Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 02:50 PM
***--

#2326757 Divers Beware!

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 24 August 2012 - 01:44 PM

Brown is one of the worst. Go to youtube and type in "Dustin Brown dive". Prepare to change your opinion on him. He's a joke. Flopped all over the place in the playoffs last year.

i didnt think the dustin brown dives were too bad, the only bad one was the cross check from ekman larsson.

Brown dives for sure. It's embarrassing, especially coming from a captain.

But he hardly flopped his way through the playoffs. There were a couple plays, but honestly I thought he was better than usual regarding diving in the postseason.


#2326624 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 23 August 2012 - 04:48 PM

Blog Here

There are no good guys in the NHL’s labor dispute

There is an incessant need to assign blame in the way we analyze situations. We love our dichotomies. There are good guys and bad guys. People who are at fault and people who are victims. Winners. Losers. So on. So forth.



There's a lot of flawed logic in this post, but I'll respond for now to the lowest hanging fruit, which is the players role in all of this.


The Players
I understand that it’s tough for people to see how the players are at fault in this scenario, but it’s really not that tough to understand. You can’t blame these guys for signing outrageous contracts because that’s not how things work. I have a hard time believing any of us wouldn’t take all of the money for several years if we had the offers, but the rhetoric gets tiring.
Just so we’re clear on a couple of things here… players complaining about the way rules are enforced for safety reasons is a joke. You want to stop getting hit in the head or plowed from behind? Don’t hit anyone in the head or plow them from behind. A riveting concept, I know.

Typically the players complaining about getting hit in the head aren't the ones who are headhunting. I don't remember Raffi Torres saying they need to protect players heads.

You're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of people here. They're not all going to speak with the same voice and play the game the same way. As long as headhunting and running at guys gets a 4th liner more minutes and an NHL contract, there'll be dirtbags willing to do it.

Also, this hockey brotherhood business is a little confusing. I know they’re all brothers and such when the camera is rolling, but the on-ice atmosphere is considerably different. It’s very cute seeing guys with a history of run-ins bro-hugging their way through union meetings.


That's pretty much how competition works. Most players want to do almost anything they can to win, but there's also a mutual respect (among most) as professional hockey players. Haven't you ever seen to guys drop the gloves and go at it, then pat each other on the back when the fight ends? There's a big difference between trying to win a game and dealing with your career and financial well being. In the latter they all have similar interests, the former they don't.

Also, do overseas players count as part of the hockey brotherhood? Because I don’t think it’ll feel that way when NHLers hop overseas to take their jobs during a lockout. I wouldn’t do that to my brother. Well, unless he was a real jerk.
The players here are completely self-interested and self-absorbed, like every other party here, only they have less riding on this than anyone because they will be hired no matter what. The players are just as guilty of jobbing the fans as our previous three nutbar parties and you better not let them off the hook in the court of public opinion.

How exactly are they self absorbed?? Are they too busy checking their reflection in a mirror or writing in their diaries to hear what Bettman is saying?

And I have no idea what playing overseas has to do with anything.

No one is portraying these guys to be saints, but the players are nowhere near as guilty as the other parties. They don't put a gun to anyones head when they're offered a contract. They made massive concessions in the last CBA. Not just the cap, but linking that cap to revenue while having absolutely zero say in how the team or league is run.


Yes of course they're self interested. They want their fair share of the pie. But in the list of culprits for a potential lockout, Bettman and most franchise owners are at the very top and the players are at the very bottom. Fehr and the union leadership are somewhere in the middle.


#2326547 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 23 August 2012 - 11:38 AM

Standard Bettman playbook.

"Lockout lockout lockout. Passive aggressive pot shot at the union. We have the greatest fans, that's why I'm able to treat them like s***. Because I know they'll take the abuse and come crawling back for more."


The NHLPA's proposal certainly isn't perfect but it's a starting point. Throw in some contract limits and modify reverting to the current CBA and you're really close to being done.

The NHL's stance is "thanks for all those concessions in 2004 guys, now empty your pockets. This time we promise we'll figure out how to run a successful franchise."


