- LetsGoWings.com Forums
- → Viewing Profile: Likes: StormJH1
StormJH1Member Since 09 Oct 2007
Offline Last Active Nov 11 2014 11:20 AM
- Group Member
- Active Posts 706
- Profile Views 2,968
- Member Title 2nd Line Scorer
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Twin Cities, MN
- Website URL http://
Posted by StormJH1 on 02 November 2012 - 10:21 AM
This sucks. I've talked to casual sports fans who didn't even know there was a lockout two weeks into the season. I don't think you can even measure the damage of taking this event off of TV on January 1st, just when it was getting to the point where it was an annual event people might have looked for.
Posted by StormJH1 on 31 October 2012 - 12:15 PM
So, that being said, with salaries increasing over the course of the CBA leading us up to where we are today, I would say that the players have made out very well. Back in 2011, the average salary was $2.45 million. In 2006 after the lockout, it was 1.4 million, which was at 1.8 million before the rollbacks. Looking at the contracts that have been signed in the last two years, its feasable to believe that the average salary continues to go up.
The owners on the other hand have also done well for themselves but much less. Each team made about $4-$5 million per team the last couple years when you look at $120-$150 million in profit each year. These are the same owners that take the business risk. I firmly believe that the ownership is entitled to a little bit more, but not at the rate they are asking for. Still, in the end, I can make 3% on an investment by throwing all my money into a interest baring checking account. 1.5% average return on investment, and thats if there were no problems that needed to be addressed, is very small for a year.
So I guess that, based on that evidence, how can you not say that the players have made out better than the owners in the last CBA? Furthermore, how can you expect the owners to continue to run their businesses with those kinds of margins? The players had no motivation to negotiate a new CBA when they have the keys to the car. They would have played under that current CBA for the next 5-10 more years. It really is a no brainer to me why there is a lockout going on right now.
Ha, right. The players are the ones with the keys to the car. They're in control. Which is precisely why the league has locked them out from the ability to do their jobs twice in seven years, forcing hundreds of the better ones overseas, while the more average players sit on an absolute loss.
First, we need to understand that the idea of a 50/50 split is totally arbitrary. There is no logical reason that hockey related revenues have to be "equally" shared between players and owners, except that it's the type of logic that makes sense to 4-year-olds, or people who barely pay attention to hockey.
Real-life businesses don't work like that. Companies and management have the power. Say you are an attorney in a law firm and you bill $300 an hour. At the end of a 1900-hour year, you have generated $570,000 for the firm. Your salary is not $570,000. It may be $100,000, or something in that ballpark, but the revenue has to go to cover costs, pay for staff, benefits plans, etc. The attorney looks at that and says "Not fair! I'm only taking home 18% of what I generate for the firm!" But of course it isn't that simple.
Attorneys are very replaceable. There are thousands of law school graduates every year, and lateral hires available from other firms and other markets. But NHL-caliber hockey players are much more rare, and the differences between the really good ones and the really average ones are much more noticeable. Moreover, if you staffed most teams with all the same facilities and resources, but ONLY average players, demand for your product would dry up very quickly.
The 2005 CBA was a unequivocal win for the owners at that time, which became a net win for the players in the coming years due to the growth of the game and the owners own stupidity. The owners found every way possible to spend additional money beyond the CBA constraints they themselves negotiated to put in place. They circumvented the cap, buried NHL-level salaries in the minors, and paid out huge bonuses to front load deals well beyond the what the CBA appears to allow. And yet, teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Pittsburgh, etc. can afford to do this and still operate. Teams like Nashville and Phoenix cannot.
The solution to this problem has nothing to do with what percentage of HRR the players take. Increasing the owners' share is just throwing good money after bad. The root cause of the problem is in the lack of revenue sharing to benefit the overall health of the league. That's an owner vs. owner issue, but since all the owners can seem to agree on is taking more money from the players, that's all we ever debate.
