haroldsnepsts

Ah, you're right. Bad math on my part. Still a depressing number though. And as I've mentioned, because the NHL owns the Coyotes I have to wonder if Bettman gets that vote. If he didn't then I'm not sure who would.

Bettman is 3 for 3 on lockouts during CBA negotiations, so it would be a challenge for someone to keep up that track record. Personally I'd rather hope the game be healthy and not lose seasons rather than have a smug laugh while Bettman's successor continues to ruin the league. But to each their own.

Possibly. But the owners were the ones who outvoted Bettman in '95 to end the lockout and save the season, back when they only needed the majority to overrule him. The depressing part is it would take 24 out of 30 owners to vote for Bettman to be fired.

There's really no getting around that three lockouts in a row, one (and maybe more) costing the entire season is terrible league management. As others have said, there's a fair chance we'll lose this season. Might as well make it worth it.

I wouldn't worry about Tootoo being paid $2 mill. If and when hockey ever starts again, the players are inevitably get hit with a rollback. Sorry... "escrow." Most GM's probably had it figured into their signings this offseason and were okay with the inflated amounts. I'm guessing he'll be more in the $1.8 mill territory when it's all said and done.

Nice spin attempt by Daly. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8491955/nhl-lockout-league-union-talk-free-agency-drug-testing-not-money From the same article: So there's no point in meeting because they're not talking economic issues even after what should have been the first day of the hockey season. But if they had started earlier then they would've gotten a deal done? Makes perfect sense. Enough with the passive aggressive comments from both sides. No one wants to hear your whining. Go figure out a deal.

I had read it in a few places years ago but here's the most recent reminder. http://www.nytimes.c...l-enforcer.html Everything I've read credits Bettman for the change but ultimately I think the Board of governors has to approve it. I haven't found much info about how that process works exactly. And here: http://www.theglobea..._medium=twitter The part I bolded is especially depressing.

Agreed. Plus leagues like the NBA have much greater revenue sharing and a luxury tax system. Given the revenue situation and cap structure are so different, it's not really apples to apples comparison. It's not just about 50%, it's about the total package.

According to Dreger's twitter the two sides can't even agree on what they talked about.

Every other sports league? Look at baseball's salary situation. And the NBA may have a close to 50% split but they also have a luxury tax system the NHL doesn't. And a lot more revenue sharing among franchises. As does the NFL. It's not really fair to just take the percentage while ignoring all the other differences between the leagues. Just by sheer number, I'm sure you're right about there being more players wanting to play than the 29 owners. And like I mentioned in another thread, Bettman only needs 7 to keep from being overruled so it doesn't even matter if the majority of owners wanted to end the lockout.

The NHL owns the Coyotes, so I think that actually makes it 6 owners since Bettman likely controls that vote.

I get what Z is saying but you can't put a whole lot of stock in it. Players are mad. Bettman is taking the game away from them so I'm not surprised they're starting to lash out and threaten to do the same.

Even if that is true, they still need 18 more teams to overrule him. Because of how Bettman got the rules changed after he as overruled in '95, there's practically no chance of the owners seizing control from him. He only needs to keep 8 happy.

I don't know either. Are you basing it on only a few Russians? Because the Wings currently have a Russian player that is the antithesis of that. And they have had several in the past as well. Larionov, Fetisov, Vladdy, Kozlov.

Psh. That was such a minor concession by the players. Hardly worth mention.

Lebrun has a decent article on ESPN which serves as a depressing reminder. http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19659/this-is-how-we-get-closer-to-a-deal A lot of the talk has been about percentages but there's also the other significant issues from the league's position. Getting rid of salary arbitration, 10 years to become a UFA, 5 year rookie contracts. Even if they can decide what constitutes HRR and get close on a number, I'm guessing they're still far apart on those issues as well. If the league really wants to help out the smaller franchises, the one they should push for is no cap circumvention with the ridiculously long contracts, and restrict signing bonuses. Both of those will be harder to match for the less wealthy franchises. Then pretty much keep the rest of the contract stipulations the way they are.

Well, thanks to Bettman hockey is back on ESPN. Isn't that what everyone wanted?

I can't speak to what Fehr said in the Star but I have heard him point out multiple times that the pattern with the salary cap in pro sports is once the owners get it established, they try to lower the cap in every following CBA negotiation regardless of the economic situation. If the NHLPA really wants to put the cap back on the table, then this is going to get even bloodier. And the fans are going to lose a lot more hockey. I have to wonder if Fehr is kicking himself for not using the removal of the salary cap as a starting point for negotiations because it would've left him lots of room to move forward. Instead the league started at ridiculous point, moved a few steps off it, and is now complaining it's the union's turn to respond in kind.

What could I possibly have been referring to when I said Bettman has done this three times? Anyone? Any guesses?

As has Bettman. Three times now.

A sad day indeed. I knew Budd went way back with the organization, but I had no idea it was all the way back to 1949. RIP

I saw the headline and assumed it's an old article. It's not. When the two sides meet later this week, they once again won't be discussing the central issue that is holding up the season. Fehr insists it's good the two sides are still talking even if it's not about the main issue. I guess it is better than nothing, but still seems kind of absurd. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407017

It gets more depressing every time a major player leaves. They may not be saying it, but by going overseas right now, it's a pretty clear indication they think a deal isn't happening anytime soon.

Get rid of Bettman and there's no lockout. Without Bettman, there wouldn't have been a lockout in 95 that cost half a season, and we wouldn't have lost a whole season ten years later. Just let the true free market decide, no cap, and owners pay whatever they want to players. Then for those franchises that aren't profitable, let 'em fail. See how easy that is? Saying getting rid of unions equals no lockouts is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. First, every major pro sport has a union. It's a reality of the beast. And hockey is entertainment, entertainers also typically have unions. If there wasn't a union and the NHL owners put together any deal they wanted, one of two things (or possibly both) would likely happen. The players would organize a union because they'd see they were getting a ridiculously small portion of the billions in revenue they generate. Or a lot of players would leave the NHL play in other leagues. If this current group of owners and Bettman ran the league however they wanted back in 2004, it's pretty safe to say the Red Wings would have lost most of their European contingent. Lidstrom would've gone back to Sweden. Dats back to Russia. So long guys! I'm sure they scrubs that couldn't crack the NHL when you were playing will be just as entertaining. Anyone can do what those guys do.

Free market competition would mean no salary cap. The players aren't striking for more money. The owners are refusing to let them play even though they have current valid contracts in the NHL. The league had market competition before the cap and the owners apparently couldn't manage to run their business under that construct. It's not like the players were striking because they felt they were underpaid. The owners locked them out to implement a device that artificially suppresses employee salaries. Once again, the big problem is the disparity in the wealth of the clubs. The rich clubs are what's driving up the players salaries, not unions. It was just a couple months ago that the Flyers put together an offer sheet for Weber that was specifically constructed to try and financially cripple Nashville so they wouldn't be able to match. But that's somehow the unions fault?