kipwinger

I agree that we've got a lot of guys coming up who are more suited, whether in terms of skill level or in terms of role players, than is Emmerton. I was just trying to stick up for the guy because usually when there's some debate about whether X player is better than Y player it usually devolved into just bashing the other guy. I don't think Emmerton is that bad, and certainly not as bad as he's been made out to be in this thread. Still, Tootoo is the better player.

Agreed.

I actually don't think Emmerton is that bad. He's not a better player than Tootoo, but I do agree that he's probably better than he looked on the fourth line. I mean, the kid was drafted as a play maker, not a grinder, and he's not being used in that role. Regardless, he still played 71 games in his rookie season and scored 10 pts. By comparison, Justin Abdelkader didn't play 70+ games until his third season and scored 19 pts. Give Emmerton two more seasons and I think he'd be at least that effective if not more so.

I wasn't aware that the league set ticket prices or told Reebok how to charge for their merch. Damn. They do have a lot of power.

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

Because that would make the league less, and not more, competitive? I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye on the definition of competitive. More teams, all with a reasonable chance of winning in any given year, is competitive. Less teams, dominated by those that spend the most, is not competitive. You apparently favor having fewer teams, with success contingent on who can buy the most free agents, which if fine. But don't sit here and preach about how you want more competition. Also, I'm going to reiterate again, the players want revenue sharing too. So stop making it seem like revenue sharing is some awful sin perpetrated by Bettman and the league. Players want more teams, because more teams mean more jobs, and more money. As a matter of fact, the owners want more teams, the players want more teams, and the fans in places like Dallas, Nashville, Phoenix, and Carolina want more teams. The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency. The point of revenue sharing IS to make the league more competitive, which is why Phoenix and New Jersey (both teams that lose money) were in the conference finals last year. The players AND the league want revenue sharing for the same reason you say you do...because it makes more teams more competitive. Anything else?

I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong. "Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue. After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own. The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"

It's sort of a moot point because Fehr did come back, and talks didn't end...well not until the players rejected the NHL offer and issued their counter proposal anyway.

No, in their counter offer the players wanted 25% variance. Here's an article that explains the player's counter proposal, they talk about variance in the paragraph right above the picture of Fehr and Crosby... http://aol.sportingn...r-hockey-strike

I agree with your assessment, but it's not like everybody in the hockey universe didn't know that these frontloaded contracts were going to be a big sticking point in the CBA talks. After the Kovalchuk fiasco it was only a matter of time. As it happens this is the last issue in a long line of issues that needed to be resolved, but certainly it was going to be addressed. And obviously there was going to be considerable disagreement over it.

Don't go making excuses for the players, both Daly and Bettman expressly stated that the 300 million in make whole was contingent upon either accepting or rejecting the contract and cba lengths. They didn't accept. The owners walked. It's not like they didn't know, Fehr thought he smelled blood and over played his hand. Don't go making it seem as if they players had no idea that one was contingent on the other, they did.

I agree, I hope the union realizes that this might have been their best chance and figures something out. If not, then they've given all the hardline owners all the fuel they need to make this thing protracted. In which case we'll lose the season, and players will end up with a MUCH s***tier deal than the one the owners just proposed.

that's exactly what I asked you on the last page, whether you'd be ok with that. I'd be ok with that too. We agree, it just took us a minute.

No s***.

No, I do understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is...if the owners said they would give 300 million in make whole, under the condition that the players accept the contracts length and cba length provisions, and the players did not accept those provisions, then you definitely pull the 300 million. The owners made one contingent on the other, and when that wasn't accepted, they pulled their offer. I'm with you though, I don't care who's right, I want hockey. But when I see an offer that seems very fair to me, turned down because of something that almost all fans and owners want anyway (shorter contracts and longer cba), it's hard not to be pissed off at the union.

You do come off it if you proposed it in a quid pro quo manner, as was made clear repeatedly by the ownership. You get 300 in exchange for 5 years contracts and a 10 year cba. It wasn't an open ended offer. Oh gotcha, I agree. The fact is, after today the NHL offered almost 100 million more in "make whole" and completely conceded arbitration and free agency and the players conceded nothing. Awesome.

That's not true, the owners budged on the arbitration issue and the free agency age. The players are not budging on front loaded contracts and cba length. Two things that pretty much all fans think should happen.

Wait so I"m lost, you're in favor of the players negotiating off the contract term limits and the cba length? If so, would you also be in favor of the owners agreeing to 8 year contracts and an 8 year cba but for only 275 million in make whole, since we're NEGOTIATING off the first proposal?

So if I'm reading this right, the owners don't want long front loaded contracts, and they want a longer CBA, and they've met in the middle on the make whole, and they (and the players) agreed on a 50/50 split. How is anybody not in favor of this from a fan's perspective? Before this whole negotiation mess everybody on this discussion board was against front loaded contracts. Everyone favored a longer CBA. 50/50 is even and 300 million in the make whole is pretty much exactly between the owners 211 million, and the players 393 million. I honestly don't get what's not to like about this.

Comerica definitely does not have an "old stadium" charm but I think the stadium is still very representative of the city in its own right. Given that it's an industrial city I don't think it's an accident that the stadium was built with that rough I-beam look to it. I think it's very much meant to be representative of the heart and soul of the city, regardless of whether it's along the model old stadium. You're right though, old stadium it's not. I'm all for this new arena, but I can't help but wonder what this will mean for Cobo Joe's? They probably ought to start looking for a new home too.

Recently posted highlight video of Zetterberg and Brunner performing their magic. If this translates back to the NHL are they in line to be the new Euro Twins, or would it be a more mentor-mentee relationship?

I definitely agree that our defense isn't nearly as bad as everyone thinks it is, however, I am pretty concerned about the lack of a shutdown #1 guy to match against top flight forwards, the lack of any proven defensive minded defensemen (Ericsson will need to keep doing what he did at the end of last season for me to be convinced he's ready to do this night in and night out), and the lack of size in the d-core. With our lineup, teams with size at forward scare the hell out of me. Smith might turn out to be a true star in the league, but I'm certainly not convinced it will be in the defensive zone, and I doubt his ability to play against big bodied guys. Same with Kronwall, Quincey, White, and Colaiacovo. All of them can score, but none are really solid defesively, and they're fairly small to boot. A lot is riding on Ericsson and Kind's development. That's why I wanted Allen so badly, which you and I agree on.

You don't even have to be there live, just watch games with other fans that know a lot about the game, and ask questions. You'll pick it up in no time.