Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

2019-20 NHL Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DON said:

Yashin for Chara, Pick (Spezza) was most lopsided i can recall.

Scary thing is that mad mike also trades Luongo in another similarly stupid trade, but somehow managed to keep his job for a long time.  only other GM I can think of who has kept his job that long dispute ineptitude is MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Scary thing is that mad mike also trades Luongo in another similarly stupid trade, but somehow managed to keep his job for a long time.  only other GM I can think of who has kept his job that long dispute ineptitude is MB.

Milbury must be the worst GM of all time isn't he?

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/top-10-worst-mike-milbury-trades-contracts-and-transactions/

 

Hall of fame for Kevin Lowe and Doug Wilson eh? Bar continues to get lower all the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DON said:

Milbury must be the worst GM of all time isn't he?

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/top-10-worst-mike-milbury-trades-contracts-and-transactions/

 

Hall of fame for Kevin Lowe and Doug Wilson eh? Bar continues to get lower all the time.

 

I think Wilson belongs in there. He won a norris, was an all star in an era with a lot of good dmen. I think he should have been in years earlier.
 

I hate the Lowe induction. Mogilny should have been in by now.  But the Hockey hall of fame is probably the most fxcked up HOF in sports.  I like baseball, where you rarely have someone selected who doesn’t belong and it truly is a best of all time, with better ways to measure and determine HOF worthiness with much better transparency.

 

hockey is  still run like a private old boys club.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think Wilson belongs in there. He won a norris, was an all star in an era with a lot of good dmen. I think he should have been in years earlier.
 

I hate the Lowe induction. Mogilny should have been in by now.  But the Hockey hall of fame is probably the most fxcked up HOF in sports.  I like baseball, where you rarely have someone selected who doesn’t belong and it truly is a best of all time, with better ways to measure and determine HOF worthiness with much better transparency.

 

hockey is  still run like a private old boys club.

 

Agree 100%, Lowe was a solid dependable defenceman and an important piece for the Oilers but no way do I think of Hall of Fame when I think of Kevin Lowe. They lowered the bar. If he didn't play for the Oilers there wouldn't even be a discussion. Who's next Rick Green??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

Agree 100%, Lowe was a solid dependable defenceman and an important piece for the Oilers but no way do I think of Hall of Fame when I think of Kevin Lowe. They lowered the bar. If he didn't play for the Oilers there wouldn't even be a discussion. Who's next Rick Green??

 

Old Boys Network ... and/or ... Friends of Gretzky

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think Wilson belongs in there. He won a norris, was an all star in an era with a lot of good dmen. I think he should have been in years earlier.
 

I hate the Lowe induction. Mogilny should have been in by now.  But the Hockey hall of fame is probably the most fxcked up HOF in sports.  I like baseball, where you rarely have someone selected who doesn’t belong and it truly is a best of all time, with better ways to measure and determine HOF worthiness with much better transparency.

 

hockey is  still run like a private old boys club.

 

You are so right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, how many would opt out?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DON said:

Interesting, how many would opt out?

 

I think the key question is who will be the FIRST player to opt out ... as I have heard discussed on TSN690 (today?), the hockey "culture" makes may make it difficult for NHLers to step forward ... but once one does many may follow ... just hope Crosby, Malkin, Guenzel and Rust aren't amongst them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don’t get why players are coming back without addressing Escrow.  It makes no sense for them to be penalized after the cap has been set for GM/owner stupidity, or In this case the pandemic.  Makes no sense to me how they agreed to a cap system with escrow, rather than one that penalized teams for going over the cap (because of buyouts, or replace injured players that aren’t insured).  NHL franchise values are going up constantly, so why so players get penalized on escrow?  That should be part of the equation, as well as expansion fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBA doesn't address teams' franchise values at all. And I don't think the owners would ever agree to that, either.

 

What the CBA does do is share the hockey-related revenues between the owners and players. Basically, the players will get 50% of the revenues in any given year. But, because no one knows the actual revenues until the end of the year, but the players need to be played throughout, a portion of the player salaries is put into escrow. At the end of the year, a portion of the escrow funds will be returned to the teams, in order to ensure that the revenue sharing ends up at 50-50.

 

It really isn't a penalty as such. Even if we penalized teams for going over the cap, the player salary escrow would still be needed (see above).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The CBA doesn't address teams' franchise values at all. And I don't think the owners would ever agree to that, either.

 

What the CBA does do is share the hockey-related revenues between the owners and players. Basically, the players will get 50% of the revenues in any given year. But, because no one knows the actual revenues until the end of the year, but the players need to be played throughout, a portion of the player salaries is put into escrow. At the end of the year, a portion of the escrow funds will be returned to the teams, in order to ensure that the revenue sharing ends up at 50-50.

 

It really isn't a penalty as such. Even if we penalized teams for going over the cap, the player salary escrow would still be needed (see above).


good point tomh009

 

it seems some pull out the “they are so stupid” card too quickly when they do not understand certain decision by others 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout; the owners in this non-essential entertainment business are so greedy, they seem very willing to play with the lives of many to simply make up for lost TV $$.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DON said:

How bout; the owners in this non-essential entertainment business are so greedy, they seem very willing to play with the lives of many to simply make up for lost TV $$.

