]

Pacioretty signed a great deal with the Habs. Worth 4,5 millions per year, that's some kind of cheap if we compare what other 30 goals scorer got.

[batdad]

Meh. Pacioretty won't see that money for awhile. Love how the NHL says they will respond and deal with NHLPA offer tomorrow not like the NHLPA who took over a week to get back to the NHL.

Yeah...right....these guys are in a hurry. Sure.

[Loosie]

Pacioretty signed a great deal with the Habs. Worth 4,5 millions per year, that's some kind of cheap if we compare what other 30 goals scorer got.

Really cheap if you consider Gomez's contract

[philou21]

Indeed!

[philou21]

Simmonds signed for 6 more years in Philly. 4 millions per year, not bad deal.

[philou21]

Great job Buttman saying that the players are winning too much money when it's his own fault that the league is in this shape.

[batdad]

Bettman is just an employee of the owners. Although I hate him too, it is not really his fault the owners cannot control themselves or police themselves. It IS his fault however, that the on ice product of the game is not very good right now. Too much clutch grab and maul allowed again.

It IS his fault that there are places in the league that cannot get their revenues up. it IS his fault that there are too many questions about the INTEGRITY of the league office.
It IS his fault that there are too many players getting concussions--at least partly.
It IS his fault that the league is not dealing well with people who have depression or a mental illness or are on some kind of performance enhancing drug.


However...it IS NOT his fault that the Rangers, Red Wings, Flyers, and others are spending too much money and giving out too much in terms of contracts to players. That belongs on the owners. Bettman can only set the guidelines...when the owners continually find silly ways around them...it is on them.

[nino33]

Just a wishful thinking food for thought...maybe if we get rid of a bunch of teams (by having fewer places in the league that cannot get their revenues up) we'd have far fewer “average” players and then a bunch of issues could improve (including less clutch and grab)

Doing all my retro roster work maybe gets me thinking different ways...in 1974 IRL there were 30 "professional" teams just like now, and there were 41 minor pro teams affiliated with an NHL club (less than now, but still not bad) - and the product was considered awful with a lot of clutch and grab!

Then from 1979-1991 the NHL had only 21 teams...of course there are MANY other very relevant factors, but IMO it is interesting to me to note the "offensive hockey" of the era occurred when there were LESS teams (rich teams still spent like drunken sailors, so maybe they're not the problem…to many teams might be?)...then in 1991 the NHL began expanding again and it's been a slippery slope downhill ever since! HaHa

It's a business now, and EVERYBODY is in it for themselves...blaming owners seems to easy and a little idealistic....are we sure teams like the Rangers, Red Wings, Flyers, and others would make less money if some teams folded (and players lost jobs, and Bettman "lost face") - if it's not a sure thing these teams lose money if some teams fold I'm not sure why they'd ever support money losing franchises!

Players, Owners and Management have been telling me the fan for years that I needed to understand "it's a business" - well I do, which is why I don't really care....to the NHL Players, Owners and Management I say "spare me the theatrics children, just let me know when you're done fighting in the sandbox"


EHM will help me occupy my time!

[batdad]

Nope. The teams that did not fold would likely all make the same or more revenues. The $ and the quality are 2 seperate things to begin with. As the quality goes up though...the revenues go up. Thus the $ the owners make and the $ the players would make will go up. No question.

Some teams will choose to overspend no matter how many teams there are. And they will not make as much money as they COULD.

But lets say we get rid of the problem children or possible problem children in Anaheim, Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina, Florida, Tampa. Dallas just to begin with....

The owners get a chance to bid on their best...guess what they will do? Umm....yeah. Quality of players in the league will go up...

There is another thing to deal with after the contraction and bringing up quality of players making the game POTENTIALLY better. That is the effing coaches. Coaches mess up what players want and are capable of doing, insisting they play more defensively. Thus coaches are partly responsible (if not majority responsible) for the dog doo games we see.

