Truth & Rumors > NHL

Parise accusing owners of bad-faith signings

Views
3272
Comments
52

08:20 AM ET 10.19 | Zach Parise, who with his new deal stands front and center in the labor dispute, continues to be outspoken on the matter. "It's confusing. All these owners, maybe this was their plan the whole time, to sign all these guys to these big contracts knowing full well they're not going to pay the value of them. To me, that doesn't sound like good-faith negotiating, yet they keep preaching it." ... "You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, 'We don't want to pay these contracts,'" Parise said. "Maybe that's how they conduct business. That just doesn't seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, 'You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?'"

Star Tribune

Zach Parise, Getty Images Zach Parise, Getty Images
October 19, 2012  08:36 AM ET

"What if us players signed a deal and said, 'You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?'"

Hmmm, seems to me that athletes do that all the time. Its usually called a "holdout".

Got any better arguments?

October 19, 2012  08:53 AM ET

Shutup Zach. We all remember your big s hit eating grin when you signed.

October 19, 2012  08:56 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

"What if us players signed a deal and said, 'You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?'"Hmmm, seems to me that athletes do that all the time. Its usually called a "holdout".Got any better arguments?

+1

October 19, 2012  09:35 AM ET

Eff em all.

October 19, 2012  09:36 AM ET

Wow, Parise MUST be the sharpest tool in the shed. Does he SERIOUSLY think he is worth the 24 million he will be getting paid this season? My god, of course the owners handed out sill money this off-season with the idea in mind that there would be a roll back...I think everybody knew that when everyone was getting offered drunken sailor type money.

October 19, 2012  09:59 AM ET

Wow, a lot of bitterness over Parise's contract. I'm a Bruins fan and I thought it was a terrible signing, but why is everyone riding him for wanting the team that signed him to... pay it? The rollbacks from last lockout were a travesty.

What's the point of signing a contract (which is supposed to be legally binding) if the owners can **** out of the money they promised? Lower the cap if you have to, but signed contracts should be honored.

When Yashin held out, the courts declared that a year holding out it a year owed to your team, i.e. if you hold out with 5 years left on your deal for a season, you still owe the team 5 years. So, why don't the owners have to hold up THEIR end of the contract?

October 19, 2012  10:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Shutup Zach. We all remember your big s hit eating grin when you signed.

+500

Comment #8 has been removed
Comment #9 has been removed
October 19, 2012  10:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

What are you talking about? The players percentage of the HRR rose to 57% after the last lockout and no contracts were rolled back. The current offer on the table also includes specific language concerning rollbacks (there will be none) and the knuckleheads like Parise still are sent out by Fehr to piss and moan about their lot in life.

The players were getting more than 57% as ridiculous as that seems but GM's like New Democrat governments they really don't understand fiscal responsibility

October 19, 2012  10:45 AM ET

I understand your frustration guys; but take a step back. Yes Parise spoke but he is one of many in the NHLPA. It just so happens he will be one of the highest paid as well; but Fehr is bargaining for all the players including the schlums making league minimum. I agree with all points mentioned about millionaires whining; but a contract is a contract, if your going to sign contracts they need to be honored otherwise whats the point of the legal document to begin with? In that case Ovi's envelope will only have $200 bucks on payday if he doesnt score 7 goals this week?

I am not trying to offend you, but you guys gotta look at the big picture of all the union boys. Some are millionaires signed for their life :), but those maybe the select few. There are more "marginal" type players I bet than those elite few, whose lively hood depends on a decent few years then joining the ranks of us and working day jobs. Those are the guys Fehr has to look out for as well when he bargains.

Fehr laid out not 1 or 2; but 3 very good proposals to the owners; but they dont want to listen. Read the presser by the NHLPA...they are bargaining and working. Sorry walking in saying this is the LAST, BEST, GREATEST offer from the owners is not bargaining that is bullying.

Happy Friday.

