So Donald Fehr is next.......

[Kyle]

According to TSN:

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=345893

As an American, I positively hate this guy. He bent baseball over in so many different ways I can't even begin to count. Steroids, strikes, salaries, etc.

My biggest fear is that the player's are dumb enough to follow his lead right back into a work stoppage. I wonder if the player's really have the stomach to go through that again.

 

[canucksfreak19]

This is very interesting. I think the hobbit may have met his match now.

 

[penguinfan]

you don't think that he might try to over turn the cap.....

 

[Iceman]

I think the battle's been fought and lost. I don't think the league will be looking for a work stoppage, and if anything it'd be a players strike. If that's the case, I could easily see the owners willing to continue under the old CBA, and opening the doors (assuming that's legal of course).

 

[slckrsx]

All I can say is that if there is another work stoppage you can say goodbye to two U.S. teams minimum.

 

[gretzky99]

Fehr = strike/lockout. write it down - there will be no hockey again and probably for a long period of time. Fehr killed baseball for a very long time and it took steroids to get it back. i don't think the NHL can afford another work stoppage.

 

[GrimUSMC]

Lets not glorify the owners here. They were just as culpable for everything that happened in baseball. As for Hockey, the salary cap needs to go. They need to adopt a system similar to baseball in which Teams have control for the first 6-8 years and the first couple of prime years of a guys career, then the player can go and get paid if they want. Whats the point of a cap when teams just circumvent it anyway? If owners want cost certainty, then they should stop spending stupid money on players. Baseball's system allows teams with little support to stockpile draft picks for a few years and have a small window of time to compete every so often. Like the Tampa Bay Rays.

For once, I think the owners need to be put in place here.

 

[Hama]

Lets not glorify the owners here. They were just as culpable for everything that happened in baseball. As for Hockey, the salary cap needs to go. They need to adopt a system similar to baseball in which Teams have control for the first 6-8 years and the first couple of prime years of a guys career, then the player can go and get paid if they want. Whats the point of a cap when teams just circumvent it anyway? If owners want cost certainty, then they should stop spending stupid money on players. Baseball's system allows teams with little support to stockpile draft picks for a few years and have a small window of time to compete every so often. Like the Tampa Bay Rays.

For once, I think the owners need to be put in place here.

The problem for that - is if the offers stop coming, whether reasonable or not, the PA will scream collusion, which usually results in triple damages that they're looking for.

In baseball, they're also not allowed to trade draft picks away - and even recent picks are unable to be traded until they have been signed for at least a year.

At this point in time, the owners will not give up the hard salary cap - even though it's going up, it does set a floor and a cap that is in place. Bascially, it will come down to what happens in the CBA negotiations in the other leagues, since all of their agreements will end before the NHL's.

 

[GrimUSMC]

The problem for that - is if the offers stop coming, whether reasonable or not, the PA will scream collusion, which usually results in triple damages that they're looking for.

In baseball, they're also not allowed to trade draft picks away - and even recent picks are unable to be traded until they have been signed for at least a year.

At this point in time, the owners will not give up the hard salary cap - even though it's going up, it does set a floor and a cap that is in place. Bascially, it will come down to what happens in the CBA negotiations in the other leagues, since all of their agreements will end before the NHL's.

I see your point, but for all the screaming for a hard cap they did, the owners still are finding ways to give out ridiculous contracts. They wanted "cost certainty" and now they still find a way to jack it up. Plus it still does not address the lack of competitiveness from the lower end teams. They have a cap and a floor, but teams that are in bad shape are usually near the floor, not the ceiling. I just fail to see any good that has come from this hard cap and I think the owners need to seriously consider another arrangement. Obviously baseballs scenario isn't an exact fit, but the principle is a good start. Team control for the first X amount of years, with arbitration in there as well, followed by free agency. I know its juts a start, but its an overhaul in dire need.

 

[will-411]

Baseball can get away with tying up prospects for 6 to 8 years because a) players need development time, and b) players, other than pitchers, have what amounts to an infintie sporting shelf life. The wear and tear on a baseball player is much lower than a hockey player, so I can't see the players giving up RFA and UFA as early as it is.

I have to think under the current salary cap that the NHL is paying more in salaries now than it did in the pre-cap era. It's being spread more fairly amongst the players. So yes, the $8+ million guys are getting shafted (that's what, 5% of the voting union) while probably 60% are making around what they would have before, and you've got the lower end guys (35%?) making more than they could have dreamed about before. Yes, these are made up numbers in mind, but that is how I perceive the current NHL. If there were actual numbers showing me the players are somehow getting the shaft under the current agreement, I'd be willing to believe it.