 

Now, that's a whole different discussion.
 

But the players are not forced to play, they can sit out the remainder of the season. Yes, there would be a financial impact, but most of them are in very good positions financially (at least from a normal person's perspective) so they should be fine. Some of the lower-paid team staff might not be in as good a position to make that choice, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tomh009 said:

The CBA doesn't address teams' franchise values at all. And I don't think the owners would ever agree to that, either.

 

What the CBA does do is share the hockey-related revenues between the owners and players. Basically, the players will get 50% of the revenues in any given year. But, because no one knows the actual revenues until the end of the year, but the players need to be played throughout, a portion of the player salaries is put into escrow. At the end of the year, a portion of the escrow funds will be returned to the teams, in order to ensure that the revenue sharing ends up at 50-50.

 

It really isn't a penalty as such. Even if we penalized teams for going over the cap, the player salary escrow would still be needed (see above).

I just don’t see how players would agree to this. Only league in the major sports that had escrow.
players are always going to be in no win situation, because those with contracts will want flat cap to avoid escrow, those with upcoming contracts will want higher cap.

what would make more sense is that cap is set at start of the the year and you penalize teams that exceed it afterwards (ie through buyouts), or bonuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:


good point tomh009

 

it seems some pull out the “they are so stupid” card too quickly when they do not understand certain decision by others 

It is an element of the CBA that the players were stupid to agree to and frankly surprised that a guy like Fehr who fought so hard against the cap would let the players agree to something that will always divide the union.  I understand this “certain decision by other” and it was a STUPID decision that I doubt the players fully understood the implications of and is one that is always going to divide the union.  Evidence of how stupid of a decision it was, is how many players constantly complain about it.  It also stupid to exclude expansion fees from  hockey related revenues.  If there are going to have an escrow the expansion fees should have been also split 50-50 as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

 

Now, that's a whole different discussion.
 

But the players are not forced to play, they can sit out the remainder of the season. Yes, there would be a financial impact, but most of them are in very good positions financially (at least from a normal person's perspective) so they should be fine. Some of the lower-paid team staff might not be in as good a position to make that choice, though.

With the culture in hockey I really can’t see too many players saying they are going to “abandon” their team for the sake of their and their family’s health.  With the culture they would be seeing as abandoning their team, not making a conscious health decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hab29RETIRED said:

With the culture in hockey I really can’t see too many players saying they are going to “abandon” their team for the sake of their and their family’s health.  With the culture they would be seeing as abandoning their team, not making a conscious health decision.

Agree ... and no marginal player is ever going to risk breaking the mould ... but if one elite player sits out for safety reasons that could open the floodgates ... but don't expect that to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DON said:

 

Good to see some degree of progress ... have heard that some players don't like the idea of voting on the entire package up or down ... but makes sense IMO as they are undoubtedly a carefully balanced, fully-entwined compromise ... fingers crossed as I do want to see some (ideally three games for the Habs - LOL) hockey this summer

 

And now TSN/RDS/TVA/Sportsnet can have all their spare cell phones charging and time to plan for both remote and in-studio shows (depending on the state of Covid) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

It is an element of the CBA that the players were stupid to agree to and frankly surprised that a guy like Fehr who fought so hard against the cap would let the players agree to something that will always divide the union.  I understand this “certain decision by other” and it was a STUPID decision that I doubt the players fully understood the implications of and is one that is always going to divide the union.  Evidence of how stupid of a decision it was, is how many players constantly complain about it.  It also stupid to exclude expansion fees from  hockey related revenues.  If there are going to have an escrow the expansion fees should have been also split 50-50 as well.

 

The only way to avoid escrow is to set the cap on the previous season's revenues (or the season before that, depending on when you need to finalize the cap). When they negotiated the cap they (both owners and NHLPA) decided they wanted to us actual revenues, so escrow is required.

 

Expansion fees were not negotiated in. Stupid? If they had asked for this, they would have probably had to compromise on something else. Seattle is paying roughly $22M per franchise; that could potentially be an additional $10M in salary cap per team -- but only for one year. So how would a GM deal with that? Would there be a feeding frenzy for one-year free agent contracts in an expansion year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GHT120 said:

Good to see some degree of progress ... have heard that some players don't like the idea of voting on the entire package up or down ... but makes sense IMO as they are undoubtedly a carefully balanced, fully-entwined compromise ... fingers crossed as I do want to see some (ideally three games for the Habs - LOL) hockey this summer

 

I'd like to see a total of five games for the Habs, with a double-overtime loss as the last one! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tomh009 said:

 

I'd like to see a total of five games for the Habs, with a double-overtime loss as the last one! :)

Understand why ... I prefer three embarrassing losses that make it obvious MB hasn't built a team anywhere close to good ... but I would feel awful for the players and even the coaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Understand why ... I prefer three embarrassing losses that make it obvious MB hasn't built a team anywhere close to good ... but I would feel awful for the players and even the coaches

 

I would not prefer 3 embarrassing losses, would prefer the players to give it a good go and end the season with a little confidence going into next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I would not prefer 3 embarrassing losses, would prefer the players to give it a good go and end the season with a little confidence going into next year. 

Understandable ... even if we don't fully agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...