Monahan made the Flames and could focus fully on hockey, nobody took cheapshots or borderline hits against him and guess why ? People FEAR McGrattan as every cheapshot artist = rat should. The point of the matter is this Pasha is by far the best player on this team he is wasting his last years on a team that doesn't stick up for each other and where the FO doesn't bring in guys that could help out. It's not just about fighting it's that whole "anti physicality" mindset that I'm questioning Downey said it best himself "hey you can hit our players but if you try to take advantage of star/weaker/smallish players someone sneaky will come around the corner..."
The last player who took liberties with Kessel was a behemoth called John Scott nobody else has done so, because nobody wants to answer to Colton Orr, Frazer McLaren. Phaneuf told Crosby to keep to clean his act up or else he would hit him in the same manner...nobody on our team is doing that and maybe just maybe there is already too much complacensy...
Ok Scuderi laid out a clean hit fine, where are the guys that say "ok it's preseason and they are playing this like regular/playoff season in terms of physicality let's hit Maataa, Kunitz ...in the same manner" there is freaking nobody. Things like this are also a bounding experience for team they rally around each other and know everyone heas each others back.
I love fighting. I like the spectacle. I love that extra dimension it gives to the sport. It's truly unique. I wish the instigator rule was not in place. I loved when their was a heavy weight matchup of Probert v. Domi, and seeing who was going to win the belt from the other. I loved that if anyone touched Yzerman Probie would immediately turn into the hulk and smash their face in, no matter what the consequences were for himself. I loved when McCarty turtled Lemieux, because I literally wanted vengeance and blood for what he did to Draper.
But here's why I think your argument stinks Frank. Everyone who I know that is pro-fighting (including myself) whines about how - since the instigator rule - the enforcers ability to protect and scare off the rats is almost completely diminished. Fighting USED to protect stars to an EXTENT, but not anymore, and that's what pisses off pro-fighting advocates and why everyone calls for the repeal of the instigator penalty.
So please, don't act like having McMeatbag on the fourth line/bench is going to protect Datsyuk. All that guy can do is instigate a revenge fight at a later time. And Scuderi can easily just say no at that time, and then we have another possible Bertuzzi-Moore situation on our hands.
If you want the culture of protective fighting you have to:
1) repeal the instigator rule
2) find a guy who can drop the gloves AND play top line minutes
3) time-travel back to the 1980s
Fighting these days is used to possibly change the mood of a game and/or to seek vengeance. And it puts fans like you and I in the stands. That's it.
Posted by ogreslayer
on 20 December 2012 - 05:21 PM
Reports are that the next cancellation will be the season. I guess I can almost officially thank both the NHL owners & players for saving me the cost of the Center Ice package in these hard economic times. It's really nice that they were looking out for the fiscal health of the fans like that. That's what this was all about right? Right?
Hockey fans, take a stand, or else Bettman will continue to treat you like crap.
Hockey fans, take a stand, or else both sides will continue to treat you like crap.
fixed it for you
The players treat us like crap?
Yes, I think you grasped what he was trying to say. In the context that the original quote was saying the owners treat us like crap for not giving in to the NHLPA, I believe he was asserting that if one were to actually hold that kind of position, then logically the same must also be leveled against the players (read: NHLPA)... who likewise are not giving into the owners, and therefore are also causing the fans to miss out on NHL hockey. Is that the confirmation you were looking for with your question? Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Posted by Nightfall
on 14 December 2012 - 10:47 PM
At least you admit the theoretical possibility of one-sided blame. Though I don't believe you for a second.
Thing is, there's an infinite number of "opportunities" to do something different in any situation. Any one has the potential to change the outcome. Why pick out one? Of course it's "certain" that starting earlier may or may not have helped, those are the only options. To justify the criticism, you should be more certain that it actually would have helped.
Beyond that, why do you blame the PA 100% for waiting? Were the owners sitting in a conference room for six months, looking at their watches, calling Fehr every hour begging him to negotiate? No, they said they were ready to start, but when the PA said they wanted to wait, the league said it was fine. What if the league had actually said, "No, we think we should start right away"? What if they'd just made a proposal anyway? The league took three weeks to make their first proposal after they started meeting. Took two weeks to make their second after the PA made their first. Neither side has been in any hurry to meet or make proposals, but you only ever mention the PA side.
Or how about this? The PA said they were willing to play without a CBA while they negotiated. The league didn't have to lockout. You'll say the PA wouldn't have negotiated, or would have waited until the end of the year an threatened to strike, but you don't actually know that. Shouldn't that count as one of your "opportunities" to resolve the situation without a work stoppage? Yet you forgive the league for that.
The one thing that is actually certain is that there will only be a deal when the two sides agree on the terms. Doesn't matter how long, or with what methods, they negotiate. One side agrees to a proposal, negotiations are done. No agreement, they keep going.
You do bring up some good points so let me address them.
