haroldsnepsts

So right under Vladdy's warning, you take a pot shot at the NHLPA, which is only baiting the people you've been arguing with. I know we have the reigns tight on these threads, but they have mostly been incessant arguing by the same 5 or 6 people which eventually escalates to personal attacks. I didn't delete it for the sake of example but your post would've been fine like this: You've made your general position regarding the NHL and NHLPA more than clear over the hundreds of pages of these CBA threads. No need for the shot at the NHLPA. Same goes for anyone taking pot shots at the owners side. As Vladdy said just a couple posts above, everyone knows where everyone stands by now. Any posts taking shots at the NHL or NHLPA side, no matter how subtly, will be deleted entirely. Discuss the offers, not who's the villain.

This. People can talk about injuries, but that's the game. The Wings were fortunate in 2008 regarding injuries and played some badly injured opponents. Thems the breaks.

95 was more painful to me. Prior to the Cup Finals the Wings seemed destined to win it all. After years of disappointment it felt like the drought would finally be over. Then they didn't just get beat, they got crushed by the Devils and it felt like they might never win it all. Certainly not during Yzerman's career. Don't get me wrong 2009 was painful to get that close and lose in heartbreaking fashion but them having won the previous year and three more before that doesn't match 95 when it felt like they'd never have what it takes to win the Cup.

In the end I don't think he was a superstar but Keith Primeau was drafted 3rd overall in 1990 and expectations were high. Looking back it's crazy to think that Central Scouting didn't even rank European players as late as 1990. Jagr was unranked in that draft and went 5th overall. The anti-euro bias was real and went on much later than a lot of people think.

Kindl (I'm hoping that by calling it out I'll turn out to be very wrong because the Wings will need him)

per Dreger:

Maybe if they let him leave through the zamboni gate, the shootout is kind of on the way?

Hockey seems like such a distant memory that I can't recall, but was he used in the shootout much? or at all? Because you're right, you'd think he'd be a candidate. Great shot, good hands.

The NHL lawsuit is suing the NHLPA but also names specific players as defendants, including the Red Wing's own Henrik Zetteberg. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411804

Guess what has two thumbs and deleted more posts in this thread? This guy. (I guess the joke only works if you see me pointing at myself). For the thousandth time, discuss the lockout and the content of people's post, not the person making the post. For example, if you find yourself typing "you" a lot in your post, you might want to take a timeout, re-read it, and make sure you're discussing the topic at hand and not the person. Otherwise it's going to get deleted. It's also getting to the point where snarky, smartass posts will be deleted as they're basically flame baiting, which is against forum rules. As well, politics and political discussion will similarly be deleted. We've made countless warnings in this thread. I understand that we're all mad and frustrated about the situation, but do I really need to start suspending more people for such a pointless thing as arguing about the lockout?

Thanks for your concern. It's just that I've been a hockey fan a long time, since the mid 80s. I used to go to nearly every home game during the Dead Things era. I watched Stevie Yzerman put up 155 points. Probert's epic battles with McSorley. Kocur drop guys with his right hand. I remember when #5 on the Wings was Darren Veitch. I watched an amazing Stanley Cup finals between the Rangers and Canucks in 1994, only to see hockey taken away the next season by some new guy named Bettman who was named commissioner. Before then I hadn't even thought about who ran the league. Thankfully he was outvoted by the owners and the season was saved. I watched through the dead puck era, when players clutched, grabbed, waterskied off guys. But Bettman stood there smiling, denying there was even a problem, telling us fans what we think. That we love the game and we don't think there's anything wrong. I waited when ten years later he locked the players out again and finally got his precious cap, promising economic certainty that would stabilize the league for years to come. I saw the careers of Yzerman, Lidstrom, and many other greats shortened for this "economic certainty." The league also made rule adjustments to crack down on the problem Bettman told me didn't exist. Now just 7 years and a billion more dollars in revenue later, we're on the precipice of losing another season. It's his economic vision that has created the disparity between franchises. It is his and his former law firm's CBA strategy that set the tone for this debacle of a negotiation in what should have been the easiest of all CBA's to hammer out. Yes there's plenty of blame to go around. Absolutely the owners share responsibility for letting it get this far off the rails, Fehr's passive aggressive tactics certainly don't help things, but no one deserves more blame than the man who has been commissioner of the NHL for the last 20 years. It's fitting that he celebrates his 20th anniversary with the league during one of his lockouts. And don't even get me started on the shootout. (this will hopefully be my last post regarding this lockout, at least of my perspective or opinion. I may chime in with twitter updates and whatnot).

Like is often the case, the only winners in this whole mess are the lawyers.

Actually I don't already know that. You don't either. i have no idea how exactly that vote went, how many votes it took, if it was all 30 owners, if it took a simple majority or if he needed two-thirds. The few things I've read about it just say how Bettman "engineered" a rule change so he wouldn't get overruled again like he was in 1995. Honestly I'm just tired of blathering on about this whole thing. I'm filling the void left by hockey with obsessing over the stupid lockout. It's only making the lack of hockey worse. f*** em all. Burn it to the ground.

