Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PuckProphet

Cba Discussion

1,515 posts in this topic

Maybe I'll celebrate after the puck is dropped.

Agreed, I'll celebrate after the puck is dropped.....for the start of the 2013/14 season! Already have a buyer for my pair of tickets for opening night! Only 23 or 24 more games to sell to get my money back!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 7, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

Phil. If u got good seats. I might have to PM U sometime. I would live to make the 4 hour drive and catch a Hawks game!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 7, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

Phil. If u got good seats. I might have to PM U sometime. I would live to make the 4 hour drive and catch a Hawks game!!!

2 seats on the 300 level behind where the Hawks shoot twice.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 7, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

2 seats on the 300 level behind where the Hawks shoot twice.

Cool Phil. Now that hockey is back. I'm gonna talk to a few buddies about a trip.

Need to see the schedule first!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 7, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

Cool Phil. Now that hockey is back. I'm gonna talk to a few buddies about a trip.

Need to see the schedule first!!!

PM me when you decide! I'm going to do everything I can to get rid of them asap. Not buying playoffs this year.

0

Share this post


Link to post

i heard they are offering refunds if you dont want the tickets....(do not want to get Phil crazy but some guys got there money back plus held on to the rights before the lockout started) I heard they are planning a season ticket holder dinner ... i heard they are planning a mini winterfest .... All of it sounds good!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you just put Wis on your ignore list already? We get it, you don't like him.

i am waiting for Stosh to tell him to go get his shinebox ........

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to piss off the Wirtz family? You know how his dad hated the fact the Chicago Wolves were brought into the minor league hockey and so close to the area (and how he fired Wayne Messmer for even being associated with them)? And how much we as Hawk fans hate the fact the Wolves are now the minor league affiliate of the hated Vancouver Canucks? If we are going to spend any money on merchandise buy a Chicago Wolves sweater, hat, anything with Wolves on it, then when you attend the game Wirtz can see the support for the Wolves/Canucks in Chicago.

I hate the Canucks, used to follow the Wolves before the Canucks became the affiliated, but am considering spending some money on Wolves stuff to wear to Hawk games if I have to go as a STH.

So instead of supporting the hawk's, you'll be pumping money through the vancouver canuck pipeline - one of the few markets with a heavier following than us? If you want to avoid handing money directly over to the hawks, and dont mind going through an AHL intermediary, support the Hogs.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So instead of supporting the hawk's, you'll be pumping money through the vancouver canuck pipeline - one of the few markets with a heavier following than us? If you want to avoid handing money directly over to the hawks, and dont mind going through an AHL intermediary, support the Hogs.

Yeah, that was a pretty silly suggestion.

Best thing to do is just stay home. Being a Blackhawks fan is voluntary.

If they aren't making you happy, find something that does. It's silly to pay money just to throw a temper tantrum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 8, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

Brokers will buy the tickets If one is pissed or broke sell em But hey you are young 8 years of smooth sailing ahead

Yep - currently buying everything at 50% off. If anyone wants to dump I'm buying.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So instead of supporting the hawk's, you'll be pumping money through the vancouver canuck pipeline - one of the few markets with a heavier following than us? If you want to avoid handing money directly over to the hawks, and dont mind going through an AHL intermediary, support the Hogs.

My whole point is not putting money into the hawks or hogs, their minor league affiliate. But it's a moot point, I've started getting rid of my tickets....4 games taken so far, just 20 or 21 to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was a pretty silly suggestion.

Best thing to do is just stay home. Being a Blackhawks fan is voluntary.

If they aren't making you happy, find something that does. It's silly to pay money just to throw a temper tantrum.

I'll do what I want with my money, you do what you want, and mind your own business when it comes to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i heard they are offering refunds if you dont want the tickets....(do not want to get Phil crazy but some guys got there money back plus held on to the rights before the lockout started) I heard they are planning a season ticket holder dinner ... i heard they are planning a mini winterfest .... All of it sounds good!

refund not an option.....applying my money to the 2013/14 season not an option. 4 games of my plan already spoken for, only 20 or 21 to go. No interest in a shortened season, but likely will be back for a full 82 game schedule for September. Just no playoff tickets this year, no more concession money from me, no conventions, nothing that costs above the cost of the season tickets from this point on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 9, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

Here's to hoping you scumbags get Columbus.

so much for the trickle down theory

0

Share this post


Link to post

Additional interesting elements in the new CBA, per Lebrun, of ESPN:

RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES

This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example.

But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that.

Here are the main parameters of the rule: A club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll in which the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades.

For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question.

THE LUONGO RULE

This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals"). However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.

In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.

To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.

To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.

And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21219/trades-cheat-deals-and-more-cba-details

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional interesting elements in the new CBA, per Lebrun, of ESPN:

RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES

This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example.

But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that.

Here are the main parameters of the rule: A club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll in which the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades.

For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question.

THE LUONGO RULE

This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals"). However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.

In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.

To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.

To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.

