Jump to content


Playmaker's Photo

Playmaker

Member Since 02 Nov 2012
Offline Last Active Private
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

19 July 2015 - 03:23 PM

 

Oh yeah a Steve Simmons article is for sure going to be 100 % correct.

 

Just as an  example do people honestly believe the Wings wouldn't have paid Hossa and the Mule without the cap? I'm pretty sure they would have.

 

Also stop this crap about offensive  you  can choose not to use the word - it just means someone is a very little person which in fact is true -  if it bothers you that much Jesusf****** christ. No the players wouldn't have to strike they can just wait till they are locked out again (for a record breaking 4 time in a row) and then start the process. Will it happen ? Who knows but almost everything is better than going through a lockout because all of a sudden the current system doesn't work anymore...

 

Yeah the Hawks have won 3 cups in 6 years great succes and sadly a great story which is why I want to see the Kings winning it this year which would mean 3 cups in 5 years !

Yeah, and just calling a person the N word just refers to a person of color, right?

 

No, the Wings wouldn't have signed Hossa,  He most likely would have stayed with the Penguins and never came to the Wings in the first place because then they could have paid him if there were no cap.  

 

Fans can ***** all they want about the lockout, but most came crawling back when they were over.  It really doesn't discourage lockouts when that happens.  So you can blame Bettman all you want, but that's the only power that the fans have is to not watch, not go to games, not to buy merchandise.  Most teams saw attendance rise.   He's been able to get the owners just about everything they want, keep the fans and the revenue keeps rolling in and the ratings are going up.  So while you may see lockouts as a bad thing, don't think the owners do.  

 

As far as Ilitch goes, the Tigers don't have a hard cap and he chose to let Max Scherzer go to a team that was willing to pay more.  So you can't assume that Mr.I/Chris or whoever is automatically going to have an open checkbook and pay or overpay every free agent that is out there.  They've spent a ton of money and still haven't won a World Series.  You can say he's willing to "do anything" and "pay anything" to win, but letting a Cy Young winning pitcher in his prime go doesn't seem to indicate that money is no object.  

 

So few players, and even fewer quality players ever get to free agency, I don't see why there's any issue with giving more of an advantage to the home team. 


In Topic: Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

19 July 2015 - 01:53 PM

 

And as I said, they didn't sit out. They were locked out.

 

Also, Jonathan Toews is now making as much as Nick Lidstrom made in 2003.  Players aren't making more than they ever have. Crosby, Ovechkin, pick virtually any star player and they're making less than top earners did pre-cap.

They chose not to play because they didn't agree to the owner's terms and then eventually chose to agree to the owners terms. It also doesn't make calling someone a midget any less offensive.

 

Not to mention, with the current CBA in place until 2021, the players would have to strike to try and "desertify" to get rid of the horrible cap that supposedly everyone is against.  

 

This addresses how much "less" the players are making now as a result.  

 

http://www.lfpress.c...ense-in-the-nhl


In Topic: Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

19 July 2015 - 12:55 PM

 

If we're getting our facts straight, the players didn't sit out a year to get rid of the cap.  They were locked out by the owners so the league could implement a cap.  One is a strike by players, which didn't happen, the other is a lockout by ownership, which did.  

I didn't say they were on strike.  They sat out because the players said they'd never, ever, under no circumstances agree to the salary cap the owners insisted upon.  So an entire season was lost and the players blinked.  So the cap is now in place, the league is doing as well as it ever has, the players are making more than they ever have, so 10 years later, after coming back with their tail between their legs, the players are going to band together and rise up against the salary cap because a few Wings fans have chafed asses over it?  The players have very little power.  That's been proven time and again.

 

Thanks for posting, kilq.  I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "desertify" was.  

 

 
Responsible for 3 lockouts, failed franchises, destroying the ASG and now even the former cashcow known as Winter Classic I bet he doesn't even know what icing is and gifting such a terrible company like Rogers the NHL rights in Canada ?
 
I think you need to get your facts straight here: The players can desertify if the majority of them votes to do so it is purely NHLPA related the NHL itself (i.e. Bettman and the owners) can do nothing about it. Desertification would mean that a lockout is illegal and the CBA would be a thing of the past, Also the owners locked out the players so it's not the players fault if the players decided not to play it would be a strike like harold explained.
 
Beating under the Hawks under the same system would mean, the Wings would have to try to be as bad as possible for a few years and get gems like Toews, Kane and Keith then watching them mature and strike big with UFAS like Hossa. Given that starting next year all top 3 picks will go into the lottery even that will be harder going forward. People can argue that spending big is "unfair" but guess what icing a cheap product year after year and getting rewarded with top 5 picks isn't the nature of sports also. While beating the Hawks would be extremely nice lets be honest it's not going to happen for at least a few more years, as long as their core is still in their prime or not too far out of it they'll be too much for the current Wings team (not saying that couldn't change but man a lot would have to go right for the Wings...) Like people already mentioned there should be some sort of a cap relieve for home-grown talent teams are investing a ton of money and time into developing them and then not being able to sign these players because of an unnatural system just sucks...yeah we might be all laughing at the Hawks troubles but keep in mind it could also hit the Wings at some point in time so I'd rather see teams being able to keep their players if the owners are prepared to open their massive pockets and then face a perfectly healthy Hawks roster and seeing them dismantled in 6 games by a Red Wings team that is equal to the ones Red Wings expect to see on the ice.
 