[nino33]

The $ and the quality are 2 seperate things to begin with

Seems to me the teams that spend more are always at/near the top in all sports, and low spending teams are not...and before the cap era it was even easier for the rich to "write off" bad decisions and try again (that'd be your Rangers! HaHa), the poor teams could/can not

There is another thing to deal with after the contraction and bringing up quality of players making the game POTENTIALLY better. That is the effing coaches. Coaches mess up what players want and are capable of doing, insisting they play more defensively. Thus coaches are partly responsible (if not majority responsible) for the dog doo games we see.

Less 3rd /4th liners who listen might help HaHa

I suspect many of these players know if the game changed (and teams were reduced) they'd be out of a job for sure, and out an enormous amount of money (there second career choice will likely pay them next to nothing compared to what they make in the NHL)...they need the game to be about a 20-30 second shift where you're expected to chip it out, stay in position and then head to the bench - the longer they're out there the more it'll show that they don't have the needed hockey skills/sense...I would think these players (and there are a lot of them) know they'll make more in a couple NHL years than they would in decades at their "second choice job" - these players NEED the coaches to coach the way they do, they NEED the game to be what it is


It's all about the money IMO...millioniares and billionaires arguing about "the business" of hockey

[batdad]

Leafs every year. Rangers for most of the 90s, FLames a couple of times....lots of teams have failed when spending $> Red Sox this season, Yankees several times, Texas Rangers. Anaheim Angels, Mariners, Philadelphia Eagles, NY Giants, NY Jets...tons of examples of spending $ and not doing well.

(and just to be clear--I am not a Rangers fan, but I think you know that)

And the NHL dropping teams is a pipe dream...no way the NHLPA agrees to it. Has to be a "fold" situation and I believe even that is in the CBA (not sure though)

Coaches have continually made the game more defensive than it is intended. Right from the beginning of hockey. Because why? You can teach defense, you cannot teach the creativity to make a team more offensive. That is the 2nd biggest problem after a watered down product. Guys that are capable of 3rd and 4rh line duty in the NHL in any era...should not be in the NHL.


But they are...and coaches make them better at the useless no fun stuff they are good at. Coaches should be banned. Defensive systems will disappear if they are. Clutch and grab will disappear (not totally..but some) and guys that are offensively gifted but do not deal well with clutch grab (thinking of guys like Alexei Kovalev, Alexander Semin, Mason Raymond) who get ripped all the time for being too soft...will start to look like Pavel Bure. The practice skills they bring will then show up in games. They when they are allowed to...make the game exciting because they are super skilled. But with the coaches....they are slowed down and not allowd to be

I mean...imagine what would happen if a coach tried to make Ovenchicken play defensive scrub hockey, or Mike Green....oh wait.....we saw that already.

[philou21]

You're right that it isn't just the fault of Buttman but still, he could make the decision that the cap doesn't go up, or that salaries stop at that "x" amount of millions. Owners are maybe "leading" those parts but if the NHL would've a real boss who can stand up, the owners would shut their babies mouth.

[Loosie]

You're right that it isn't just the fault of Buttman but still, he could make the decision that the cap doesn't go up, or that salaries stop at that "x" amount of millions. Owners are maybe "leading" those parts but if the NHL would've a real boss who can stand up, the owners would shut their babies mouth.

Actually I don't think Bettman can make that decision...if I'm not mistaken he is just a mouthpiece for the Owners. The owners have to approve thier end of the CBA.

[nino33]

if the NHL would've a real boss who can stand up, the owners would shut their babies mouth.

Doesn't Bettman work for the owners? Instead of shutting their baby mouths, would't they just fire Bettman if he tried to be a "real boss"? And isn't Bettman successful according to his standards? He has a high paying job and teams in the sunbelt and in the desert...

Te best thing IMO would be a complete implosion and loss of at least one year, and a huge "who cares" from the public...my life will go on, and when they do come back it'll be better for me (the fan who can't afford to go to games), because there'll be fewer teams and lower salaries and maybe then they'll actually care about the game

A pox on all their houses!

[nino33]

Maybe instead of a retro hockey pic my next avatar should be Batdad's "grumpy old man yells at crowd!"

[archibalduk]

Although I know what the CBA is, I don't really understand how it came about. How did the sport end up with a CBA in the first place? Is it because the teams are franchises of the league?

