Leaderboard

You guys are all getting pissed off for nothing. On December 21st none of this will matter. esteef

True, but thats not the case here. The players are the only ones that will be missing paychecks. The owners are billionaires whose main income sources come from elsewhere. Some owners will actually be saving money from the lockout. The owners will keep the players locked out until the players cave. And unfortunately without their main, or in most cases, only source of income, the players will do just that, cave.

If we're lucky, he might be the next Jason Woolley.

The Wings had a goalie that was better than the defense? Has there ever been besides Sawchuk? I keep trying to think of a goalie that kept the Wings alive through out a entire season. Like a elite goalie type. I'm drawing blanks besides Dom in 02', but he had great d-man in front of him. I'm thinking that's going to be the case this year. Our goalie depth is a greater strength than our d-man depth and Jimmy H. is going to shine.

We must be thinking about two different Sergei Fedorovs because the one I'm thinking of had ten 30+ goal seasons, two 100+ point seasons, a Hart Trophy, and three Stanley Cups. Datsyuk is slicker, not better.

yeah...I still think we should of thrown like 200-250 mil at suter.

f*** this, i want kindl to play regularly. the guy needs time. now he will just ride pine.

How many times are you going to copy and paste this into a post? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just tired of reading the same paragraph.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't expect either side to show any special consideration for fans. At least not in financial discussions. I expect them to produce a quality product at a price the market can bear. That's all. It's not like any of us will be hurt in any meaningful way if there's an extended lockout (barring those few who work in an NHL-dependent industry). So we might need to find something new to entertain us for a while. If that's the worst of our problems, we should just call ourselves lucky and be done with it. Not to say I won't be upset if we lose some or all of the season, I just don't expect any concessions from either side for our benefit. I just want them to negotiate in good faith, and make fair offers. I've seen nothing to suggest the league is actually doing so, while the numbers seem to fall in line with what the players want. Of course, none of us has all the information so it's really pointless to keep that debate going. Regarding the timing of negotiations: there's a reason almost all collective bargaining is done at the last minute. If there is some middle ground where both sides can agree, negotiation is really only a matter of hours. If there isn't, then you could negotiate non-stop for years and never get anywhere but more firmly entrenched. If there's no middle-ground, there has to be some external influence, such as a lockout (or sometimes just the threat of an impending one), to start changing people's minds. Case in point: "The enforcer debate". It's been raging for what? 15 years? Pretty much no one on either side has changed their opinion at all. We all just keep repeating the same things every time the topic comes up. There's no reason for any of us to concede anything. But if someone were to come here tomorrow and say none of us will collect a paycheck until we reach a consensus... then you'd see some minds change. But it's been a heated debate for a long time, and some people are just stubbornly dug in to their position. Fighting more out of a determination to win than any real consideration of the topic Had CBA negotiations started 6 months ago, we'd very likely be in an even worse spot now. One thing that I've been thinking is just how much of this all comes back to the low-revenue teams. The league want to cut spending on players, not because the league as a whole can't afford it, but because some teams can't afford it (and even more teams can't control themselves). The players don't want to give up what they've been contractually promised (because the league as a whole can afford it) and want the rich teams to do more to support the poor teams. So the rich teams don't want to support the poor teams. The players don't want to support the poor teams. The fans don't want to support the poor teams (or they wouldn't be so poor). Who does want these teams? Why is no one other than a fairly small number of fans talking about getting rid of them? Is it fair to force pay cuts on the players while the Leafs could maybe see $100M+ in profit, and a handful more could see $30-50M, just so a few s***ty teams that apparently no one gives a damn about can also make a few million? On the other hand, is it fair to ask the rich teams to support the poor ones when they don't really benefit from doing so? The PA benefits from the extra jobs those teams create, but they'd benefit just as much if those teams were in better markets, and the players have no say in team location. Revenue disparity is really the biggest issue in the league, but it seems everyone accepts it as a handicap to be worked around rather than an infection to be cured. There's a few ways to cure it: Get rid of the cap system. Simplest solution, and I'm sure the players would love it. Each team free to spend as much or as little as they want. Players aren't guaranteed any percentage, and the market alone determines player salaries. There's no good reason that all 30 teams couldn't make a profit in this system. Owners are dead set against it, to the point that it's almost a joke to even suggest it. They like to say it's for "parity", but really it's because the NHL if full of owners who have proven they can't control themselves. MLB, for all intents, has no cap. But they do have smarter owners. Most MLB teams make a profit, and there's some decent parity. The Yankees spend over $140M more in player salary than the A's but have a worse record. Yeah, the spending gap is higher than most NHL teams' total revenue. Spending has almost zero correlation to standing. But the NHL has too many stupid owners, so it wouldn't work. Too bad. Widen the cap-floor separation. Similar to the above. Let the poorer teams spend less, and the rich teams more. Leave the mid-point/player's share alone. The rich teams make up for the poor teams, but unlike profit sharing the rich teams see a tangible benefit. Player's still get what they consider a fair cut, and again no reason that every team couldn't make a profit. You can also do this indirectly via soft cap/tax system, trading cap space, etc. Unfortunately, it has basically the same problems as removing the cap. Owners would need to control themselves, which they've proven they can't do. Move a few teams. Bit more complicated, but maybe easier than replacing half the owners. Phoenix and the Islanders have to go. They're failures just like Atlanta was. I'd say Carolina too. Columbus, Florida, and Nashville possible alternates. Maybe even St.Louis. Looking at the revenue numbers, the Toronto market needs another team, and could probably support a third. Montreal could likely support another, and/or put a team back in Quebec. Vancouver could maybe support a second, and even a tiny Canadian market like Saskatoon might do better than some current NHL cities (though I don't think that it should be tried). Point is, you could possibly put six more teams in Canada and the league would be better for it. A few US markets like Seattle, KC, Salt Lake, Vegas, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis might be worth a look. Move a few teams, improve the revenue gap, stagnate cap growth rather than rollback salaries, and the PA likely buys in for a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Owners (other than the few who would relocate, or face new market competition) shouldn't care where the other teams are. But it won't even be discussed because ??? doesn't want teams to move...

