RedWingsDad

Here is a topic that must have been discussed at some point, but I am eager to hear peoples current thoughts on the matter.

Simply put - I think Babcock shuffles our lines way too much and thereby does not allow chemistry to properly build. I understand his line shuffling philosophy in theory, and can see where you may use it occasionally as a kick in the pants to slumping players, but I do not understand doing it almost every... single... game.

Thoughts?

I voted Datsyuk. Here's my logic - disregarding the way these players choose to play the game, if you told all four of them to simply go try their hardest to personally score a goal... I think Datsyuk has the best moves and hands to make that happen. His goal totals are lower than what they could be only because he chooses to be more of a setup man.

In short, Datsyuk got the skill.

I'd say it is not that much of a stretch at all to think the whole season might be lost.  I am not sure where on earth you got your "feeling" from.  Both sides have pretty much stated they are not moving off of their stance more than slightly and would be willing to lose as much time as it takes.  This somehow in your mind translates to "we'll be playing hockey in a couple weeks, guaranteed"?

Good grief... talk about bias. Clearly he is "feeling" the way he does based on all of the news on the topic... not a supernatural, emotional inclination like you tried to paint his opinion as with your quotation marks.

I happen to also hold the opinion that we will not lose a whole season and I am quite surprised by the amount of people that think we will. Anyone want to make some bets to see who's "feeling" is right?

The amount of people that voted yes is outrageous.

And he wishes we could kill more polar bears.  Awesome.

Awesome indeed! I wish I could kill more (read: any) polar bears. I hear polar beat meat is tasty.

Are you a vegan?

So as not to appear blindly anti-union, I thought I would try to share in a nutshell the problem with the NHLPA (and unions in general):

The reason I am against the players union and the CBA in a nutshell is because it restricts the flexibility of the owners to make reactive and responsible business decisions... because they are limited by the CBA. In the long run, this will produce lock-outs and financial distress for many teams in the league... and is currently doing just that!

To use colourful language... the medicine is ultimately worse than the disease.

Concerning whatever business failings particular owners in the NHL had prior to the 2004 season, and even those currently... that’s part of free market economics and those teams should have failed, or been bought out by a responsible businessman who could run a proper buisiness. I simply reject the argument that the only solution to that problem was the players union and a CBA.

Edit: This is getting intense - I’m taking a break!

Yeah, but why?  I quote news posts and don't have the highlighted text.  When you c/p the text into the post, does the WYSIWYG editor show the highlighted text?  Can you not correct it before hitting submit?  It was just a request.  I have relatively 'young' eyes, I can't imagine what it does to all you old fart's eyes.



No nerve hit, I just don't think you made a whole lot of logical sense with your position relative to the current state of the NHL.  The owners lockout the players and you suggest the PA be absolved because they are not necessary.  With or without a PA, the league should let those franchises fail, but they won't.  The union is there to protect the rights of the players, just like pretty much every other industry out there; automotive, railroad, teachers, etc.  The owners don't need the union to protect themselves, they need a CBA with a hard salary cap, which they have.  There can legally be no CBA without a union, so this is why you have them.

We can talk for hours about why there is a union, etc; I suggest you read the history of NHL players unionizing in the 50s.  If you recall, this is why Lindsay was traded away from the Wings.

You seem to keep assuming that I am ignorant of the supposed benefits of labor unions. I don't believe this is a matter of education, but rather a difference of opinion on the supposed benefits of labor unions in general, and if those benefits can be obtained through other means that are not restricting to running a successful business. Here is what I said in full:

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

... now, I did not realize that labor laws force acceptance of a union in order to institute something like a salary cap. Whether a salary cap was the only option to address the problem in question is a debatable matter. That aside, it is a very true statement that we would not have a lockout currently if the union didn't exist. Ergo, if your only goal is to watch hockey and you couldn't give a crap about the politicking... you should support dissolving the labor union.

We should all support dissolving the players union. When that is done, we will never have to worry about another lockout. If players don't like the terms the NHL owners offer, they can play elsewhere. If the best players are choosing to play outside of the NHL, the owners can choose to offer better contracts to entice them to play in the NHL. Free market economics... it works amazingly well.

In the long run, it is market competition that ensures fair wages and treatment... not unions.

Edit: Well shucks, I meant to post this in the lockout thread. Could someone please move it for me? Cheers.