And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.

http://espn.go.com/b...ore-cba-details

Now what if a player gets injured to a point where it forces retirement? We don't know that he intentionally signed a shady deal to circumvent the cap, and the team shouldn't be penalized for it. Say Hossa for example couldn't play anymore after that Torres hit. We know he has at least a few more good years in him had he continued at the pace he was going. Anyway, I hope there is a provision for something like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional interesting elements in the new CBA, per Lebrun, of ESPN:

RETAINING SALARY IN TRADES

This was Brian Burke’s baby, an idea he pushed for years at GM meetings. Under the old CBA, teams could not absorb any part of a salary from a player they were trading -- unlike baseball for example.

But in this new agreement, teams will be able to do that.

Here are the main parameters of the rule: A club cannot absorb more than 50 percent of the players’ annual cap hit/salary in any trade. Any NHL club can only have up to three contracts on their payroll in which the contract was traded away under the retaining salary proviso. Also, only up to 15 percent of your upper limit cap amount can be used up by the money you have retained in trades.

For example, let’s say the Maple Leafs want to trade little-used blueliner Mike Komisarek and his $4.5-million cap hit ($3.5 million salary this year) to the New York Islanders (hypothetically). The Leafs could retain half the cap hit -- $2.25 million -- and half the salary -- $1.75 million -- in order to facilitate the deal. The Islanders would pay him the other half. This should facilitate more trades around the league, no question.

THE LUONGO RULE

This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals"). However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.

In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.

To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.

To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.

And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.

http://espn.go.com/b...ore-cba-details

Yuk...it's gonna make it very tough to keep track of stuff like the latter. I can see it with the 7/8 year max and 35% max variation as a measures to discourage future such deals but they gotta honor past contracts agreed to without adding new conditions after the fact.

Why all this complication when all they had to do was make the cap hit $ for $ per year? (no hit averaging.) A much simpler, more effective and less restrictive way to accomplish closing that loop hole.

What's happened to "grandfathering." Without it, it's a little like a store coming back to you and saying "you have to pay more for the Items you bought a few years ago because we've now changed the rules." If the changes were in place at the time... or even if you knew these changes were coming ...you might never have made the purchase in the first place.

It seems a violation of the integrity of a contact signed in good faith to add new conditions years into it. (of course credit card co.'s get away with it (increasing the cost of old purchases) by upping your interest rates)...an old complaint of which legislation against it was shot down by the political leverage of CC Co.s. Gotta be some "grandfathering" here somehow. Cap Space is a commodity (just like $) They were talking about allowing teams to trade me (cap space) without an attached player... did that die on the vine?

"Hey you know that beer you bought last week?...well... you owe another $? cause we changed its price retro-actively." Most would say: "go ahead ...repossess it!"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the compliance buyouts, the ability to retain salary in trades, and some teams needing to shed salary to get to the lower cap for next year, this year's trade deadline and the summer UFA signings and trading should be more of the frenzy we always hear of and usually don't materialize. While I'm kind of meh for this season, I'm really looking forward to 2013-14 and see the shakeups and roster changes!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hell of a crazy script But hell yea whats done is done ...Same experience as before the lockout Game on!

They should have made a movie out of it. Who would play Gary Bettman?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biscuit, I also have many friends that I met through the past 4 seasons and see only at the games. But regardless I'm not interested at all to watch the games. The problem is that trying to get rid of 2 tickets when so many non-season ticket holders are pissed off will likely be next to impossible and I will have no choice but to attend some, if not all the games. If I do go, no Hawk sweaters, no hats, and I'm thinking of having a shirt printed up saying the following:

I'm Only Here Because I Couldn't Get A Refund!

thats a bad situation

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have made a movie out of it. Who would play Gary Bettman?

Devito.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Biscuit_In_The_Basket, January 9, 2013 - No reason given · Report post

My whole point is not putting money into the hawks or hogs, their minor league affiliate. But it's a moot point, I've started getting rid of my tickets....4 games taken so far, just 20 or 21 to go.

I have a feeling we're going to be updated everytime this bozo sells a game. I don't buy this for a minute - I think it's all for show including his post about attending games and wearing a t-shirt that he is only there cause he couldn't get a refund. It makes for nice saber-rattling behind a computer screen but isn't reality. If he really were that ticked off he would stop posting on the board and spending time on hockey discussions. I remember the same game played out last year with this guy saying he was leaving the board due to you guessed it 'me' and created a whole thread about it. Did he actually leave? Of course not - it was just internet banter. The same thing is playing out again here - tell everyone how much you are angry and will boycott then do the opposite.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted · Hidden by HawkMod, January 8, 2013 - not needed · Report post

I have a feeling we're going to be updated everytime this bozo sells a game. I don't buy this for a minute - I think it's all for show including his post about attending games and wearing a t-shirt that he is only there cause he couldn't get a refund. It makes for nice saber-rattling behind a computer screen but isn't reality. If he really were that ticked off he would stop posting on the board and spending time on hockey discussions. I remember the same game played out last year with this guy saying he was leaving the board due to you guessed it 'me' and created a whole thread about it. Did he actually leave? Of course not - it was just internet banter. The same thing is playing out again here - tell everyone how much you are angry and will boycott then do the opposite.

You suck. Bozo.

1

Share this post


Link to post