For starters, I'm not sure how many voters are needed to approve a rule change like that, but yes obviously they made their bed. As has been mentioned in the thread, Bettman only needs the support of 8 owners to overrule any decision regarding the CBA. Publicly announcing a unanimous vote for the lockout is hardly the same as all owners having strong support for it. They're not dumb enough to show weakness by casting a meaningless vote in opposition of the lockout. It would burn bridges with other owners, with Bettman, and weaken the leverage they're trying to get by locking players out in the first place. I mention his salary because in spite of his job title as commissioner and his $8 million salary, your comments made it sound like you think he doesn't have very much say or influence over what's going on. If the owners wanted a patsy, seems like they could get one a lot cheaper.

Of course he has to answer to owners. So I guess he gets a free pass in spite of being paid over $8 million dollars to run the NHL? Right, why should the head of the NHL be held responsible for the third lockout under his reign? Some interesting reading: Unfortunately a big part of the leadership team is the law firm representing the NHL in these negotiations, which also represents all 4 major sports and was a big player in both the NBA and NFL lockout. Not coincidentally, it's the law firm that Bettman and Stern used to work for. I would love to get rid of Bettman, Fehr, and that law firm as well . It's starting to feel like Bettman and Stern are the two old guys in Trading Places, and they have a bet for $1 to see who can get the best deal for the owners, no matter what it does to the sport.

Per Dreger: I don't think the NHLPA should decertify, but I'm back to the point of just saying screw it, lose the season. Fire Bettman. Burn it to the ground and start over. I'm gonna be too pissed off to watch hockey for a while anyway.

It sounds like Jacobs has been a hugely negative influence on these CBA negotiations. But he is only one owner out of 30. You have to wonder how one owner could possibly have such a disproportionate amount of influence compared to the others and how he got that power. The simple answer is Bettman. http://www.nytimes.c...orcer.html?_r=0 There are many guilty parties here, but top of my list is the commissioner. I guess I don't understand the reluctance to heap blame on the guy who's job it is to ultimately run the league. Of course it's a tough job. He's got to deal with 30 owners, some of whom sure seem like idiots. And Fehr is no picnic either, but that's the job. It's largely his economic model for the league that has created this massive disparity between teams. And it's largely his strategy to try and remedy it by taking more money from the players, which doesn't address the real problem. It's his choice to have Jeremy Jacobs so deeply involved in these negotiations. Jacobs is as much Bettman's right hand man in this as Daly.

Ever have a friend who's in a bad relationship? And every time you hang out with him all he does is complain about how awful things are, ask for advice that he never takes, and generally bring you down so you stop hanging out with him? That's how the NHL has now become for me. And as yet another reminder. No political discussion in this thread or on this site (no one really had yet but I wanted to head off any possibility from St. James' tweet) and no directing personal comments about the person making the post. Keep the discussion about this ridiculous lockout.

The league cancels more games. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8732721/nhl-cancels-all-games-dec-30

One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations. For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play. It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite and very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries. That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie. Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago. My understanding is they tried a similar move in the NBA lockout (which isn't surprising since all 4 major sports are repped by the same law firm in CBA negotiations) and it got quickly shot down. While they NBA players agreed to 50/50, they play in a league with a soft cap and luxury tax and had the owners make a large increase in revenue sharing. All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners. And of the things that benefit players listed in the article: 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; That helps the owners just as much for teams to get under the cap. And I would hardly call that a benefit to players, other than things could have been much worse. They're having their salaries cut back and the cap further restricted. Not waiving players isn't a benefit offered to the players. It just means the owners didn't make things even worse for them. This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%. At best, this one's a wash. 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); probably benefits owners more in that they can dump the awful deals they've made. At best, also a wash. 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; I'd say wash, but I may be missing something on how this benefits players more than owners because I don't know all the ins and outs. Teams being able to send players down without potentially losing them is a benefit. 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); This helps the league and unlike anything the owners have proposed, actually addresses the fundamental problem in the league's economic structure. Definitely a wash. 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish). This one I don't know much about but I initially read somewhere it would probably be a very rare circumstance. Taken in total, none of those even come close to moving from 57 to 50% in salary and giving up all the contracting rights the players will need to in order to make a deal. Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.

A fan protest video retweeted by McKenzie. It's a pretty simple plan and message to the NHL about fans boycotting games. http://vimeo.com/55149830

It seems like a luxury tax could be the best way to address the disparity between markets, which is a fundamental problem to this league structure due to expansion. A team in Nashville will never pull in as much money as the Leafs. At least that way a successful franchise can decide to go over the cap and share revenue, rather than it being forced upon them. It also rewards successful owners like Ilitch for running a succesful franchise. I don't know all the ins and outs of how it would work, but it seems like it makes way too much sense for the NHL to ever use it. Instead their plan is apparently to reduce player costs until even the most inept owner or team in a terrible hockey market can turn a profit.

Mayers and Westgarth were interviewed by ESPN while at a charity game in Windsor. They were both in the room for the players owners meeting and are optimistic both sides really are close. They also seemed surprised by the NHL's response to the NHLPA offer. I don't know if that makes it better or worse than it sounds like a colossal lack of communication between both sides than a deliberate strategy by anyone. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8728037/los-angeles-kings-kevin-westgarth-chicago-blackhawks-jamal-mayers-optimistic-regarding-labor-talks From Dreger:

embedded for you.