Posted by StormJH1 on 24 October 2012 - 12:14 PM
This. I was so infuriated by Bill Daly's statement this morning suggesting that there was "nothing to discuss". The NHLPA presented 3 counter-proposals, and they were rejected within the course of an hour. I took the NHLPA about 2 days to put those together, which is really quite remarkable considering the size of the union and the fact that the NHL has been dictating the terms of this debate and creating artificial timelines. If the owners' position is that there's nothing to discuss unless the player's accept our exact proposal, that is NOT "negotiating".
The thing is too, Bettman and Daly refuse to negotiate unless the Fehr brothers are nogotiating on their terms, off their proposal they tabled Tuesday and willing to make only minor changes. That is not negotiating, not at all. At least the Fehr brothers have tried to get in a room and hash it out, but the evil twins refuse to listen unless fehr says we want to accept your proposal but negotiate the "make whole" issue. That is why I am against Bettman, he consistently refuses to negotiate, while Daly says there is nothing to discuss. There is plenty to discuss.
I can already sense fans starting to turn on the players a bit, and I really wish they would put this into some perspective. You can't simply say "Oh, these guys are all millionaires that get to play a game for a living, just give a little money back". Aside from the fact that most players are "thousand-aires", not millionaires, and may only get a few years a professional contract before they have to retire (or get hurt), it's easy for FANS to give back the players money that they've earned. Heck, fans would love the product just as much if Crosby made $200,000 a year, and the entry level salary was $25,000. But I'm sorry, that's just not realistic for the scope of this business and how much money these players (which ARE the "product") generate.
This is a cash grab by the owners, who basically were caught betting against the future success of their own league when they agreed to the 57/43 split. The contracts already signed were limited once by the rules of the 2005 CBA (salary cap and other provisions), and are now being asked to be reduced AGAIN by the terms of a new CBA that didn't exist at the time the deals were signed. And, oh by the way, all of this is against the backdrop of a league that has made absurd amounts of money over that same period of time.
A lockout is much harder on players than it is on owners. I find it comical that fans actually believe these players want to be wearing suits instead of playing the sport they dedicated their lives to AND earning lucrative contracts for so doing.
Posted by StormJH1 on 22 October 2012 - 11:20 AM
The Red Wings don't really employ guys like that, or at least they haven't recently. If you took Datsyuk's innate ability and gave him the "personality" of Ovechkin, I feel like he scores 45 goals a year, but I can't "know" that. And he'd probably be a less valuable player to his team, whether people want to believe that or not.
Again, though, I was really surprised by how much of a two-way game Hossa actually had when he played for us. Yeah, he was a terrific goal scorer that carried the Wings at times during the 08-09 regular season, but he's also a very large, strong individual who would back check and put a body on you in the corner.
None of the guys listed are "pure" goal scorers. That label is reserved for elite snipers like Stamkos and Hossa. Hudler was probably the closest thing we had to a goal-scorer last year, and that was mostly because he didn't do anything else very well.
Nothing irks me more about (some) Wings fans that the revisionist history applied to Hossa's one year with this team. But that's a topic for a different thread.
Posted by StormJH1 on 22 October 2012 - 11:10 AM
I have always heard/thought/expected it would be Z. Datsyuk's the better player, but that's not what a captain is. That'd be like saying Fedorov should have been captain because he skates faster than Steve Yzerman.
Posted by StormJH1 on 22 October 2012 - 10:44 AM
That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.
The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.
Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.
Great post, though I'm not entirely clear why a league that generated this much revenue in the past 7 years couldn't have some workable form of revenue sharing. The NFL does, and it's not like Dallas and Jacksonville are even in the same arena in terms of the money they bring into the league.
But your other points are all well taken. I've had people telling me that the players should cave in some more because "the teams in bad markets are still struggling". Well, great, but the lockout does nothing to solve that problem. There's no new revolutionary money-sharing arrangement that come out of it - the owners as a whole are just trying to grab as much as they can.
I've never seen much evidence that Bettman and the well-to-do owners want real parity in this league. I find it ironic that the Stanley Cup matchup in 2004 was Calgary and Tampa Bay, but the Cup winners from the past several years in the "new NHL" have been LA, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Detroit. All of them either large markets, or at least solid hockey markets with ownership that can easily spend up to the cap and beyond. (Well, the LA Kings are a more complex story, but they've definitely had money to spend in the past few years, and the ability to acquire expensive contracts from other teams).
