Nightfall

First off, I will admit that maybe I am reading too much into what you are trying to say. However, in the same sense, by not addressing it you are implying it. For instance, when you say that "these loopholes were not addressed" you are in essence saying that they are left open. Another thing you are doing is implying that you have read the league proposal. Once again I ask, have you? I certainly would like to know where you are getting your informaiton. Secondly, we are both of different opinions on a couple key points. Your opinion is that the owners are the ones with all the leverage, whereas I believe both are equal. Since neither of us have data to backup our claims, it is what it is I suppose. Third, I will agree with you that both sides don't always have to concede things to get a deal done. You are right in the last lockout, the owners got the best of them. This time around, I am sure, you will agree, is different. What will happen remains a mystery. I believe you will see more concessions this time around from both sides than you have in the past. Lastly, by bolding the statements that I made, you are coming across as more of a moderate like myself. Its easy to blame Bettman and the owners. Its hard to look deeper at the situation and see a system that is broken. These two sides leaders are just dumb IMHO. The players and owners don't get together until 2 months before the season starts? No urgency from either one? The lack of communication between these two sides are just horrible. Yet, you and others here are quick to jump on the "blame the owners" bus. I haven't seen you, or others here who jump on the NHLPA bandwagon, levy a single constructive comment towards the NHLPA. Yet, you and others here have plenty of crap to say about the owners. Ok, you are more of a moderate like I am. You want to see a deal get done as badly as I do. I guess when the NHLPA offer hits next week, and if its a lowball offer, we will see just how many people are riding the NHLPA bandwagon who claim to be moderates. Both sides in this case are a bunch of morons for various reasons. Neither side is getting a pass from me, and if they strike, both sides are are fault.

You said... "One aspect of the deal asks for limits on contracts, which is why I said MOST of their proposal doesn't address the loopholes." So, you said these loopholes were going to remain open. You going to tell me how you know this? Maybe you will provide a link with information on the league proposal. I agree that it was a lowball offer. So, if the NHLPA lowballs the league, you going to have the same harsh criticism for them? We will find out on Tuesday next week. I think the same could be asked of you. The point is that both sides are posturing for what is going to be a fight. Who knows what the hell is going to happen. I am not going to side either one because no one knows what the heck is going to happen. So, let me get this straight, you believe.... 1. The league bargains from a position of strength while the NHLPA is weaker. 2. Because the league lowballed the NHLPA, that the league is totally in the wrong and not bargaining with good faith. 3. If a deal doesn't get done, its all on the league 4. Meanwhile, you are ok with assuming the NHLPA has been bargaining in good faith from the beginning. Making a deal requires no concessions on their part. Yea, I think I got it. Meanwhile, in reality.... 1. The NHLPA and league are both equal in terms of pull. There are no replacement players, just as there are no replacement owners. 2. The NHLPA has yet to give them an offer. The question is, will you be as harsh if the NHLPA comes back with a lowball offer? To assume their offer will be fair is an assumption. 3. If a lockout ensues, both sides are to blame. 4. Both sides will have to concede things equally to get a deal done. Don't get me wrong, you bring up great points when it comes to dancing around these key points. Like realignment, which I agree upon. I am not surprised it was shot down because the league did not involve the NHLPA. Could communication be better between them? Absolutely. That is the problem with these negotiations is that they waited until the final month to really get to work, to which I blame both sides for that nonsense. If I have your positions wrong, please correct me and tell me your positions.

I guess the point on the loopholes is that we saw the deal from a very high level. I would assume that these loopholes would be closed in the next CBA. Just as you are assuming they will be left open. So who is right here? I guess without the proposal to read, neither of us. So we really can't assume its a money grab or the loopholes were closed without that key piece of information. That was my point. Agreeing to start the season and continue negotiating was what Fehr said was possible, not what he said he would do. Lets face facts here. The current CBA is not going to work for the long term for the NHL. Yes, the league approved it, but the issues with it need to be hammered out and will be with the new CBA. Of course the players want to keep the gravy train rolling. Thats a no brainer, but as I said before, Fehr didn't say without a doubt he wouldn't lock the league out. I believe both sides are bargaining in good faith. More specifically, I will believe that the players association is bargaining in the best faith when I hear their proposal on Tuesday. If they lowball the league like the league lowballed them, then I will be convinced that they are both greedy. I guess the problem I have with the "NHLPA fans" are that they are willing to take everything at face value, you included. Of course you say it takes both sides to make a deal happen, but if it doesn't happen, then its the damn league's fault. That is faulty thinking right there. Concessions have to be given by both sides. Yes, what the league is asking for is crazy. Just as I suspect that is what the players are going to ask for, which we will find out on Tuesday. So, in your mind and the rest of the "NHLPA fans" minds are that the league is being totally unreasonable asking for concessions and threatening a lockout. As a hockey fan just wanting to see a deal get done by both sides, I can firmly look at both sides and confirm that they are both equally at fault if there is a lockout. I would urge people who take sides to step back and look at the bigger picture. Do you think that if the league and players were bargaining in the good faith that there would even be a possibility of a lockout? I think not. Both sides would concede certain things, and deal would happen. I agree with this as well. Right now though, I don't want to test that theory.