What are the contentious issues going to be in the next CBA? What are they going to draw the line about? NHL revenues supposedly continue to grow, given that the salary cap continues to outpace inflation by a wide margin. Really, are they going to fight just to fight?

I do believe we are headed for a work stoppage as well though; it's just going to seem even more pointless this time then it did the last time in my mind.

Cory

 

[will-411]

I do understand about cost certainty - hopefully that is something they can tweak without a full blown work stoppage.

The uber-long contracts may be something they should work on a little, as that is how a lot of the teams have tried their cap circumvention. Also, limit the amount of money you can bury in the minors.

Cory

 

[GrimUSMC]

Baseball can get away with tying up prospects for 6 to 8 years because a) players need development time, and b) players, other than pitchers, have what amounts to an infintie sporting shelf life. The wear and tear on a baseball player is much lower than a hockey player, so I can't see the players giving up RFA and UFA as early as it is.

I have to think under the current salary cap that the NHL is paying more in salaries now than it did in the pre-cap era. It's being spread more fairly amongst the players. So yes, the $8+ million guys are getting shafted (that's what, 5% of the voting union) while probably 60% are making around what they would have before, and you've got the lower end guys (35%?) making more than they could have dreamed about before. Yes, these are made up numbers in mind, but that is how I perceive the current NHL. If there were actual numbers showing me the players are somehow getting the shaft under the current agreement, I'd be willing to believe it.

What are the contentious issues going to be in the next CBA? What are they going to draw the line about? NHL revenues supposedly continue to grow, given that the salary cap continues to outpace inflation by a wide margin. Really, are they going to fight just to fight?

I do believe we are headed for a work stoppage as well though; it's just going to seem even more pointless this time then it did the last time in my mind.

Cory

There are tons of differences between baseball and hockey. Im just using it as a starting point. Plus, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. The mega stars (Crosby, Ovechkin, et al.) still get paid mega bucks, while the other players have seen salaries slip as teams try to get under the cap. Plus it has not solved the ultimate issue. The bottom half of the league is not competitive, and arguably will never be. They don't reach the ceiling of the salary cap, and some fight to make the floor. These teams are never going to compete. Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Florida, and Atlanta will never have prolonged success in this current cap system. And unless they catch lightning in a bottle for one year will never win a Stanley Cup.

I do understand about cost certainty - hopefully that is something they can tweak without a full blown work stoppage.

The uber-long contracts may be something they should work on a little, as that is how a lot of the teams have tried their cap circumvention. Also, limit the amount of money you can bury in the minors.

Cory

The owners wanted the cap and cost certainty. Yet, the owners are the ones who a) gave out the stupid contracts before the cap (Yashin, DiPietro, et al.) and b) are the ones who are still trying to circumvent the cap.

My point is this system does not work. Teams like the Blackhawks should not have to disassemble their team after a Stanley Cup win.

 

[burebuyer]

There are tons of differences between baseball and hockey. Im just using it as a starting point. Plus, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. The mega stars (Crosby, Ovechkin, et al.) still get paid mega bucks, while the other players have seen salaries slip as teams try to get under the cap. Plus it has not solved the ultimate issue. The bottom half of the league is not competitive, and arguably will never be. They don't reach the ceiling of the salary cap, and some fight to make the floor. These teams are never going to compete. Nashville, Columbus, Phoenix, Florida, and Atlanta will never have prolonged success in this current cap system. And unless they catch lightning in a bottle for one year will never win a Stanley Cup.

The owners wanted the cap and cost certainty. Yet, the owners are the ones who a) gave out the stupid contracts before the cap (Yashin, DiPietro, et al.) and b) are the ones who are still trying to circumvent the cap.

My point is this system does not work. Teams like the Blackhawks should not have to disassemble their team after a Stanley Cup win.

If there was no cap floor, you would see a handful of teams with $10-20M payrolls. The floor forces them to be somewhat competitive, unlike baseball, which is a complete joke. The profitable teams are the ones that spend nothing, and then get paid off by the Yankees and Red Sox through the luxury tax. 75% of the league is not competitive on opening day, and never will be, regardless of how well they manage their business.

The entire NHL is allowed to be competitive. It's up to individual management to make a team competitive. If they do there job well, the team will improve, more fans will watch, and thus they can legitimately afford to spend more towards the ceiling than the floor.

Teams like the Blackhawks should have to disassemble their team if they make stupid deals. The whole point of the cap was for their to be consequences for giving out ludicrous contracts (ie. Campbell, Huet), instead of letting owners and GM's slide like they could in the pre-lockout era.

Derek