haroldsnepsts

According to ESPN the CBA isn't technically on the agenda. They're getting together to discuss the accounting for last year's Hockey Related Revenue. I'm guessing it's them trying to get on the same page about how much money is actually there to divvy up and get a handle on what's not included in HRR. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8417799/nhl-nhlpa-discuss-last-season-revenue-monday-meeting

Per Dreger's twitter, they're meeting today.

1) Those aren't facts. 2) People typically don't shell out $3 billion dollars because they love watching cattle eat grass, so maybe he's underestimating the role of the cattle. 3) Accurate or not it's an incredibly stupid thing for Devellano to say during CBA negotiations. He should know better.

I have to wonder how much thought actually went into that list. No Chara? Bure should be higher, but it seems like he's holding shorter careers against players on that list. Hasek should probably be up a couple places too.

Devellano has had a huge hand in the Wings success, but whether he believes them or not, those comments are idiotic. I'm guessing it's just misplaced and poorly worded loyalty to Ilitch, but I wonder how the Wings players feel like being called cattle by the Senior VP of the Wings. I also don't get the part about him saying about what Fehr would have people believe about the cap. What Fehr believes about the cap or not, never in this negotiation has he proposed eliminating the cap. The proposals have been less of a reduction in players salaries.

In the NHL ticket prices increased even after a 24% rollback in salaries. Owners may use this as an excuse to raise ticket prices, but really prices are determined more by what the market will bear than anything else.

I can think of 3.3 billion reasons why they get paid as much as they do.

I honestly don't know that I would, because my favorite team would have screwed over so many of my favorite players.

My understanding is they take it from the players all season long. Then if they don't meet the revenue targets they hang on to it. Otherwise the players get it back at the end of the season.

And I'm guessing there's a clause where he can bail and return to the NHL if the owners stop locking the players out. That's going to lower the amount too.

I agree that's absolutely another reason, even in hockey markets where the franchise is allegedly struggling. I mainly meant that even good owners in non-hockey markets have a tougher road ahead. If an owner is willing to take on that challenge that's fine, but it's not players salaries that are the biggest obstacle to their success. Not anymore.

Another decent perspective on the lockout. Towards the end he hits upon one of the reasons why I put a lot of the blame on Bettman and his strategy. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/dave_naylor/?id=405623 Bettman wanted to expand the game into non-hockey markets. Fine. Then when those franchises struggle he points the finger at the players as to the biggest reason why and locks them out. It's going to take time and commitment to turn a non-traditional market into a good one for hockey. It's not the players fault that people in Phoenix just don't want to watch hockey that much. Right out of the gate owners of franchises in Detroit, Toronto, New York, etc have a HUGE advantage over those in places like Nashville and Phoenix. It has to do with the history and popularity of the teams, the length of time hockey has been part of a culture in that market, and also the strength of the Canadian dollar. The biggest reasons for the economic disparity has nothing to do with the percentage of revenue allocated to paying players. Bettman apparently doesn't have the skills or the will to get his owners to share more revenue and actually address the economic disparity, instead he goes after the players because it's easier and something all his owners can agree on. Unfortunately his spineless strategy is terrible for the fans and ultimately for the NHL.

Shh! The memories of the finals are still too painful.

A little detail I hadn't really considered. The NHL cancels all insurance coverage on its players when they lock them out, including their families health insurance. They did it in 94 and 2004 as well. The NHLPA is paying the players insurance premiums during the lockout. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8396384/source-nhlpa-cover-premiums-players-nhl-lockout

We've all seen the jaw-dropping things Dats can do, but for those who are too young or don't remember, here's some pretty good highlights from Fedorov.

As has been mentioned, the thread pertains to the lockout not the discussions of unions and their role in business and whatnot. There were posts in the thread that have been deleted and don't need rehashing. Nothing to see here, move along.