#2326420 New Commissioner?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 August 2012 - 11:52 AM

It seems like Bettman has good business acumen. Not everything has been a success but the league's revenue has greatly increased each year.

They just need someone who can speak publicly without coming off like a condescending ass and is more of a diplomat. Instead Bettman never hesitates to tell the fans how we feel about the game, to take a shot at the NHLPA whenever possible, and to threaten lockout every time a CBA expires.

His job isn't just about legalities and business management. He is supposed to get 30 owners, some of them well documented idiots, to generally agree and work in the best interest of the league. That's where he fails pretty regularly.


#2326246 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 21 August 2012 - 11:36 AM

You will have to excuse me, but that is the first time I have heard you levy any kind of criticism against the NHLPA in this thread. I will go back and re-read 19 pages of posts tomorrow just to make sure, and if I am wrong, I will post back here. So far, that is the impression I got from what you have said. I apologize if I got the wrong impression.

As for who the current CBA favors, you are correct. It favors the players and rich franchises. I may even go as far as profitable franchises. Yet, 19 franchises are not even breaking even.

You and I think a lot alike on this issue. Lets hope that there is no lockout or strike and they find a way to make a deal happen in time. I just don't think either side is up for giving up much but they both want everything. That is a bad combination.

I'll make it easy for you. Here's a few excerpts from just the last few pages of the thread.

You even quoted this post:

Fehr is apparently traveling to several cities to meet with players and suggested that the union and league could meet without the two heads being there, but the reality is there's no way they'd be able to hammer out a deal without the him and Bettman in the room.

It's another game of chicken and it's the fans who lose.


Yeah, Fehr is apparently meeting with his constituents, but I'm not sure about what exactly. The most important thing that should be happening is him and Bettman and their crews in a room working on the deal. Instead it seems like a stall tactic on both their parts.



I don't know that the players didn't cover all aspects. I don't agree with it but it sounds like they don't want contract length limited. So there's not going to be a provision offering that.


Well that's very good news that the players are willing to take reduced revenues and not trying to get rid of the hard cap.

Even if it's the only change to contract rules though, they absolutely need to put some limit on length.




#2326165 Player Haters (not so) Anonymous

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 August 2012 - 07:40 PM

I think a lot of Wings fans will change their opinion on Tootoo when he starts doing the s***kicker's Waltz in the Joe next seson.

On topic, though, I would say the only Wings player I didn't like was Jason Woolley. I never really liked him as a Wing. The only Wings/ex-Wings players I ever hated was Avery, but that didn't start until his LA days...

It will depend greatly on if that waltz gives his partner time to realize he's even being asked to dance.


#2326140 For laughs, Wings & Kings twitter-war, *merged*

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 August 2012 - 02:10 PM

Great analysis provided there. The Red Wings certainly have holes, but the aging Europeans line is stupidity. The team has gotten drastically younger the past two off-seasons now. Seems like uneducated "experts" have used the same garbage to declare the Red Wings dead for a decade now.

The Wings' twitter comeback was awesome too. They have come a long way in the social media world since Tom Wilson arrived.

like I said, it's just some bitter blogger for the Wild. it could be centcougar for all we know. Most of the comments seem to be about teams he clearly disdains and hopes will fail.

One of the other guy responds saying you can never count the Wings out.


#2326134 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 August 2012 - 02:03 PM

The economics of the current deal favor the players. Of course it would be in their best interest to not strike. It is also in their best interest to tell the press and fans that they would prefer to play the season and continue negotiations. The current party that is happy is not going to strike, and that is a no brainer. I am not saying that the owners haven't been their own worst enemy here. They have self-inflicted the wounds upon themselves by continuing to sign players to 10-12 year deals at $103 million to get around the "cap space" issue. That being said, the system does need to be fixed in some way. I don't know what that way is, but the players by saying that they will continue the season under the current deal isn't a solution to the problem. Maybe shooting each owner would be a better option. :D

There are going to be a lot of people kissing the ass of the NHLPA over the course of the next month. The fans will be on the bandwagon of the NHLPA. The press is already on their side. Just keep in mind that it is in their best interest to keep the current deal. It is in the owners best interest to get some things fixed. I don't think it is in the best interest of the owners to strike, but something has got to get the NHLPA to the table. Right now, Fehr is touring the US with three weeks to go until camps open. Does that sound like someone who wants to get a deal done to you? When both sides wait until July to start talking, does that sound like a league and a players association that is concerned with starting the season on time?