Ah, so you have read the league proposal? One of those is on a max contract length. That would solve the problem that you point out in the first part of your post. I don't deny what you are saying about Bettman losing his job though. There should not be a strike everytime the league CBA is up. At the same time, he is making the owners a lot of money. The chances of them firing Bettman is slim to none. At the same time, the NHLPA has to bargain in good faith, and if anyone here believes that the NHLPA is doing that while the league are a bunch of devils, they are delusional. A deal is made by two sides working towards a common goal. If a deal doesn't get done, its not the fault of one side alone, its the fault of both. Thats just my .02 cents.

Just wait until the players come back with their lowball offer. So far, we haven't seen the players offer yet, and I know they are going to try to lowball the league. The best case would be for Fehr to look at the situation and come forward with a plan that benefits everyone. Such as a 50/50 split on revenues, a luxury cap system, and so on. Instead, I already know that Fehr isn't going to do that because one lowball offer deserves another. Everyone already hates Bettman and the league. Fehr doesn't need brownie points. This is a two way street here. Both sides have to get a deal done for it to work. If a deal doesn't get done, both sides are a fault PERIOD.

Calgary has said they want Flip or Franzen + Nyquist. That price is too much. I don't care of Bouwmeester is going to score 40 points. If we give up 60 points of offense, we are a worse off team. Based on Bouwmeester's past defensive effort (he is an offensive defenseman that is less skilled than Rafalski), he won't be preventing goals from going in on our end. This!

IMHO, there is blame on both sides. The players and agents are using loopholes in the current CBA to force teams to sign these players to long term deals. The owners are equally at fault for signing those deals. The Red Wings have already been forced to sign Franzen to a long term deal that he could have gotten somewhere else. The owners and GMs want to field great teams, and its hard to do when a couple players are handcuffing the team for 10-15 years in some cases. As evidenced in any professional sport, if there is a loophole like this and it is exploited by the players, there will be a couple dumbass owners who will sign them. Hell, just a couple months ago, the Red Wings nation was dying to get Suter for 12 years and $80 million, and if Holland couldn't get it done then its his fault. Thats just evidence of a damaged system. That being said, I am disappointed with Bettman's stance on this. I would hope they would have continued negotiating without a lockout. Now, he wants a lockout if its not done in 5 weeks. Good luck I suppose. I hope there are plenty of late night bargaining sessions scheduled for 5 weeks.

I fail to see how swapping Bouwmeester for Franzen would be a win for Detroit. The amount of goals and assists we lose from Franzen won't be made up for in better defense from Bouwmeester. Calgary said it won't be a heads up trade. We would have to trade a prospect as well, which in my mind, puts a kibosh on the whole idea.

I would rather Ken Holland plan for the future instead of dump $7 million a season on Bouwmeester. He is a solid defenseman, but he isn't a playmaker. He is someone that doesn't get you goals and assists. Why give up one of our forwards and a prospect for someone like him? IMHO, it doesn't make any sense to give up Franzen who scores around 30 goals per season and Nyquist who could have a breakout season for a guy who is going to finish +10 if he is luck and notch 4 goals and 20 assists. I would rather just give Brendan Smith the ice time. As I have said before, Bouwmeester is a guy who you wish you could get more from. He isn't a stud defenseman, but a solid defenseman. Why overpay for someone like this? The Flames did and now they are trying to dump his contract on someone else. Plus, you have to realize we have a crop of UFAs and RFAs on our team next season. The salary cap we have left is going to have to go to some of those guys. I think the best case situation is to wait until the new CBA is hammered out.

