haroldsnepsts

http://www.cbssports...to-labor-strife No, not like all other commissioners. And I'm not sure what a baseball strike has to do with a new NHL commissioner.

I don't need or want to like the Commissioner. The I would prefer one who doesn't lock out the players and cost us hockey games every single CBA negotiation. The dislikes commissioners from other sports have done a better job of that.

I think that would basically create another AHL.

It'd be nice if Fehr and Bettman would get together and discuss these issues as much as we have in this thread.

Wherever I read that, that journalist sure didn't do his homework saying it was only Jagr.

I'd hope that if they ever did manage to get rid of Bettman, they'd change back the rule he got changed to how it was in 1995.

That's exactly the result Bettman wanted. It to look like the union killed a good idea for no good reason. Hockey is entertainment and NHL players are ultimately elite talent. For those who think hockey players are just employees, I suggest you watch any other hockey league. Hockey is hockey, so there shouldn't be any difference, right? Bettman is lucky that he's the commissioner of hockey and not some other sport because hockey probably has the smallest egos and fewest primadonnas. Can you imagine if NBA players were treated like this? It was a stupid move on his part and achieved nothing other than setting a hostile tone before the CBA negotiations even began. If Bettman had any diplomacy skills he could've got the realignment approved and started a better relationship with players and Fehr headed into the CBA. It wasn't that the players were against it. It's that it was sprung on them and they had little information to go on and the league wouldn't bother to provide it. Employees or not these are the guys who's lives and careers would be most effected by realignment. From their chances at winning the Cup down to how much they'd be on the road away from their family. To not include them was terrible talent management by Bettman. It's like his short-man syndrome prevents him from making any move other than wielding whatever power he has. I read somewhere that Jagr was the only one to have played through all three lockouts. But you're right, Selanne has too.

I don't know. I highly doubt it was Fehr. Maybe an optimistic player? That is a good article. It pretty well sums up why I blame the owners more than the union. (as a pre-emptive measure and to be clear, I also blame the union, just the owners side more).

It is. Of the 4 major sports, the NHL leads by a longshot. Granted the NFL has a lot fewer games per season, but it's still a ton compared to baseball and basketball.

Dreger spreading some measured optimism: http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=407723 I know what you're saying and would like both sides to feel the sting of this crap too. But last time they lost part of a season was in 95, which was followed by losing an entire year the next CBA negotiations.

They didn't reject it because they didn't like it. They rejected it because they felt they didn't have enough information to properly evaluate it and the league wasn't interested in providing it to them. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=384427 Bettman basically implemented this plan without involving the union and dared them to kill it. It was the first F-You by the league to Fehr and the union, and a pre-cursor to how the CBA negotiations would go. (getting back on topic) It's part of my problem with Bettman. Heading into a CBA negotiation instead of being diplomatic and involving the union he ignored them and literally said we don't need your approval. Great way to set the tone for coming negotiations.

With the latest cancellation of games I think that brings the grand total to 1,833 games lost under Bettman.

The players getting 57% of HRR in no way means they make more money than the owners.

Especially when you consider that the lockout in 95 ended when the owners overruled Bettman. Gary didn't want to take the deal and was willing to lose more of the season.

I just saw the meeting only lasted an hour today. That's basically enough time to present the three proposals and for the NHL to say no thanks. Then both sides heading back to the corners. depressing. Agreed. The NBA has a soft cap and luxury tax as well. I'd have to guess that sort of system would benefit an owner like Illitch, who actually knows how to run a successful franchise.

And Leipold for matching it. The players will inevitably have to come down on percentage for the simple reason that the owners will withhold hockey until they do. But I can understand them being pissed that the same people who gave out these huge contracts a couple months ago are now sitting across the table from them crying poor and saying they need to reduce player salaries and not honor those contracts.

I wasn't being defensive, but I guess I still don't understand your point. The players knew a CBA renegotiation was coming, but they agreed to a salary and term with the owners. Signed a legal document reflecting that, and now would like to be paid that actual amount. so I'm still not understanding what false pretenses the players were working under. How else were they supposed to operate? They were working from what was known at the time.

It's a good point and good PR, but the answer is pretty simple. The owners wanted to get a sense of exactly how much they could take first. The first proposal was pretty much an F You. It seems like they miscalculated the strength of the union or the fan reaction to the lockout or both.

More imaginary conclusions. It was satire to ridicule Fehr's position before you even had any idea what it actually was.

That link you cited doesn't say the players made no concessions.

This post is very telling. It would've saved me a lot of time and energy if earlier in the thread you included these imaginary conversations that you get so pissed about.

What false pretenses exactly? The players are the ones who would like to get paid the amount they signed the contracts for. It's the owners who are trying to pay them less.

I guess it's hard to know without seeing the details, but presenting three offers seems weird to me. As if the union would be okay if the league accepted any of the three? They need to be clarifying details and finding common ground, not adding more options. Definitely disappointing, but not surprising. I'm guessing the league's position is this is basically their final offer with some minor concessions made over the course of the next week.

I don't need to love the commissioner of the NHL, I just need him not to cost the league 1,780 games. I know Bettman's job isn't easy, but it's not unlike the commissioners of other sports, who while hated have managed to avoid the regular work stoppages Bettman utilizes.

phrase of preference aside, I think the players like the all-star break because for those not playing, it's a nice break halfway through a grueling season. Those who have to play in the dog and pony show all weekend may have a different answer though. Plus that weekend is really about sponsors, who are probably already unhappy given the lockout.