Can anyone honestly say that the players have done more to unreasonably drive up costs in this league than the OWNERS since 2005? I think everyone knows and expects that Crosby and Ovechkin are going to want gigantic 10-year deals, or that marginal players like Ville Leino and Scott Gomez are going to ask for $30 and $50 million deals that they never deserved. Somebody has to agree to PAY these stupid deals, or it doesn't happen. Heck, baseball doesn't even have a salary cap, and yet you see free agents like Jermaine Dye sit on the free agent market because they think they're worth multi-million dollar deals, and 30 MLB teams wisely disagree.
Then you look at what teams like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Minnesota have done to take advantage of their healthy financial situation, and pay out MASSIVE long-term deals that are completely antithetical to the spirit of the CBA. And if Minnesota hadn't done it, Detroit, Pittsburgh, New York, or any number of other "have" teams would have. And then Buffalo or the Islanders goes out and overpays some run-of-the-mill veteran way too much money, either because they need to keep up or, even worse, because they have to overpay some guys to even get to the salary cap floor.
Yeah, I want an 82-game season, but if we leave all this crap unfixed and have continued labor unrest through the next CBA, how is this game going to fix any of the serious problems facing it in the coming years? EVERY other issue gets swallowed up by the money debate, even ones that everyone would benefit from, like realignment and player safety.
- 55fan likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 19 October 2012 - 11:33 AM
I've been moderately anti-NHL (and pro-NHLPA) for this whole thing, and despite the NHL's brilliantly evil PR tactic of placing an arbitrary negotiating deadline on the PLAYERS to acquiesce to the demands of the owners and end a lockout that the OWNERS created, I'm not losing sight of how this entire dispute started, and how ridiculous it is. Even if no deal gets done before 10/25, and there's no 82-game season. Most people assumed that was a foregone conclusion once we started losing preseason games anyway.
But while I still largely agree with the players, and view the lockout as unnecessary, I'm getting the sense from the NHLPA that "honoring current contracts" is an issue taking precedence over all. And that's terribly short-sighted. There are MANY other significant issues that severely compromised the fairness of the game and the safety of the players from 2005 to 2012, but the fans heard "82-game season" and "50/50" and suddenly all they care about is "Accept! Accept! Accept!".
There's some good elements in the NHL's proposal. I like the 5-year deals, and the third-party arbitrator for discipline decisions is probably a good thing. But the $12 million drop in salary cap will cripple some franchises, and the provisions retroactively punishing teams for signing mega-deals are barbaric and certain to cause horrible unintended consequences.
If you would've asked anyone in 2011: "What are the major issues affecting the long-term viability of this game?", here are a handful that come immediately to mind:
- The safety of the players, caused in large part by the 04/05 rule changes and the increased speed of the game
- Circumvention of the salary cap, including the new "Minnesota Wild" tactic of offering absurd signing bonuses to pay players nearly double what the CBA supposedly allows in one year
- "Revenue sharing", or the complete lack thereof
- Proper scheduling/realignment (such as the plan proposed last year and rejected by the NHLPA as a bargaining chip)
If you leave those issues untouched, rush into an agreement arguing primarily over grandfathered contracts, AND expand the league to 32 teams (as is heavily rumored today), we're going to be right back here again in 7 years or so. And in the meantime, we'll see even more BS like what Chicago and Philadelphia did to become Cup contenders, plus a whole assortment of NEW problems. I want hockey back worse than anyone, but if we're going to have a lockout that the NHL tells me we sorely need, then I want to see some evidence that there was a purpose to that lockout other than playing with revenue numbers. Say what you want about the 2004-05 Lockout, but we did emerge with a notably different (and, in many ways, better product) after that horrible experience.