The Grand Rapids Griffins are offering the right to purchase winter classic tickets if you get a 10 game flex plan. That 10 game plan is pretty cheap, so if you just want to get tickets, you can probably go that route and it won't cost you much.

For the record, the players never said they would. They just said that negotiations can continue past the deadline. Fehr in no way said they WOULDN'T strike, just that the possibility was there. Other than that, I agree with Kipwinger. The Owners had everything to everything to gain last time and locked the players out. This time around, with revenues almost double what they were 7 years ago, the owners have little to gain while the players have a lot to lose. Neither side is going to strike, and if they do, they are idiots. They would be better off continuing to talk past the deadline.

Bouwmeester is one of those defensemen who you wish you could get more out of. When he had his best season before he signed with Calgary, he got a great payday from the Flames. Now, the Flames are looking to unload him and with his salary, he is good trade bait. I still think that our young guns have more upside that Bouwmeester. Yes, they will make mistakes, but I don't think that Bouwmeester is the answer. He is good, but not a great or elite defenseman. IMHO, he isn't worth the trade.

How would you define team commitment? I am only asking because Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, and others who are in the rafters all played for other teams in their careers.

Does anyone here think he is worth 4 years and $30 million? I certainly don't. Especially with the CBA expiring.

I guess Weber will be able to eat if there is a strike this year with all that signing bonus money. In all seriousness, I did not think the Preds would just let him go for 4 late round picks. This was the best move the Preds had.

Rick Nash scores about 32 goals per game and gets about 65 points per season on average. The players that Howson got are younger and have some great upswing to them all. Will any of them be a Rick Nash powerhouse player? Its unknown. Anisimov is still not in his prime and Dubinsky is younger but has had a 50 point season. Plus, they get a promising young defender AND a 1st round pick. I don't know if Howson got fleeced, but he could have gotten a little more.

I agree with everyone here. Its ESPN. ESPN is the same network that would delay or cancel showings of hockey on their network for golf back in the day. One day, I turned on a scheduled game only to find professional poker on instead. ESPN is not the destination for hockey news. It never was, and it probably never will be.

For the second time in LGW Forum history, I agree with Dabura.

Let me know when you wake up from that dream. No way he signs for $4 million more than Hudler. Especially when he has a $10 million dollar offer per year in the KHL.

The only "balls to the wall" signing we had in 2008 was Dallas Drake. Wait, that was a huge signing? Point is that you don't need to make those kinds of signings to win a cup. In fact there are many teams that make those signings only to not do crap come playoff time. Otherwise, we would have won 4-6 more cups in the last 15 years when we made deals to get great players in here.

I hear the Flyers forum is accepting registrations. Maybe they will be more of a contender for you.

Being as that there have been 9 different cup winners since 2003, I don't think its reasonable to expect "cups" for the Wings in the next 10 years. I think 1 is a realistic expectation. Besides, as evidenced this year by the Kings, I feel the Wings have a good shot if they hit the playoffs hot. I take it you would take the "balls to the walls" signings over the cup victories over the last 15 years? Good to know. You should root for Philly, they have done just what you like. Besides, Bryzgalov was a great signing last season. I bet you creamed your pants.

Its readily apparent that Leftwinger would rather have "balls to the walls" signings rather than Stanley Cups. Me? I will take the cups.

After thinking about what you said, I agree. At first, I thought your line of reasoning was a line of horse crap. Then, what I got to think about it, I realized how correct you were. Bold moves are made when you have choices. Holland has no choice at this point. Playing Smith last year with Lids would have been a bold move, but instead, they put him on the 3rd line. I know I was clamoring for Smith to be paired with Lids on the top line for the entire season. That would have really helped with his maturity and defensive skills. Instead, Ian White got to play with Lids and do well. I bet Smith would have gotten more out of it though.

Can't really compare the Fedorov situation with today. There was no salary cap back then. Dats' salary is representative of a top line player. Otherwise, we are in total agreement. Very true, but my point of just getting into the playoffs still stands. Holland will have to make some bold moves this year in order to excel in the playoffs. Giving kids top line minutes and hoping they shine. He may even have to go after players that are floundering on teams and get them to come here, which means more bold moves. Right now, the only thing we know is that Holland is going to give kids the ice time they need to either sink or swim. Very un-Holland like? Yes. Bold moves? Yes. Give him a little credit for at least making the bold decision to do that.