Leaderboard

This kid is slowly turning into the LGW whipping boy, but I think he's the most underrated player on the team, especially his defensive play. I'm happy to see him stick around.

And they can't support their family with let's say a paycheck worth of the league minimum ($500K a year)? Hell even I can support my family with 10% of that! I can understand it is a principle matter, but the players should never play the victim card. They should be lucky they're getting paid multiple millions a year just to play some game where even when they play horrible all season they still get paid fath checks. There are doctors/surgeons out there who save people's lifes every day (sometimes they have to be in surgery 18 hours straight!)where they can not make a mistake without costing someone's life and they do not get paid like $6M a year! Not saying that I am siding with the owners...a lockout is at fault of all parties involved!

Has anyone in this thread put together a reasonable argument for the owner's side without resorting to a straw man or some other fallacy? Everyone is just accepting that players need to reduce their share of revenue (including myself), but why exactly? The most common argument I hear involves comparing it to the NFL or NBA, which has little relevance to hockey. Yes yes, the Forbes report where it lists 18 teams as having negative income. Forbes lists the Coyotes as dead last with -24.4 mill operating income. Their payroll was a very reasonable $55 million last season. They made it to the conference finals. I'm pretty sure the Forbes report was before the playoffs but assuming they didn't have a positive income (using the Forbes standard) if a team can't turn a profit with that payroll and a conference finals finish, the problem is not players salaries. Obviously that's just one example, but my point is it's not as easy as saying they need this reduction because the league is in trouble. This isn't 2004. The NHL overall is profitable. With a combination of contract limits, revenue sharing AND a reasonable reduction in player salary, the league could help the smaller markets succeed. Or at least give them the opportunity to succeed if they have any idea what they're doing. Instead they are asking for massive reduction in player's salary, with little compelling evidence as to why exactly other than they're willing to hold hockey hostage until the players cave. And at the same time they want to re-define what even constitutes the Hockey Related Revenue before they even give players less of it. As Fehr pointed out, what's in it for the players in any of these offers from the NHL? The concessions the union is mainly asking for is a less insane reduction from the league. They're not asking to get rid of the cap. The league is so fixated on ratcheting down players salary that it seems like they haven't even discussed things like contract length. And that's where I think the union can do some giving. Length of CBA. Length of player contracts. Instead, Bettman uses the nuclear option again and we as fans lose more hockey.

It is really simple. If the owners don't want to spend as much as they do they shouldn't offer it in the first place, now they want to renege on their offers and are locking the players and us (where the revenues come from) for their own stupidity. There is a lot more I would like to say about your reply but I will bite my tongue

Terrific signing IMO. A great stopgap until more opens up next year. Solid dman, will eat up some ice time... Good move for you guys

I realize that this will never happen, but wouldn't it be a lovely thing if there were a dozen or so billionaires who happened to love hockey and started some teams just for this one season? Imagine that any interested player could submit his name, and the billionaires could just have a fantasy draft, play a 20 or 30 game schedule, put the videos up online for our enjoyment, and at the end have the guys play for something silly like a jockstrap and a jelly doughnut. The billionaires could pay them whatever they agree on, and charge admission to cover travel costs. It would be just for fun and kind of a sticking out of the tongue at the league.

Here are couple other things players can offer to the league. - Make the cap number to equal actual salary (kill the front-loaded contracts) - Remove players option for the 5% cap inflator

Firm. Like, muscular shoulders and ... wait was that my out-loud voice? modern or antique?

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

I love this signing if only because it means I'll get to say his name a lot more often this season. Go on, say it with me now: Carlo Colaiacovo, Carlo Colaiacovo, Carlo Colaiacovo. Fun, isn't it?

The owners are not allowed to publicly speak on the matter, but I'm with you on Illitch's vote. The owners of all 30 teams are looking at gaining millions of dollars in revenue by saying "lockout" instead of "start the season". As much as we like to think some of these guys are altruistic city and fan lovers (and maybe some of them are), but they're businessmen first and foremost and the bottom line is always the most important thing in business.

Colaiacovo will work. He'll chew up valuable ice-time for us.

The bottom line for me is this... The two sides are arguing over %'s of billions. To some degree, I understood the last lockout because there was more at stake in structuring the entire system from top to bottom. That isn't the case now. If I lose hockey because millionares and billionaires cannot compromise on what percent of the pie they wanna eat, then I'm done. If the league thinks its having a hard time keeping small markets afloat, then just wait till fans of these teams , like myself, start jumping ship. I have a passion for hockey but I don't have patience for ignorance.

If you want to appear balanced you should not call coming NHL work stoppage "strike". Strike is an action by players. What NHL is moving to is a lockout. And to be precise, players are not asking for more. They are asking that absolute amount of money spent on players compensation is not reduced and then allowing NHL to take greater share of the future revenue growth. I think that projected NHL revenue growth in NHLPA proposal is too high (something like 7%). They should be able to drop it to be inline with overall inflation numbers (under 3%). It would remove another thing for owners to complain about and probably would not cost players whole lot.

You've got a fairly credible point with the goalie pads thing. However, Fedorov played just as defensively responsible as Datsyuk does, so your argument's logic holds true for him as well. Also, Fedorov played eight seasons with the Wings before winning a cup, it's not like he walked on to a Stanley cup contender and reaped the benefits (and the cups) that Mike Illitch paid for. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure Datsyuk joined a team full of Hall of Famers and reaped the benefits (and the cup) that Mike Illitch paid for did he not? Again, I love the guy, he's wicked good, but he's not better than Fedorov.

That first one I think is a great way to make things more equitable between the big and smaller franchises besides reducing player salary (which doesn't actually achieve that). Right now the rich franchises can extend massive contracts that nearly cripple the small ones (a la Shea Weber) and essentially circumvent the cap with long term. I didn't realize the players even had an option for inflating the cap. It's definitely something else they could negotiate off of. Even if not eliminating, they could reduce it.

He's a plus player, good age, and if he can stay healthy, he's good for a solid 30 points. Given what was out there, this was our best bet. Better than Kindl at least.

My mother named me after him.

It would be kind of fun of a rival hockey league started up, but in today's world in every industry and field from cars to politics to sports, the status quo reigns supreme, no matter what. No one would succeed at rocking that boat. And it's nice of the NHL to post on their website today that they are willing to negotiate. With two days left. Nothing like good old fashioned brinksmanship. Apparently the only way deals get done in America these days.

Splash! esteef

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

Haha this stupid dwarf is out of words, sounds like an angry weasel.

To me it sounds like that player plays hockey for the money and not for the love of the game. It's a shame! They should allow an audience at that meeting and to be aired live, so everyone can yell "booooooo" once an owner votes for a lockout.

Sir Paul coming to Vancouver