Buppy

59... also missed Kopecky, guess he was just forgettable. Forgot Smith, kind of embarassing since it was last year. Got Brad Norton, thinking of Brad May. Was confused when it said he only played 6 games.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I wasn't saying you blame the players 100% for the lockout. I was saying you blame them 100% for the delays in negotiations. While it's true the league said they were ready to start negotiating, the fact is they never actually did anything to try to get started. They were just fine with waiting. Personally, I think 11 weeks should have been plenty of time to get a deal done. If I had a problem with the time table, it would be that they're taking too long rather than that they started too late.

At least you admit the theoretical possibility of one-sided blame. Though I don't believe you for a second. Thing is, there's an infinite number of "opportunities" to do something different in any situation. Any one has the potential to change the outcome. Why pick out one? Of course it's "certain" that starting earlier may or may not have helped, those are the only options. To justify the criticism, you should be more certain that it actually would have helped. Beyond that, why do you blame the PA 100% for waiting? Were the owners sitting in a conference room for six months, looking at their watches, calling Fehr every hour begging him to negotiate? No, they said they were ready to start, but when the PA said they wanted to wait, the league said it was fine. What if the league had actually said, "No, we think we should start right away"? What if they'd just made a proposal anyway? The league took three weeks to make their first proposal after they started meeting. Took two weeks to make their second after the PA made their first. Neither side has been in any hurry to meet or make proposals, but you only ever mention the PA side. Or how about this? The PA said they were willing to play without a CBA while they negotiated. The league didn't have to lockout. You'll say the PA wouldn't have negotiated, or would have waited until the end of the year an threatened to strike, but you don't actually know that. Shouldn't that count as one of your "opportunities" to resolve the situation without a work stoppage? Yet you forgive the league for that. The one thing that is actually certain is that there will only be a deal when the two sides agree on the terms. Doesn't matter how long, or with what methods, they negotiate. One side agrees to a proposal, negotiations are done. No agreement, they keep going. The PA already did that. Why blame the PA for the league not following suit? What if they had before now? Wouldn't that have been another "opportunity"? Besides, when you've defended Bettman you've said basically that he's acting only at the behest of the owners. Which should mean that Fehr is acting likewise for the players. Wouldn't then the real solution be to replace all the owners and players?

Or one might say Kelly was fired because players felt he was too concilliatory; more concerned with avoiding a lockout than representing the players' best interests. They wanted someone who would fight for them. The players wouldn't be happy with doormat leadership, nor would the owners ever respect the PA if they could walk all over them. To end the labor strife, the two sides have to respect each other. Deservingly or not, I'd think Bettman has permantently lost any chance of gaining the respect of the PA. Three long lockouts is just too much. I don't know if there's any chance the owners will develop any respect for Fehr or the PA, but I think he deserves a shot. Likely no one thought the strife in MLB would have ended, yet Fehr was able to work with Selig of all people, who was responsible for a fair part of the hostility between those two sides. That wasn't the question I asked. If the PA had started negotiating in January, making proposals every week, not talking to the media at all, Fehr on time for every meeting, but their offer now was still the same...do you think the owners would accept it? If not, would you be still be satisfied that the PA cared about getting a deal done?

You're not the Pope of labor negotiation. Calling something a "sin" doesn't make it one; it's just your opinion. Your continued attempts to characterize those with contrary opinions as sycophants and hypocrits is getting stale. Leadership on the PA side has already been cleaned. Fehr has only been around for two years. He also played a part in resolving exactly this type of owner-player distrust/dislike in MLB. That's rather vague. What could one side do that you would consider concentrating enough on getting a deal done? Seems to me that the "blame both sides" mindset in based on the opinion that any offer from either side is good enough (or not good enough if you prefer), so that regardless of where the sides are at, they both need to continually move toward each other until they reach an agreement. By extention, that means any failure to reach an agreement can only be the result of both sides being "unwlling to work together". If you have a more specific range for what constitutes a "fair" deal, it changes your perspective of what constitutes "working together" and "good faith negotiating".

We also have Emmerton, Mursak, and Eaves in the mix. I wouldn't think Nyquist, Tatar, or Brunner would have a sure roster spot, considering they are all waiver exempt and we won't have a real training camp. They may have to wait for next year, or at least an injury to create an opening. Of course, we may not have hockey until next year anyway...

