Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Thursday’s spectacle was just nuts, n-v-t-s nuts

Sportsnet's Michael Grange and the CBC's Elliotte Friedman posted late-night CBA negotiating insanity gems, but Yahoo Sports' Nicholas J. Cotsonika has taken the cake and then some for encapsulating Thursday's episode of Proskauer-Rose Shore in two simple, eloquent Tweets:

If you missed the optimism of Fehr's presser and the voicemail from hell (Bill Daly) yielding, "Rut roh, Raggy" revision, Gary Bettman and Daly's Emo Supremo rant-rave-shake-and-squirm performance and the "deep inside" vs. "Ron Hainsey says any Fehr was done deal undone" Twitter war, Cotsonika's delivered all you really need to know (but go and read Grange and Friedman anyway).

Some situations "jump the shark." This one seems to have morphed into, "Ride in the shark's jaws, whee!"

(and for those of you who don't know what "n-v-t-s nuts" is, look up History of the World, Part 1 somewhere)

Update: And here's Cotsonika's take. At least we all get to take the weekend off from CBA talk before the insanity begins anew...Maybe?

Filed in: | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

gusoline's avatar

What I would love to see is a comparison of a) the previous CBA, b) the owners current proposal (I suppose before they took it away), and c) the players latest proposal.  I’d like to see the progress made. Though progress may not be the correct word since it all means nothing until the contract is signed.

I’d also like to understand why the owners who originally were so concerned about the HRR split now seem to be demanding contract issues that really they don’t need.  Seriously, if you don’t want to sign a contract longer than 5 years - don’t sign it. 

While I think there should be a limit on variability to avoid the contracts that are clearly designed to circumvent the cap, I think the players proposal allows more flexibility to both GMs and players.  If the owners had their way, any idiot could be a GM as each contract will be the exact same thing. Maybe that is their goal?  Reduce non-player salaries by reducing the need for skilled GMs?

Posted by gusoline on 12/07/12 at 08:15 AM ET

gusoline's avatar

From the NYT article about the negotiations:

Daly said that five-year contract limits were of utmost importance to the league, “the hill we will die on.”

OK, so give them the 5 year contract length and go back to the original revenue share from the old CBA or even get rid of the cap. 

People are complaining that the players are constantly changing their demands?  What about this?  “the hill we will die on.”?  Really? 

In a serious negotiation, nothing is set in stone until it is all set in stone and for the owners to say/act otherwise is disingenuous at best.  So please spare me the “the union keeps changing things” rant.  Especially since the owners are the ones who keep setting new flags in the ground after each concession they win.

Posted by gusoline on 12/07/12 at 08:44 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Fehr BS PC was like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, When you have pissed off a Owner who won an award from the AFL-CIO you have pretty much Jumped the Shark.

Only thing we need now is Colonel Samuel Trautman tell Fehr “It;‘s Over Donny”

Posted by Evilpens on 12/07/12 at 10:19 AM ET

Avatar

The funniest part of it all is that cap circumventing deals hurt other players the most. It is a way for a player to get paid more than their share against the cap. Why the owners care about this is beyond reason. The players get a fixed amount of HRR, the owners won 7% of that right off the bat with where they are in the negotiations. Why do you care if a player chooses to play in Columbus or Montreal after five years since you have no plans on helping either market afford the player?

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/07/12 at 11:08 AM ET

LivinLaVidaLockout's avatar

The funniest part of it all is that cap circumventing deals hurt other players the most. It is a way for a player to get paid more than their share against the cap. Why the owners care about this is beyond reason.
Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/07/12 at 10:08 AM ET

Two reasons the owners care about cap-circumventing deals (after they’ve signed the players they desired to gain a competitive advantage):
1. A player with a $5M cap hit but earning an annual salary this year of $10M costs owners $10M in real money this year.  As an extreme example, if all of your players are signed to long-term deals where their cap hit is half the value of their actual salary, that team has found a way to spend $146M this year while their salary cap is still $73M.  Of course, this probably means everyone on the current roster will be earning $500k a decade from now and the team’s salary would only be $12M in 2022, but the owners don’t seem to think they can help themselves from signing players to these deals.

2. A player with a long-term salary is a greater risk to his team financially and health-wise.  It’s much easier to give an expectation regarding “Johan Franzen will continue playing at a level near what he’s playing assuming nothing extreme happens for the next 2 years” as opposed to the next 8 years.

Posted by LivinLaVidaLockout on 12/07/12 at 11:27 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image