Things Really Heating Up (NHL)

[calgARI '07]

Letter from Bettman to Goodenow:

http://www.tsn.ca/Nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115051&hubName=nhl

[Mike Hedrick 01]

I think the union will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't beat tomorrow's deadline.   I doubt the league's concessions will remain on the table after the season is cancelled.

[Dpperk29]

I think they are all (the players and the owners) ruining the sport. Plain and simple, people will find other things to do than watch hockey if they don't start playing soon. and when I mean soon, I mean this season!

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:

 I think the union will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't beat tomorrow's deadline.   I doubt the league's concessions will remain on the table after the season is cancelled.[/q]

From the article:

"'I know, as do you, that the 'deal' we can make will only get worse for the players if we cancel the season,' Bettman said in the letter. 'Whatever damage we have suffered to date will pale in comparison to the damage from a canceled season and we will certainly not be able to afford what is presently on the table.'"

I think we will probably see a counter-offer from Goodenow at about 48mil. I hope that Bettman isn't serious when he says this is non-negotiable, as they are so close.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:

 [Q2]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:

 I think the union will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't beat tomorrow's deadline.   I doubt the league's concessions will remain on the table after the season is cancelled.[/Q]
From the article:

"'I know, as do you, that the 'deal' we can make will only get worse for the players if we cancel the season,' Bettman said in the letter. 'Whatever damage we have suffered to date will pale in comparison to the damage from a canceled season and we will certainly not be able to afford what is presently on the table.'"

I think we will probably see a counter-offer from Goodenow at about 48mil. I hope that Bettman isn't serious when he says this is non-negotiable, as they are so close.
[/q]
I have another thought. What if the players agreed to accept this for this season and next, with the agreement that the NHL and NHLPA will sit down to negotiate the final details for at least 10, 20 hours each month until a new deal is done - i.e. a short term deal to play this season and perhaps next, while they then continue the negotiations to their actual conclusion for the future.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]Tub(a) Wrote:

 [Q2]Mike Hedrick 01 Wrote:

 I think the union will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't beat tomorrow's deadline.   I doubt the league's concessions will remain on the table after the season is cancelled.[/Q]
From the article:

"'I know, as do you, that the 'deal' we can make will only get worse for the players if we cancel the season,' Bettman said in the letter. 'Whatever damage we have suffered to date will pale in comparison to the damage from a canceled season and we will certainly not be able to afford what is presently on the table.'"

I think we will probably see a counter-offer from Goodenow at about 48mil. I hope that Bettman isn't serious when he says this is non-negotiable, as they are so close.
[/Q]
I have another thought. What if the players agreed to accept this for this season and next, with the agreement that the NHL and NHLPA will sit down to negotiate the final details for at least 10, 20 hours each month until a new deal is done - i.e. a short term deal to play this season and perhaps next, while they then continue the negotiations to their actual conclusion for the future.[/q]


Bettman probably wouldn't take that. I don't think they will be looking to add any complexity to the negotiations at this point anyways.

[DeltaOne81]

Probably true. I dunno. I bet the players will accept anyway. Its a pretty damn good deal compared to what they were offered just a few days ago. As has been discussed, the no linkage is huge - for accounting reasosn and future fluctuation reasons.

Some quick and dirty math shows me that the average team salary last year was somewhere around $42 million, so while this is a cut, its not a huge huge cut. I wish we had more details about the luxury tax structure and everything eles under this.

This would be good for competitive balance, good for the league, good for fans and pretty damn good for the players - especially compared to a few weeks ago, or even a few days. I'll go to bed tonight pretty sure that they'll be a season. I finally think that Bettman actually sat down and negotiated.

Let's play hockey.

[Josh '99]

If these final negotiations do save the season, do Bettman and Goodenow keep their jobs?  Because it'd be a shame if they did.

[atb9]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

Its a pretty damn good deal compared to what they were offered just a few days ago. As has been discussed, the no linkage is huge - for accounting reasosn and future fluctuation reasons.

[/q]

Hold on, let me duck while I ask this...  

Anyone want to concede that if this goes through, Bettman did an amazing job for the owners?  He low balled the players for months and made them desperate.  It seems to me the owners created this horrific mess by signing players to those $10 million/year contracts (honestly, what were they thinking and what will those contracts do to the salary cap?  Will the players renegotiate?) and Bettman saved them.

A cool little salaries database from USA Today http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/default.aspx

[DeltaOne81]

Yup, that's the database I got my numbers from. If anything is wrong with my math is because I typed something into the calculator wrong and because I rounded each team to the nearest million. Here's a hint for that database. Chose a year and chose total payroll. Do NOT select a team, and you get every team's payroll last year.

Bettman did a good job for the owners, but I don't think that great. Remember that over 3 months ago, the players offered the 24% rollback and a dual-thresholded luxury tax at $40 and $50 millionish - the $50 million was including the 100% luxury tax revenue included after $40 million, so that's really $45 million.

So 3 months ago the owners had a $40 100% luxury tax, $45 million couple hundred percent (or something like that). 3 months later they get a $42.5 million cap. Is that really that much better? I mean its better, but not worth losing 3 months of hockey over. He did a good job, but they could have negotiated a deal very similar to this 3 months ago if he hadn't refused to drop the linkage until yesterday.

Edit: Only 2 years ago (01-02) the average NHL team salary was $36 million. Its a pretty good deal for the players right now. I'll say again, let's play hockey.

[calgARI '07]

Bettman will definitely keep his job.  Goodenow is finished.  The union already appears to be crumbling with different player factions putting forward proposals and commentary.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Bettman will definitely keep his job.  Goodenow is finished.  The union already appears to be crumbling with different player factions putting forward proposals and commentary.[/q]
No one was talking about Bettman losing his job, but way to spread unfounded rumors, Ari.

[Will]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 Bettman will definitely keep his job.  Goodenow is finished.  The union already appears to be crumbling with different player factions putting forward proposals and commentary.[/q]

If this is the case, then good riddance to a former Harvard hockey captain. :-P

[calgARI '07]

TSN reporting that Goodenow has replied with a $49 million cap.  Not gonna happen.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Bettman will definitely keep his job.  Goodenow is finished.  The union already appears to be crumbling with different player factions putting forward proposals and commentary.[/Q]
No one was talking about Bettman losing his job, but way to spread unfounded rumors, Ari.[/q]

What are you talking about?  Did I miss something?  Someone asked or commented regarding the job security of Bettman and Goodenow and I gave my opinion on that.  Not sure how I was spreading unfounded rumours.  Never did I say I heard from a legitimate source or even any source at all that he was going to lose his job so it wasn't a rumour at all.