The present can often give one a new perspective on the past. Many people may have been on the owners' side during the last lockout, but that doesn't mean the owners' were right or that the hard cap and 24% rollback were the right solution. Furthermore, even if the owners were right it doesn't mean Bettman is the right man to be leading negotiations. At this point, it's safe to say a pattern has emerged. Three negotiations and three of the five longest work stoppages in pro sports. Almost no one from the players, owners, or PA leadership was around for the first lockout. Many have even changed since the second. But Gary has been a constant. Before Gary, Goodenow led a strike, but it lasted only 10 days and no games were missed. Fehr led one major strike, but also led two negotiations afterward that were resolved without a work stoppage. History suggests that Bettman just isn't qualified to be leading negotiations. You say it's "two sides unwilling to work together", but what does that even mean? Seems to me your definition of "working together" is just "reaching an agreement".

Not really. Like any other contract, terms can be changed through mutual agreement, and a new CBA can afford an opportunity to reach that agreement through negotiation with the players as a whole, rather than an individual player. However, if the players do not agree, owners either have to maintain the lockout, or win the right to change those contracts in court.

In the last few seasons we have brought up Helm, Abby, Ericsson, Howard, Kindl, Emmerton, and Mursak. We'll add Smith whenever the next season starts, with Nyquist, Brunner, and Tatar all likely in the competition, though they may need to wait a year. Maybe if we'd had the 9th overall pick in one of our recent drafts we'd have someone like Couture. Tougher to find those guys at 19 or later.

Oct. 29th The most disconcerting thing is the .30 BAC. Being that drunk and conscious usually means a hard core drinker.

That's something of a misrepresentation of the PA proposal. The PA does not want the actual dollar value of the players' share to go down, so their plans have, for the most part, called for de-linking the share from revenue. They want to slow the growth of their share (dollar value) so league revenue growth results in a lower percentage. Therefore, the percentage depends entirely on growth. The current PA proposal is apparently a flat 1.75% increase in the players' share dollar value each year for five years. The Russo article you mention referenced charts from the league with estimated growth factors, and include estimated lockout damage. They anticipate a drop in revenue for the 12-13 season (obviously), then a modest recovery with the 13-14 season having slight growth over 11-12, and a more normal growth pattern in the following years. Of course, no one can predict either growth or what the long-term fallout from the lockout will be. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic, as well as cause for concern. Even being just a little more optimistic than the leagues' charts would get it down to 50%.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bettman is the sole culprit in this lockout. But three lockouts in three tries does rather strongly suggest that he's not the right guy to be leading negotiations. If you disagree, maybe you could try presenting an intelligent counter-argument. Or just keep calling people retarded. Whatever.

Players are people with opinions, just like anyone else. I'd wager many of us have said similar things about our own bosses, we just don't have reporters printing it. It may not be professional to say something like that when you know it's going to be in the media, but so what? If Bettman (or anyone else) lets comments like White's influence the negotiations, it proves that he is an idiot and unqualified for his position.

Public intoxication and OWI are two very different things. This is not a second offense.

Except with player compensation linked directly to revenue, it doesn't do anything to slow the inflation of player salaries. At most, some players end up making less while others (most likely the top UFAs) make even more. It may help low-budget teams afford their young stars more easily, and keep them a year longer, but at a cost of making it more difficult to keep them once they are eligible for UFA, and more difficult to add new UFAs. Owners shouldn't be concerned with how the players divide their share among themselves. Certainly not so concerned to extend the lockout because of it.

I'd say there's no chance the owners are or ever will be willing to bear full liability for losses stemming from the lockout. I'd expect salaries to be pro-rated for the number of games actually played, and at most the owners will still pay the full $149M make whole payment they've been proposing. Less if the pro-rated salaries work out to much more than 50% of actual revenue. If the full season is lost, I'd expect players would just be out their full salaries. Once a deal is reached, it will be retro-active to the date the last CBA expired, so players might get a cut of any revenue earned this year, which probably isn't a whole lot.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that drunk driving is in any way OK. But it is just a dumb mistake. Alcohol impairs your judgement, so drinking responsibly usually means planning ahead; something young people are notorious for not doing. It seems he enjoys a party, so a .17-ish BAC isn't necessarily fall-down drunk. It could have had tragic consequences; fortunately it didn't. Hopefully, the legal process will serve its purpose and he'll learn his lesson. Throwing the book at him would mean jail time. I don't think his history suggests that is warranted.

That may be an argument against the front loaded deals, particularly those with large signing bonuses, but pushing UFA eligibility back a year does nothing in that respect, nor would changes to arbitration, nor ELC term. The link to revenue guarantees that a certain amount of money has to be spent. Furthermore, a 5 year max contract and 5% variance isn't going to make someone like Weber any cheaper in the short term. He wouldn't have signed a 5 year deal for a sub-$8M cap hit. Likely would have been much closer to the $13.6M average he's getting for the first five years. Probably would raise the price for his later years as well.