In British sport, we don't really have this problem. Each sport's governing body (eg the Football Association) lays down the rules, end of. Yes there's politics and player associations, but it's nothing in comparison with the rubbish that goes on with the NHL, NBA, etc. Perhaps it's because we don't have a franchise system in the UK, I don't know.

[philou21]

You're right that it isn't just the fault of Buttman but still, he could make the decision that the cap doesn't go up, or that salaries stop at that "x" amount of millions. Owners are maybe "leading" those parts but if the NHL would've a real boss who can stand up, the owners would shut their babies mouth.

Actually I don't think Bettman can make that decision...if I'm not mistaken he is just a mouthpiece for the Owners. The owners have to approve thier end of the CBA.

Ok I wasn't sure about that. Too bad.

[nino33]

In British sport, we don't really have this problem. Each sport's governing body (eg the Football Association) lays down the rules, end of. Yes there's politics and player associations, but it's nothing in comparison with the rubbish that goes on with the NHL, NBA, etc.

Do the players in British sport have any say in the "transfers" that take place?

It seems outside of NA I hear of players pretty much outright "sold" to another team...sometimes in another league! in another country!...how does this work? Do football (soccer) players have no rights? No free agency? They just go where they're told?

[archibalduk]

It seems outside of NA I hear of players pretty much outright "sold" to another team...sometimes in another league! in another country!...how does this work? Do football (soccer) players have no rights? No free agency? They just go where they're told?

Yeah, we have free agency, but players do have a say with which team they sign. They cannot be moved to any team unless he agrees a contract with them.

A player signs a contract with a team for x years and for £x. Whilst his contract is running, a team (the "offeror") can approach his contracted team and put in a bid (the bid is the offer of money to the team by way of a transfer fee). If the contracted team accepts the bid then the offeror can commence contractual negotiations with the player. The offeror and player must agree a new contract (the existing contract does not move to the offeror). If the player agrees then the transfer goes through; if not, then the player remains with his contracted team.

At any point during his contract, it is possible for the team and player to agree a contract extension (ie a new contract which will take effect once his existing contract expires). I think it might be possible to agree a contract which overrides the existing contract, but I can't remember for sure.

At the end of his contract, he becomes a free agent (unless he agrees a new contract with his team).

Six months prior to the expiry of a contract, any team is entitled to directly contact the player and offer him a contract. If he accepts then he moves to his new team once his existing contract with his existing team expires. In this situation, his new team does not have to pay the existing team a transfer fee. This rule is known as the Bosman Rule because it was introduced following a judgment of the court of the European Community.

I hope I explained this clearly.

[nino33]

Sounds a lot like NHL Free Agency to me...the difference being the NHL does it all in a few days in early July! HaHa And in the NHL no one pays just for the right to negotiate (unless it's a trade in late June to try and get a guy and get him signed)

I suspect the "court judgement" issue has a lot to do with things in NA...the US anti-trust, monopoly, and worker rights laws I'm sure have significantly shaped the current pro sports labour landscape

[archibalduk]

Sounds a lot like NHL Free Agency to me...the difference being the NHL does it all in a few days in early July! HaHa

Very true!

With regards to the transfer fee, you don't pay it unless the player actually agrees to sign a contract with the new team. The most a team has ever paid another team for a player is €93m ($115m Canadian).

I suspect the "court judgement" issue has a lot to do with things in NA...the US anti-trust, monopoly, and worker rights laws I'm sure have significantly shaped the current pro sports labour landscape

Yeah that's right. One of the key aims of the EU is to allow free movement of workers and services. The European Court found that restricting a player to discuss a new contract with another team until after his contract expires would infringe on free movement.

[batdad]

Maybe instead of a retro hockey pic my next avatar should be Batdad's "grumpy old man yells at crowd!"

That pic is copyrighted. You would have to pay me for it. One.....billion......pesos

[philou21]

Landeskog as been named captain of the Avalanche! What a surprise for me! He's now the youngest captain ever in the NHL.

[batdad]

By the time the Av's play a game Landeskog will be 25. So....really he will not be the youngest captain evah.