- Nightfall likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 19 October 2012 - 11:16 AM
I don't buy Lidstrom or Datsyuk jerseys, watch NHL games on TV, or eat Little Caesar's Pizza because I'm "supporting the league" or even because I want to put more money in Mike Illitch's pocket. I do it because I ENJOY those things. I'm sorry, but as much of a power trip as Bettman and Fehr might be on, they don't own this game. And when people try to make me feel guilty for loving the game of hockey because of a bunch of lawyers in a boardroom, I'm sorry, but that's seriously screwed up. You're GIVING ownership of the game to people who don't deserve it when you do that.
Posted by StormJH1 on 17 October 2012 - 03:43 PM
It would be extremely foolish to think that Yzerman (or any player for the matter) could have kept a consistent scoring pace in the first half of his career and his second half. I think you are overestimating the impact of him putting his team first. You could probably take any player in history and you will likely see some signficant declines in later years.
If Gretzky maintained the same pace in his last 10 years as he did in his first 10 years, he'd have scored 3,674 points, not 2,857. Injury + age, same for Yzerman, is the main reason for decline.
There are other reasons. People tend to forget (or didn't witness it firsthand if they are under, say, 30 years old) that NHL scoring fell off a cliff after roughly the 1992-93 season.
If you only talk with Red Wings fans, you grow up with the impression that the 90's and early 2000's were this golden age of hockey. And they were...for a Red Wings or Avalanche fan. Everyone else refers to it as the "Dead Puck" era - the first time in this history of hockey were goaltenders were absolutely fearless in net, when they wore absurdly large (and since outlawed) jerseys, pads, and chest protectors that took up the whole net, but still benefited from trapping defensive schemes, no two-line passes, and unmitigated obstruction that slowed the game down. There's a reason Teemu Selanne scored 70 goals as a rookie and never got close to that total again. If Gretzky's career started in 1991 instead of 1979, he'd still have been a great player, but I'm almost certain he doesn't break Howe's goal record. It wasn't even the same game in the 1980's, and blocked shots are a huge difference even between the 90's and 2000's.
I want to say Lidstrom in the poll (who won an extra Cup, and did so as the leader of a Salary Cap-limited team), but my heart knows that it's Yzerman. However, I do think that the praise for Yzerman swings a little too far at times, and people forget that that those 80's Wings teams where Yzerman was an offensive beast were still basically the likable losers. It wasn't until Fedorov and Lidstrom came along that this became a perennial playoff team, Bowman got the star players to play defense, and even then, they still couldn't beat the other great teams of the day ('95 Devils, '96 Avs) until they added Shanahan and some other "spare parts". But if you look at Yzerman's first half of his career compared to Lidstrom's, he was a much more important player to his team, even if the team wasn't doing much at the time. Lidstrom may well be among the Top 5 or Top 10 defensemen of all time, yet Yzerman's importance to the Red Wings is somehow much more complex than that.
- Z Winged Dangler likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 24 September 2012 - 02:25 PM
No kidding. I couldn't even imagine Radulov being a captain on a beer league team. Guess the KHL rewards guys that bail mid-contract on the NHL.
God it's weird to see Radulov wearing the "C" on a team with Datsyuk on it. It's like bizarro world.
Sent on iPhone using Tapatalk
- Z Winged Dangler likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 12 September 2012 - 01:56 PM
Then they turn around and say: "if there's a lockout, I won't ever watch hockey or pay a dime to the NHL again". Aren't those positions antithetical? Aren't you harming the sport, the players, and the workers just to get back at Bettman and the owners? While also depriving yourself of the greatest sport on Earth?
I put this almost all on the owners and Bettman. But I'll be back. And so will you.
Sent on iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted by StormJH1 on 12 September 2012 - 01:42 PM
Can't sign a new contract until the last year of the current one. Datsyuk has two years left, so no, Kenny can not yet sign him to a new contract.
Whew, see, there you go! Glad we got that misconception cleared up, but it does make you wonder what percentage of people dumping on Holland this offseason is based on outright inaccuracies or impossibilities. (Including, by the way, that there was any sales pitch or reasonable structuring of money that could've talked either Parise or Suter into playing for Detroit next year).
