Lindbergh31

B21, the NFL model would work for the NHL if they had a tv contract like the NFL does. Maybe the NHL should look at the minimum salary cap total for a team should be half of the cap maximum [so if it's a $70 million cap max, then it would $35 million cap minimum instead of the $54 million that it is]. That might help some of the teams.

Hey Howie, I'm not on either side because I feel both sides are being greedy. The players don't want to go down to a 50/50 split because they won't get paid as much. The top end players will always get the big contracts, it's the guys who are getting $3 to $4 million now that will feel the hit. As for the 50/50 split, that's the way it should be, the owners are the ones that put up the capital so the players have a place to play so why should they get less than 50% of the revenue pie. As for the owners, they want a full proof cba to protect themselves from themselves. They have to honour the contracts that were signed quickly before the cba expired. There is one part of the owners' proposal that I liked as a Flyer fan, a limited on the number of years for a contract. This way Holmgren won't be giving out these long-term contracts. Now the owners are waiting for the players to come up with the next proposal. I just find it strange that the players have a guy who is heading their union who is only signed after the 2013 season, so he doesn't give a **** if they sit out a year.

Or we can hope Mrs Bryzgalov tells him that she does not want to come back to Philadelphia, so he's staying in the KHL

I hope Subban does resign with the Habs and stays there. The kid has talent but the question is whether he can tone down his attitude and just stick to playing hockey.

Howie, no matter what happens I can see the owners giving Bettman the golden handshake and sending him on his way once the CBA is signed. If the owners don't get what they want then Bettman will be the fall guy. I can see the lockout will go until at least November and the season will start in January when the NFL is almost done.

Jammer, the problem is the women is going to say she didn't give consent where as the players will say she did. And if it goes to court then everything comes out in the open which means the woman might not want some stuff to come out. The sad part is if she did give consent but afterwards changed her mind and said she didn't, if it goes to court the players lawyers are goign to drag her name throught the mud protraying her as a slut that she has slept with lots of other people. Makes you wonder how she got herself in that situation in the first place. But like you said you wonder why the charges were done in the first place if there was consent. Unfortunately in the old days of junior hockey, incidents like this or players getting caught driving drunk would have never made the media, it would have been kept hush, hush. I guess the league and police forces have changed the way they handle junior players now.

Maybe the league and players should agree that the minimum cap limit should be 50% of what the cap max is, so if the salary cap for teams is $70 million for 2012/13 season then the cap floor should be 50% of that which is $35 million. If teams have a hard time meeting that number then there's something wrong. The whole purpose of the salary cap was to level the playing field for teams to compete. Quite obviously Bettman's vision of having the difference of the cap limit and cap floor be at $16 million isn't working so maybe try something else. Also, why should the players get 57% of the revenue, make it 50/50 and go from there. Maybe adjust the years of entry level deals, lengths of contracts or other things. The league and the players have the ground works regarding the cap, now it's time to make adjustments to improve the salary cap. But if they make adjustments to help improve the chances of more teams making profits and if there are still teams struggling then it's time to get rid of them or relocate them.

I get what you're trying to say but you can't compare the NFL to any of the other sports because of the tv deal that they have. There is no doubt that the NFL is the top dog when it comes to sports leagues, and they might have a hard cap but each team receives a big chunk of paying salaries from the tv deal. Do you really think NHL teams giving 40% of their home gate to the visiting teams is going to help the struggling franchises? If revenue sharing can help the weaker teams then fine but how many years do you do that until enough is enough. I'm sorry but the rest of the league shouldn't have to continue helping a struggling franchise like Phoenix, it's been over 3 years since the league took over that team and they still haven't found a new owner. It's time to either fold it or move it to a city like Quebec where the fans will come out and support the team. What about the Islanders or Florida? There should be a limit on how much revenue sharing a team gets and for how long, but as other posters have stated maybe Buttman should do a better job of finding cities that can support the product before awarding franchises. In the new CBA, what would you consider fair rules for both parties -- 5 year limits on contracts, entry level deals should be 5 years instead of 3[let the young players earn their next contract], yearly cap hit for a player can be no more than 12.5% of the cap [ex. if cap is $70 million, then the most a player's cap hit can be is $8.75 million] instead of the 20% it is now. Maybe the owners should get rid of the guaranteed contracts? It's going to take a miracle for there not to be a lockout next month.