Like I said, it's really a matter of opinion, but I think you're overselling Datsyuk and underselling Feds in that last sentence. Yes Dandenault played D, but he didn't dominate on offense and then turn into a good defenseman too. There's the famous Bowman quote about Sergei playing D. If you're talking about intangibles Datsyuk absolutely has a better attitude and seems like a better teammate off the ice. As I've said, having watched them both if I'm comparing Fedorov in his prime and Datsyuk in his prime, it's Fedorov. Sergei could play center, wing, defense. He was arguably best all around player of his era. Datsyuk is an awesome player, but Fedorov's peak was higher.

Just something to lighten things up a bit. A song from the pre-Bettman era that's unfortunately relevant now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbTHOlW4AQ

It's not just about PPG. In his prime Fedorov was dominant in a way Datsyuk only is on occasion. And that's hardly a knock on Dats. I'd also have to disagree with the people saying Datsyuk is better defensively. Fedorov was a great two way forward and actually played as a defenseman too. Dats has more Selke's, but actually playing as a defenseman also counts for being good defensively in my book.

Business also doesn't typically have a lottery to pick its employees as 18 year olds and tell them which franchise they work for, own their rights to be employed, or trade their employees for compensation. You're really oversimplifying how a professional sports league works.

The salary cap is exactly that. It's not collusion because they're all franchises of the league. But by linking players salaries to revenue and putting a hard cap on it, the owners have already done exactly what you're saying. I'm not understanding how removing revenue sharing would help given the big problem is the disparity between the rich and poor franchises. I do agree though that there's other ways to helps costs by doing things like lowering the cap floor. The owners seem fixated on just reducing players salaries, but they could help contract inflation through other avenues besides the players percentage. Lower the cap floor. Limit the length of contracts. have the yearly payout be the same as the cap hit instead of the average. Eliminate signing bonuses (I honestly thought those were already gone). I'm guessing the problem is that the owners of the wealthy franchises like all those things because they give their team a competitive advantage. 30 owners may have voted for the lockout, but don't forget that the Flyers made an offer sheet to Weber structured so it would basically financially cripple Nashville. But the one thing they can all agree on is it would be great to pay players less.

Honestly them asking for rollbacks doesn't surprise me either. I was just surprised at how outrageous their proposal is. Had they made a more reasonable proposal for a rollback, they probably could've gotten it by now. Instead they went nuclear. 52% seems like a good number. Get the players to give up 5%, but then make the concession that CBA term has to be longer like the league wants. Then when that ends, re-evaluate how many franchises are still struggling and why. The NHL's proposal was as if the league was in a massive financial crisis. It's not. Like I said from the beginning, a group of knowledgeable hockey fans and hockey reporters could get together and knock out a a pretty equitable CBA in a day. This should have been the smoothest negotiations of all of them. I have to wonder if the owners saw the other league's negotiations and the players share under 50% and started licking their chops.

Continuing to say this doesn't make it true. And you've also ignored the multiple seasons Fedorov played in where scoring was much lower than the post lockout NHL. Here's the source I'm referring to, where goals are calculated by the goals awarded to players, not by game. So there is no inflation due to the shootout. http://www.quanthock...erGame.php#Calc No it does not. According to the source it's calculated by individual player statistics and does not include the tie breaking shootout goal.

The bolded section I agree with. Though Fedorov missed a half season because of the lockout as well 94. Then more than half a season due to his holdout in 98. Feds played the early part of his career in the high scoring era, but also played a good chunk of it in the clutch and grab era.

You've mentioned that a couple times now and it's not true. Datsyuk played in 2006 when the average goals per game was 6.05 or 6.17, depending on the source. In 2009 and 2010 the average goals per game was 5.83 and 5.68. Both of those are fairly close to 6. Also, in 98, 99, 02, 03, and especially 04, the average goals per game was lower than any season Datsyuk has played in. You're overstating the goal scoring discrepancy between the two eras. Like I said before, the biggest years of difference were 91-94. Otherwise it's pretty much a wash.