I think that making sure that seasons starts is not the main goal of either side. The goal is to make sure that over the lifetime of the next CBA it would be most beneficial to that particular side. From that point of view each side is just following their agenda. Fans and people whose paychecks depend on NHL games (apart from players) are interested in not losing any games but they are not part of the process.

It is clear that owners want to have more than 50% of revenues while players are not willing accept less than 50%. If positions cannot be reconciled it does not matter when you start negotiating.

Can this ****** dwarf 3 lockout in a row - yes I said it - is unacceptable can his ass once and for all. The league is healthy as its ever been this should have been the easiest CBA negotiations ever!

I pretty clearly spelled out why extra time doesn't matter. But I'll try and put it more simply. We're three days away and both sides are deadlocked. Yet you're saying starting 6 months earlier would've somehow helped? As if back then with little real threat of losing a season, they somehow would've started making concessions? I didn't say it was a bad or good move. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Lack of time is not the issue. And you say no offense, then call me a fool? I'm tired of the insults built into your arguments and the constant misrepresentations of what I've said. Your mind seems made up and you're constantly responding to some idea of what you think I believe, instead of what I've actually stated I believe. Carry on your merry way, but I'm done discussing this with you.

Although, prick is not a term used in negotiation, I'd disagree NHL is more pricks. I don't see any reasonable function of PA in todays world. Who is Don Fehr? Does he play professional hockey? Or does he run a bussness, or manage proffesional hockey organization? Oh, yes he protects players rights as a group. Not to mentioned an army of agents and lawyers who are also protecting rights, our poor players are left unprotected. I'm crying... Lets tell Parise hisf****** rights were brutally violated by Minissota Wild... And that poor guy Weber, he's left rotten under the sun by Nashvill Predators... I'm still crying...

Of course it is about timeline. I can reasonably assume, NHL offer would be the same in January, can't I? Then, instead of having 4-5 weeks to ping-pong offers, they would have 30+ weeks. However, PA decided to play blitz.

I think we will be okay to everyones' surprise. Why do I say this? Because the Red Wings best move of the summer has been bringing in Tom Renney as assistant coach for the Defense. He has a lot of experience working with younger players, and has a very good defensive approach to his system. When he was the coach of the NY Rangers, they played a very solid defense system, and had an outstanding penalty killing system. There were several times, back in 2008, when Mike Babcock praised Renney and his system and sometimes even had the boys watch tapes to help them out. So I think Renney will be a huge help. By no means am I saying that we will be just as good as years past, but we won't be as bad as everyone seems to think. I mean honestly, look at Jersey. Our dmen are way better then theirs, and they just came within 2 wins of a Stanley Cup. How about s***sburg? Their D is not that strong. Also, as someone said, we play a good TEAM defensive system. I guess we will have to wait and see, but I expect Babs and Renney will get things together.