Seriously, the pendulum has swung WAY too far in the opposite direction on Holland. Four Stanley Cups, turning super-talented players like Yzerman, Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg into Winged Wheel "lifers", and pulling a Hossa signing out of a hat in a season when nobody even dreamed about it....and then one offseason of relative inactivity/bad luck and the man is absolute garbage. I don't get.
The ONLY guy this offseason that I thought we could reasonably get and who seemed interested in playing here that disappointed me was Alex Semin. I was bummed to see him sign a short-term deal somewhere else, when it wasn't even certain if that was possible.
But given what we know now about the lockout, and the fact that another major CBA shakeup (with possible revisions to the salary cap and even retroactive adjustments to contracts) seems very likely, I'm somewhat glad go around the free agent market making it rain. Are we as strong as we've been in recent years? No. Do I think we still have a very good team with quality players at goaltending, defense, and forward? Absolutely I do.
- Ally likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 24 August 2012 - 11:12 AM
- MabusIncarnate likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 10 August 2012 - 10:53 AM
If the season is locked out, Bettman should lose his job. Plain and simple. That would be the 3rd work stoppage during his tenure, which would effectively kill the sport dead in the United States. It's already swimming against the tide in relation to baseball, basketball, and football, and if the season is shortened by any significant duration (half or more), there's no point in anyone aside from the die hards to continue watching. The die hards are already by my guesstimate, 3/4ths of the audience anyway. That 1/4 that are "casual observers" will be gone, and it won't matter.
So Bettman better hope there isn't a lockout, or else he can kiss his job goodbye. In the event he does get a Shanaban levied on him, is there anyone who can act as interim commish until another one is appointed/elected/promoted?
Can't disagree with that. But I've never really felt that hockey was a true national, network television competitor with those other sports anyway. In my opinion, that was a myth propagated by Bettman and fueled by a perfect storm of short-term East Coast hype (Rangers in '94, and Devils in '95), the heyday of SportsCenter coverage, and Bettman's ill-advised westward expansion.
Hockey doesn't look, play, or feel anything like the other sports. The only sports season that it really "competes" with from start to finish is the NBA, which is as about as opposite of hockey as you can get. In the late 90's, when hockey was getting play on FOX (glow puck, etc.), the majority of America who don't know this sport turn on the channel, see the white ice in the background, and quickly turn it off. It might as well be figure skating or equestrian to those people. There's really no point in pandering to that type of audience, pretending that your sport could ever be as big as football or basketball here. It can't.
At the same time, the league has done a lot of good things since the lockout to evolve into the type of sport that it needs to be going forward. Bettman deserves some credit for that, yes, but I'd have no problem seeing him gone as soon as possible - you could lose sleep thinking about how much better the league could have been with the direction of someone actually passionate about the product and its fans.
Think about it as a television analogy - I hear a lot of NHL fans still stuck in the 1990's, and Bettman is guilty of this too. They want the game to be "Friends" or "Seinfeld" - a central experience accessible to everyone that gets tens of millions of viewers on television. Well, guess what? The world has changed. Does anyone here like "Mad Men", "Breaking Bad", or "Game of Thrones"? Those shows get a fraction of the viewers that crap like the "CSI Miami" gets, yet they're considered some of the best shows on television, are extremely profitable for their networks, and are appreciated by a loyal collection of obsessed fans. Why does the NHL need to be "CSI Miami" or "Friends"? Why can't we keep costs within reason, and create a CBA without loopholes that result in star players making NFL or MLB-type money?
Bettman is totally ripable, but I think should be noted that public support in the 04-05 lockout was largely on the side of the OWNERS, despite the fact that the players are the actual face of the league and the source of the "product".
- Vladifan likes this
Posted by StormJH1 on 08 August 2012 - 12:55 PM
On a much less lighter note, one that I refuse to post the video of (but you can go find if you want to remember) was one I didn't see live because I was in grad school in Minnesota, but heard about afterwards - Fischer collapsing on the bench. Came absolutely out of nowhere in a somewhat non-descript regular season game. Absolutely terrifying television - glad I didn't see it live.
- esteef likes this