Not exactly. The PA is asking for a fixed dollar amount rather than a certain percentage. Depending on actual revenue, the percentage could be a wide range, though at least one previous proposal contained conditions such that it could not be more than 57% or less than 50%. The article does seem to suggest that the PA wants the league to bear the losses from the missed games (I would be inclined to agree except the fight would likely be more than it's worth), though the comment from Fehr suggests the PA just wants to save those talks until after the basic foundation is settled.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/179740001.html Some interesting insight to be gleaned regarding the league's growth estimations. Demonstrating for the second time their use of one growth standard on one hand, and a different, more favorable, estimate regarding their "make whole" provision. Time and again they have said that the players' share "catches up" by year 3, so no make whole would be needed from that point on. Yet in their own charts evaluating the PA proposal, the players' share doesn't catch up until year 5, and their make whole falls around $500-600M+ short, or ~$250M short if you don't count year 1. Also, using the player's current proposal (apparently a straight 1.75% yearly increase), the financial separation comes down almost entirely to lockout damage.

I don't think it's either. I'd bet it's more that the PA just doesn't want to give "five", to borrow the league's analogy. Doesn't matter if the league is willing to consider alternate methods of getting what they want. It still boils down to the league wanting something the PA doesn't feel they should have to give. Also, on things like the contracting rights, there really aren't any alternate possibilities. Either you push back UFA eligibility or you don't. 5 year max contract term or not, 5% salary variance restriction or not. If we knew better what the league intended to accomplish with the restrictions, then we might be able to consider alternatives. Eliminating back-diving contracts is easy to understand, though it's debatable that it's enough of a problem to warrant taking away a player's right to long-term security and up-front payment. Changes to cap accounting might be an alternate method of preventing cap circumvention without taking much away from players. The rest of the contracting restrictions would seem to be aimed at reducing salary growth, but with player compensation tied directly to revenues that is impossible. It's hard to see any reasoning behind them other than "just because".

Reclamation? He's more of prospect than anything. Promising but unproven. He's 25 and has played two partial seasons, scored 27 points in 51 games in the first. Didn't get much of a chance the second, poor start plus Edmonton adding RNH and Smyth, better to let him continue to develop in the minors rather than fight for a 4th line spot. Breaking his ankle in the minors didn't help. Not that we should necessarily try to get him (btw, he doesn't have a contract atm, I assume still RFA. Not listed on Edmonton's roster or non-roster on Capgeek.) but considering his contract status and the addition of Yakupov, it might be worth looking in to. Be worth a late round pick to add him to our pipeline, and he'd probably clear waivers or we could leave him in Europe for the year.

Just to note, the "profit" numbers being used here are actually operating income. Before taxes, interest, depreciation, and amortization. None of us really have any idea what the real profits are. The average team is carrying about $100M in debt, which could certainly eat up that operating income. However, we don't know the real details. Regardless, the revenue disparity is still the biggest problem.

Actually, the owners aren't asking for a rollback anymore, just a deferment of payment. The sticky issue now is that the deferment effectively lowers the % in future years below what the players feel is acceptable. (i.e. Instead of players earning 50% across the board, it's like 55, 52, 49, 47, 44, 50.) Existing contracts are still paid, and subject to only the same escrow as before. And Ilitch paid $8 million for the Wings. I'm sure he's invested much more over the years, but the purchase price was only $8M. Correct to a point. They were operating within the rules at the time. They were not forced to commit almost $72M in salary for next year. Owners may be right to say, "If we didn't someone else would", but in some cases, someone else should. Someone who can afford it. Like it or not, all teams are not created equal. A team like Minnesota shouldn't be spending $10-15M more than teams like the Wings, Rangers, Leafs, and Montreal. The cap system was designed around the premise that at current revenue levels, a team should be able to spend around 57% of their revenue on players. And that's salary and benefits, so around 53-55% for salaries. Minnesota is probably in the range of 70% for just salary. Now they want to lower the split to 50%. Why? So they can spend 63%? They'd be better off just following the intent of the old rules. They didn't have to sign Parise and Suter, they wanted to. It's not necessary for parity. Look at Nashville or St. Louis. Look at baseball. Teams that spend smartly can still compete. It may be a bit easier for teams that can spend at will, but why shouldn't it be?

Again, salaries have increased only about 56%, not double. And it's only about 28% since before the lockout. Secondly, 1-2% is not return on investment. It would only be ROI in a theoretical situation of someone purchasing a team today, keeping it for one season, then selling it at the same price. If you want to calculate the actual ROI, you have to use the amount of money that was actually invested, and factor in asset appreciation as well. That number looks to be more like 6%, though we don't have all the numbers to know for sure.