October 19, 2012  10:49 AM ET

Sorry. I will bet you guys Rick Nash, players win this one.

Fehr is using the statistics the owners quoted and laying out logical mathematical solutions.....the more this goes on, the more the owners/Buttgoblin look stupid.

Again, I am not looking at this from the rich, dumb hockey jock perspective.....I'm thinking about the players who are done and gone in 5

October 19, 2012  10:57 AM ET

Those who are done and gone in 5 years or less should be screaming from the ramparts to get back to playing.

They are losing more than they will ever possibly gain by not playing right now.

October 19, 2012  11:29 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Those who are done and gone in 5 years or less should be screaming from the ramparts to get back to playing.They are losing more than they will ever possibly gain by not playing right now.

interesting......

so no collective bargaining

October 19, 2012  11:35 AM ET

Some of you may view Parise as a mercenary looking for the top dollar, but he only signed that contract to illustrate the owners' double-standard. He surely would have never done that for himself. He jumped on that contract much like someone would jump on a grenade to save his brothers in arms. He's a matyr, he's a prince.

October 19, 2012  11:43 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

What are you talking about? The players percentage of the HRR rose to 57% after the last lockout and no contracts were rolled back.

Why do people keep saying that, what am I missing? From my understanding their salaries were rolled back 24%.

October 19, 2012  11:49 AM ET

this made my day.

October 19, 2012  12:00 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Wow, a lot of bitterness over Parise's contract.

Not really. Its just that:

(1) I think that contract is a prime example of why the owners dont have a leg to stand on in these negotiations, they put bullets in their own heads and then cry <wah, wah, wah> all the way home about how its the players fault that they arent making money.

(2) in sports, lock-outs or strikes are basically just PR wars. Is it really smart to have the guy who just signed pretty much the most bloated and ridiculous contract of the off-season complain about the unfairness of the contract? I dont think so. Most casual fans dont have any knowledge of the fiscal issues, nor the legal structure of the labour deal and the labour negotiations. Sending out a second-teir elite player that is scheduled to make 24 million dollars this season to complain about the unfairness of a roll-back is BEYOND stupid.

Unlike Kill Don Fehr, I try to call it like I see it, which means that I dont stick to one side. In the general scope of the labour issues I think that the players took a proper stance and were right to act as they did. Bettman did a really good job with his offer because the timing was right and it played well to the media. I think itd be a shame for the NHLPA to completely lose steam now because of guys like Parise acting like spoiled brats (whether he is right or wrong, I do happen to agree with him). the NHLPA should be seen as serving all players, not just the stars, and I am afraid that by only bringing superstars to the negotiating table and by sticking to issues like contract length and percentage points that the contracts can taper, they only seem to be concerned about guys like Parise. Truthfully, those issue will never matter to at least 70% of players in the league...so why make it the sticking point?

October 19, 2012  12:16 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

interesting......so no collective bargaining

All I know is I have been on strike and locked out before.

Once for 3 months. It darn near crippled us financially.

And collective bargaining is about the collective and the low rent guys are part of that collective.

So if this is their one shot at large shekels and afterwards they will be working like the rest of us Chets, they should want to be back and working ASAP for that relatively huge coin. Because every day without pay is a day they won't get back.

One man, one vote. Their votes have as much weight as Crosby's does.

 
October 19, 2012  12:17 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Why do people keep saying that, what am I missing? From my understanding their salaries were rolled back 24%.

I was pretty sure there was some form of rollback too.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Vogel coaching for his job
    Views
    1063
    Comments
    787
  2. 2
    Cashman scratching his head over Pineda
    Views
    2432
    Comments
    745
  3. 3
    Foligno called his OT game-winner
    Views
    1324
    Comments
    337
  4. 4
    Intrigue builds around Zetterberg
    Views
    924
    Comments
    80
  5. 5
    NFL wary of Seahawks in prime time
    Views
    12843
    Comments
    74

SI.com

SI Photos