Ooh. Name calling. I wonder how productive this conversation will be. How about something we can all agree on.. I miss hockey.

Anyone that misses hockey is a tool!

owners of ranch = owners of NHL teams
cows = players
bettman = ?
field = ice
feed = paycheck
supermarket = fans

But wait... cows are fat... and players are in shape... !!! This just doesn't add up! I’m starting to think that Jimmy D didn't mean it as an exact analogy...

But that analogy and ones similar have been used to talk about how people feel working in corporate america for how long now? It's the truth. And I understand like I said before. It sucks..it really does but to be honest with you these owners made their billions before having hockey teams....and they will have their billions after these hockey teams. They fit the bill for the "pastures" for the cows to play in,the Chevy trucks with cattle racks that take each cow to the 4H shows, live stock auctions and other fields to play in. They pay for the silage corn, alfalfa fields that are cut and bailed/rolled for feed. They pay for in house vets to take care of all the cows whether they are sick or not .

I am in big corp america...I have a badge number that is sequential in the number of people that came before me. Guess how many numbers I have in it.......6. Yeah I don't feel like cattle at all.=)

ha ha yeah, good points.  I did not mean that the analogy had no merit at all.  It just kind of irks me that people are seemingly focusing on it as a slur, but never mention that Jimmy D put himself in that group.

Great interview, what a straight shooter! It's quite refreshing to hear someone say it like it is.

How about just fold all the teams in the "weaker markets" and tell the players to go find jobs elsewhere.  That's what would happen if my boss "poorly managed" my company and I woudn't be guaranteed squat.

esteef

I'm not sure if I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post.... but I agree. This is how free market economics work; if your business fails, you don't get to rely on your competition to bail you out. The argument that successful teams should redistribute their wealth to failing teams because the failing teams give their team someone to beat up on... doesn't hold water in the current scenario. The NHL can afford to lose 3-4 (or more) of the teams in the league bleeding money, and be better for it.

Of course, Bettman doesn't want to do that because he wants to land lucrative TV contacts... which he deems only possible if you have teams / viewership in a wide assortment of markets geographically (Phoenix, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, N. Carolina), and not just in the northern US and Canada.

Hockey wouldn't be hockey without fighting.  I'd hate to see it leave.

Truth. My primary interest in hockey is the fighting and grit... it's what appeals to me and gets me out of my seat. Pacifistic, girly, European style hockey is uninteresting to me. They have already partly sissified the game by penalizing clutching and grabbing and for calling penalties on every little itty bitty iota of contact away from the puck... if they also move towards eliminating fighting they will likely lose a fan (me).

Wow! Thats a bold statement. AFAIU, you refer to professional sports only, because I know plenty examples of businesses operating without unions and not concidered illegal. So, tell me, what is/are such drastic difference(s) that make operating proffesional sport team without a union illegal?

I think if there is no PA, there would be no CBA, salary cap, max salaries, etc and lockouts... Any contract would be negotiated and signed by a team and a players, no one would force another to sign, etc.

Ami mind discussing your hate for unions in the politics session of this board? Thought we should only discuss the lockout not the cons and pros of unions.

But I agree, Ami is letting his hatered for all unions (which he already stated in his post that got deleted) blind him to the discussion at hand here.

In general, I am also not a fan of unions, but even I can see that the GMs are just being completely greedy assholes here, and the players are in the right this time.  (I was on the GMs side last CBA)

frankgrimes and sleepwalker - please kindly point out where it was in Ami's post that he demonstated a "hate" for unions? I don't see it. How about you address the specific items he mentioned instead of fallaciously dismissing his whole argument arbitrarily.  It is also fallacious to dismiss his current arguments based on a past post (deleted post) that you are not even able to reference.

At any rate, it sounded to me like he was sensibly responding to the union question... which is a valid discussion since we certainly would not be looking at a lockout if it weren't for the NHLPA. That is not to say the NHLPA is relevant or irrelevant, just that the presence of a union forces a one size fits all CBA, which leads to financial crisis for some teams and not others... which is ultimately what has led us to a lockout.  Without a CBA, each team could manage their finances as they see fit in order to retain profitability, thus avoiding a multitude of teams bleeding money each year, as is the case currently.

Full disclosure - I am generally against labor unions.