I give Stan Bowman a lot of credit but let's not forget who his father is having Scotty as an advisor is going to make the job of every GM easier.
 
What really killed Free Agency Frenzy and to some extent even the trade deadline is the contract limit on years coupled with that stupid "variation" clause" since then ew CBA. I mean a lot of people are already dreaming of how great next years class will be when at the end of the day ALL the big guns will re-signed and we'll end up with an even worse group than this year that's the sad new reality of July 1.

So if no free agents are available, that means that homegrown players aren't leaving teams that develop them.  If I'm recalling correctly the "home team" does have the advantage of being able to offer a longer term contract than an outside team.  

 

The Hawks have 3 Cups.  I'm sure as hell not laughing at them.  I don't feel like the Wings were successful all those years because they bought the most free agents.  Like the Hawks, they had a good homegrown core of players, made good trades (Shanahan and Hasek) and added complimentary pieces.  I also think Wings fans are assuming that when Mr. I passes, that Chris or whoever takes over will run things the same.  Will fans be as opposed to the cap if Chris is a cheap ass?  Bill Wirtz's kid isn't running things the same way he did (in a good way for Hawks fans), so there's no guarantee that the Ilitch kid(s) will follow in their father's footsteps.


In Topic: Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

19 July 2015 - 07:26 AM

I think if teams have to pay for other franchises to keep them above they should have some benefits from it otherwise why do it? It just makes winning the cup harder.

Did the Wings have higher payrolls than most teams ? Of course but the rangers had even higher ones and didn't win as much. As long as big spenders also feature home grown talent, local heroes and bring in great players there is nothing wrong and an unnatural system like the CBA is like telling an owner you can't spend because other's aren't able too..I mean what the f***? Then don't spend but don't cry foul if others that do will get to keep the top guys.

That's why I hope Fehr will advise the players to desertify before the next lockout so this stupid CBA can be a thing of the past, if some teams can't compete and have to relocate the better, I mean let's be honest some franchises
Just don't have enough hockey interested fans but why should teams like the Wings, Leafs or rangers suffer because of that?

It's unbelievable some hawks fans are blaming Toews and Kane for taking the money lol. Show me a person that would sign for less written they crab make more during their limited career that could end every time. Maybe next time join the likes of Mr. I and criticize the current system. Bring in a hockey guy to run thisf****** league and send that damn New York based midget back to the nba whenever Stern retires.

Personally I would have liked nothing mute than to see the Wings take the Blackhawks success personally and spend whatever it takes to ruin their back to back championship chance. It would be much more satisfying to do it against a staged than a decimated one.

If you're going to make offensive comments like calling someone a midget, at least get your facts straight.  Not sure where you have been, but David Stern retired. Heard of Adam Silver.  Bettman isn't going anywhere because he is very successful at what he does.

 

Hey, great idea, have the players sit out a year to get rid of the cap!  I'll bet that'll work.  In case you forgot, they did that already.   We lost an entire season of hockey, the players (headed by Red Wing Brendan Shanahan) caved in after losing an entire year of their career and a year's worth of salary, the owners are making more, fans are watching more and the players are making more.  I'm sure they're more than willing to give up a year of their careers to get rid of the cap.  

 

As a Wings fan, I'd kind of like to see the Wings beat the Hawks by being able to be successful under the same system.  What have they really sacrificed?  If 3 Cups in 5 years is sacrificing, bring it on.  They've made bold moves and its worked.  I hate the Hawks, but I'm envious of what they've been able to do.  I'd like to think that these moves are going to really hurt them, but I'm not all that sure that's the case.  Like it or not, they've done it the right way, gambled and won, and won, and won.  The Wings aren't in cap trouble, great, but they also haven't made it very far in the playoffs either.  Holland keeps making room but the big signings or bold trades never happen.  I think you have to give it to guys like Bowman and Belichick who just go for it and do what needs to be done and don't worry about what the fans or anyone else thinks.


In Topic: Stan Bowman (CHI) on CBA troubles

19 July 2015 - 07:13 AM

 

You make some good points. I remember back in 2006 I was talking to a casual friend, and I brought up the Wings. He told me he was a HUGE fan back in the 90's, but when it seemed they started having their pick of whoever they wanted in the early-mid 2000's it really turned him off. He said that he couldn't respect a team that won just because its owner spent more money. At the time I really didn't listen to what he said and I completely disagreed, but looking back on it I can see how someone would have more respect for a team doing it the way its done now.

 

Did anyone out side of Yankees fans really respect the Yankees back in 2009 when they won the world series and their payroll was around 200,000,000 while the second highest payroll was closer to 100,000,000? Now the Yankees were an extreme, but my point is I'm starting to get his train of thought.

This is what I was responding to.  You say that on one respected the Yankees because they spent a lot.  There is no asterisk by their names or the Wings 2002 Championship.  They won.  That's what people respect and care about.