First off, you are 100% correct that I have no idea if Fehr or the players would have negotiated in good faith if the NHL would have started the season on time. That is an assumption on my part as well that we don't know if the players would have come to the table in good faith if that happened. That is another "wasted opportunity" that was pissed away by the league thats for sure.
Secondly, I don't blame the PA for this debacle "100%". The fault lies with the ownership more than the players in my mind, about 60% to 40%. I don't blame one side entirely. So lets just put that to bed right there. I do blame them for pissing away the opportunity they had to negotiate though, and everyone should blame them for that. As for the first initial proposals, both sides waited 3 weeks each to deliver their first proposals. Being as that they didn't start until late June, that was a big mistake.
Lastly, I have been as harsh on the ownership as I have on the players throughout this entire thread when I have replied. You make statements like I blame the ownership 100%, which is entirely not true. The bias in this thread has always reeked of pro-players standpoint, and I am ok with that. That bias has also equated to anything that is spoken against the players is a lie and a farce. It is very hard for anyone here who is pro-player to even admit that their side has really sucked ass in these negotiations. Its so bad that anyone who says things against the players union is obviously "100%" against the union.
I spoke out against one point that I am furious with the players union, and that is pissing away an opportunity to meet early and start negotiating. Its a known fact that the league wanted to meet early and the union dragged its feet until June. Is that right if both sides are negotiating in good faith? The answer is no.
Now, since you probably are just dying to hear me say something anti-owners, here we go.
Is it bargaining in good faith if one side lowballs the other with a proposal? The answer is no on that as well. That is not a side I would want to bargain with.
Of course, my second question will be ignored by many people here and everyone will just focus on the first one because it is anti-players union. Someone else will attempt to misrepresent my stance and say I am 100% for the owners, just because I said something anti player.
Lets just stop misrepresenting what people are saying at this stage. It does nothing positive to the conversation.
The PA already did that. Why blame the PA for the league not following suit? What if they had before now? Wouldn't that have been another "opportunity"?
Besides, when you've defended Bettman you've said basically that he's acting only at the behest of the owners. Which should mean that Fehr is acting likewise for the players. Wouldn't then the real solution be to replace all the owners and players?
Replacing all the owners and players is never going to happen. We can replace the people that are leading these negotiations though, and that is what needs to happen. Yes, Bettman does what the owners want him to do. Same as Fehr. I believe that both people are poisonous to the negotiating process though. I believe their counsel is also poisonous to the process. A clean slate is the only way that things are going to get better. Leaving one or the other in charge is akin to this whole process repeating again down the road.
Oh, and I wasn't defending Bettman. Just like I wasn't defending Fehr for the players taking a hard line. I was merely saying that both sides leaders are doing what their people want them to do. They really shouldn't take the blame solely. You can blame the greedy and inflexible owners and players for this debacle. Their leaders should be second on the list, but since you can't fire the owners and players, you have to fire the leaders.
Posted by Nightfall
on 14 December 2012 - 04:15 PM
When players, fans and even owners are sick of the guy who is running the show it is time for a change. The NHL and NHLPA don't trust each other they aren't even meeting eye to eye anymore, so the best thing to do would be a restart and therefore bring in a commissioner, who at least understands the game and isn't focused on gambles in non hockeymarkets. Also I'd love to see some play it poor owners getting their asses handed to them once the cap is gone and owners who are willing to spend are icing great teams again.
Restarting means firing the commissioner and the NHLPA heads. I would even like to see their deputies and counsel fired as well. You want to bring in a new method of thinking? Then you have to get rid of the existing bureaucracies.
Bettman's mission is simple: Put a stop to labor unrest; sell the product in television's mainstream marketplace; change the violent image of the game; curb salary inflation; force enlightened self-interest on reluctant, old-fashioned owners; expand contacts with European developmental leagues and markets; settle the divisive issue of possible Olympic involvement, and help launch several new expansion teams.
My ribs are still aching after reading the first one.
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.
while i disagree with the owner's take it or leave it approach, fehr purposely misled the public. he knew full well that the league wasn't going to accept his proposal.
That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good.
Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want.
Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.
"my way or no way" - Bettman.... it's like his negotiating tactics have been the same since he was 5
That's the thing, it's just so friggin hard to tell. From what I read on TSN it sounds like the league made a pretty good offer, one that should be able to get worked into a final deal.
Then it sounds like the union comes back closer to their demands but not accepting them outright, so the league bolts again.
Could it possibly be true they rejected the offer via voicemail??
But it's all so much conjecture I can't really even tell how far apart they are. I know the league wants 10 year CBA, didn't the union propose 8 years? Have both sides not heard of the number 9?
And while I think not honoring existing contracts is a screw job, it seems like something the owners are willing to sacrifice at least one season for. And the league apparently did increase make whole money. but it gets convoluted so friggin fast.
Though it is pretty funny Bettman saying the NHLPA offer was insulting to the owners, given what the owners first offer in this whole mess was.