How is revenue sharing successful in other sports, in baseball the big market teams always seem to be in the playoffs same for basketball but the only sport it seems to work is football and a lot has to do with the big tv contract they have which is split between all teams. I don't mind the salary cap but they'll have to lower the cap minimum level to 50% of the cap total instead of only $16 million difference between cap limit and minimum limit. Maybe the most one player's yearly cap hit can be in one year is 10% of the total cap instead of 20%. As for understanding what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise, no offence but why should Flyers fans or any other big market team fans feel bad for fans of small market teams. Is it the Flyers fans fault that other teams have had bad management or ownership, or owners who don't care about the on-ice product, they just care about the bottom line. There's at least 6 teams the NHL should get rid of and make it a 24 team league which would be better for the league. If teams don't have fans who will support the team then maybe they shouldn't have a team in the league and maybe don't put teams in markets where they don't care about hockey in the first place.

Once again Podein, you have a plan for Holmgren to follow. I like the idea of signing Carlo C for one year and letting the younger defensemen play. By signing Carlo C, Lavi might be able to limit the minutes for Timonen so he'll be fresher for the playoffs.

A shorter season might be beneficial to our defense core especially Timonen. It wouldn't surprise me to see the players being locked out until December. This way the owners don't have to pay the salaries, the players don't have to do a rollback on salaries and the fans will be pissed but not as pissed if there was another season loss due to a labour dispute. They've got roughly 30 days to settle this otherwise the owners will lock them out. Hockey won't be missed this fall in the states because NFL football is starting up so fans can watch that instead.

Lol, "thick skulled Flyers fans", that's funny coming from a Habs fan. I'm sure Getzlaf would love to play for a Canadian team but it won't be Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa if anything it would be Edmonton or Vancouver. Bottomline is if Getzlaf doesn't resign with Anaheim, he'll play where he's going to get paid the most. I'm sure if an American based team offered him more money than a Canadian-based team that he's going to say no. Chances are neither him or Perry will see free agency next summer because Anaheim will resign both of them and get rid of Bobby Ryan.

Last year Holmgren decided to move Richards and Carter to clear space to sign Bryzgalov and get youth back, he accomplished that and he refused to trade one of those highly-touted young players to land Shea Weber. So it would be pretty stupid of him to trade one of those players now just for a quick fix on D. As others have pointed out, why not sign an UFA defenseman to a one year deal and see how things shake out during the year. He might find one of our own young defenseman might take the opportunity and step up to the challenge. As a fan, I'm tired of seeing these quick fix trades that end up amounting to nothing in the long run. Stay on the youth course, give them lots of playing time and see what happens. Bryzgalov is actually going have to earn his paycheque this year and who knows what will happen with him.

I'm hoping that's what Holmgren decides to do, but we can strike Enstrom from Winnipeg off the list of UFA defensemen for next summer, he just resigned with Winnipeg for 5 years and $28.75 million. Man, these contracts are getting out of hand again, looks like another lockout or strike this fall. There's not going to be any decent free agent defensemen next summer. Maybe it's time the Flyers give Bourdon more minutes this year and see what he can do.

Not that I'd ever put anything past Holmgren or Snider of doing something stupid [bryzgalov comes to mind] but I hope to hell he doesn't give into Doan's demand. I'd rather see Voracek or even Briere play right wing on Giroux's line. Holmgren should pursue Sykora for a fraction of that cost.

It's in the CBA that when a player signs an offer sheet either the old team that matches the offer or the new team can amend the contract to include a no-trade or no-movement clause as long as it's mutually agreed upon. So you know if Weber ended up in Philly, Holmgren would have definitely given him a NMC. As for the Preds, if they do agree to give him one they probably won't agree to the NMC in the first 6 or 7 years of the contract but maybe after that. So if he becomes disgruntled sometime in the first 7 years of the deal then the Preds can trade him anyway to get the best deal without his approval. After the 7 years have passed then they won't care if he has a no-trade clause or not because the signing bonuses will all of been paid and they would have gotten the prime years out of Weber.

I think the Weber offer sheet was two-fold, first there is no disputing that Weber wanted Suter type money because of the uncertainty of the next CBA when it comes to lengths of contract, front-loading and possibility of the owners wanting the UFA age moved back a couple of years which would have screwed Weber. The second part of it is Holmgren who obviously wanted Weber on the Flyers seen it as a no lose situation because if he didn't end up with Weber than nobody in the eastern conference would end up with him especially if he went to unrestriced free agency next summer. He took a gamble and didn't win, now it's back to business of signing his own RFAs and seeing possible trades elsewhere. The only thing I would say regarding all of this is I would have parted with Brayden Schenn as part of a deal if that's what it took to get Weber but I definitely wouldn't have package both Schenn and Couturier to get Weber, to me Couturier is more untouchable then B.Schenn when it comes to possible trading chips.

Weber has no choice but to say all the right things when asked about Nashville matching the offer sheet. Maybe 4 years from now when things go for a **** in Nashville, he'll be pulling a Rick Nash and asking to be traded but unfortunately for him he won't be able to dictate where he wants to go. He got his money, now he has to shut up and play for the Preds.

You're right the salaries have gotten out of control again in the NHL, Voracek is making less than Kris Versteeg will, so what's that tell you about salaries. I'm sure there will be another lockout and there won't be any hockey until January. So I guess Nashville will be in a deficit shelling out $13 million for Weber's first bonus payment.

I agree, I'd rather have Ryan but as long as the cost isn't too great. Never a boring summer when it comes to Holmgren.

That's what I'm afraid of since both Holmgren and Snider are competitive guys and want to win now, Holmgren is capable of doing a reaction move to not getting Weber and the Rangers getting Nash. But if he wasn't willing to give up Schenn or Couturier for Weber then I can't see him giving either one of those players up for Bobby Ryan or anybody else (well lets hope he won't). The defense isn't bad considering they don't have a marquee defenseman like Weber or Pronger (who sounds like is done). Let Bourdon develop more, and if they can sign Doan to a reasonable contract then go for it otherwise resign Voracek and try him out on Giroux's wing, he might work out well playing with Giroux.

I was reading comments on tsn.ca and one of the comments stated that he has a no-trade clause that kicks in after next year, if that is true, if Weber wanted to be traded could he pull a Rick Nash on Nashville and limit the number of teams he'd be willing to go to. And if so, would he have Philly on that list. It will be interesting to see how Weber plays next year and years to come. I'm sure fans from opposing teams are tickled pink that the Predators matched the offer sheet and "screwed" the Flyers at the same time. I give Holmgren credit for having the balls to make the offer sheet and now I hope he doesn't do something stupid and overpay for Bobby Ryan because the Rangers got Nash.

But since the NHL season runs from July 1st to June 30th the following year, it wouldn't violate the single season max salary. Weber would get $13 million bonus this wednesday the 25th which would be part of his max salary for 2012/13 season and $13 million on July 1st next year which would be considered part of his 2013/14 max salary. That's where the NHL might have to change the wording regarding these types of bonuses, maybe it will have to state that the day you sign the contract, your bonus portion of the contract can't be paid for another 365 days from the day you sign.

The longer this thing takes the more I think a don't match offer sheet and trade with Nashville in a couple of days to get some of the picks back is the way it's going go down. If you look back at the Edmonton offer sheet to Tomas Vanek in '07, Buffalo took all of half a day to match the offer sheet. And they had already lost Briere and Drury and the franchise survived going forward. Poile and Nashville ownership are taking their time to decide if they'll match it, which leads me to think that they're trying to find a way to save face with their fans when they don't match it. That's where Holmgren comes into play, since Poile and him have had a good trading history, it wouldn't surprise me to see the package you posted go through. The Flyers get 3 of their 1st round picks back and Nashville gets NHL ready players and the NHL brass keeps their nose out of the whole situation because you can guarantee Buttman made a call Snider after the offer sheet became official to ask him what the hell he was doing since Buttman is in CBA talks with the players union. I guess we'll find out in 2 days and 10 hours.

Considering Poile and Holmgren have a good trade history together, what's to say if Poile said to Holmgren to give Weber an offer sheet and structure the offer in a way that the Nashville couldn't match but looks good in the eyes of the fans. If you read some of the comments on the fan forums, tsn and yahoo, some preds fans are hoping Poile doesn't match the offer. Nashville has a lot of young defensemen in their system so whether they lose Weber this season or next year for nothing. If Weber really wanted to stay in Nashville he would have signed a long term deal by now and Poile wouldn't have been shopping him around this summer. I think Weber told Poile he wasn't going to resign long-term in Nashville, so Poile knew that Philly needed a number one defenseman and weren't going to gut their team to trade for Weber so they tried to make a deal but couldn't, so an offer sheet was a last resort. This way it controls to a certain extent as not having Weber end up in Detroit or another western team.