While I have a lot of respect for Fehr, I do not understand why he is lollygagging around. I don't care if he is winning in the public opinion. I don't care that he made a great proposal. The fact of the matter is that both sides need to come up with an agreement. Just because the owners lock them out doesn't make the owners 100% at fault. Thats just false thinking. In professional sports, a deal has to work for both sides, not just one. The side that locks out the other isn't 100% at fault just because the current deal doesn't favor them.

A deal can be made that favors both sides. I like this guy's take on it.

http://www.sbnation....pa-lockout-2012

This compromise really does favor both sides.

How do the economics of the current deal favor the players? compared to what, the insane offer the NHL made?

And exactly how is Fehr lollygagging? He is traveling meeting with his constituents. What exactly is Gary doing? Fehr made it clear he would be speaking to Bettman by phone before their next meeting. Odd how you only mention Fehr.

Players made the massive concession of agreeing to a cap and linking their salaries to something they have absolutely no say or control over, league revenues.

Some comments from Fehr state it pretty clearly.

"Let me caution you when you start talking about 50/50 splits," Fehr said. "If you start talking about all revenue as opposed to hockey-related revenue, the way we calculate it the players are already at just about 50/50. Hockey-related revenue begins by subtracting some amounts of revenue. They don't count. What I'm saying is that if you add those things back in and then take what the players get, we calculate that to be about 51 percent."

Fehr said that the players are compromising directly off the start based on the fact that the league has a salary cap.


"Suppose the players came in -- as we have not done -- and we said, 'This is what we want. We'll have no salary cap, have a minimum salary and benefits, which will be a small fraction of the salary bill, and all the owners can pay whatever it is they want to pay. They can adjust their salaries up and down based on what they think is best for them. Whatever the free market produces, in a real free market, the players will take.'"


He continued.


"The reason we have a salary cap is because the owners believe -- and they are correct -- that the salary cap we have now pays the players less than what the free market would pay them. That's the starting point from the players' analysis, but the players are willing to live with that if we can work out an agreement."


The argument from the owners' side of things when it comes to a 50/50 split of revenues is that the two sides are partners in building and growing the NHL as a business. But Fehr rejects that idea whole-heartedly.


"If we are partners, do we have joint control?" Fehr asked. "Do we get to have an equal say on how the marketing is done, how the promotion is done, where the money is invested, where the franchises are located? Do we have an equal say on when teams are sold, where the money goes? Do we get part of that? Do we have an equal say on how the television arrangements are done?


"Do we have an equal say on anything? That's what a partnership normally implies."


http://www.sbnation....pa-lockout-2012

The section I bolded states it most succinctly. The NHL keeps throwing around the phrase partnership, but it's ignoring that they only mean financial partnership, not any equal share in decisionmaking or control.

You can keep trying to say its both sides and throw mud at the union, but to me it's pretty obvious the owners are the ones most responsible for this impasse and impending lockout.

And to be clear I'm not saying a deal can't be done. That's what's infuriating. This should be the easiest CBA negotiation of all. But the owners ridiculous proposal and crap about partnering with players is the biggest problem. They're not even looking at the issue correctly. They want to fix the disparity among franchises by taking more from players.


EDIT: forgot to include link.


#2325993 Player Haters (not so) Anonymous

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 August 2012 - 02:01 PM

What a great character Wendel Clark was? I'm pretty sure he's the one that got a match penalty for slashing one of the NHL's nicest and cleanest players(sarcasm don't kill me, I hate Bryan Marchment) in the throat.

I think Sports Illustrated compared Wendel Clark very well with Alex Burrows, very similar players.

http://sportsillustr.../content.5.html

That's got to be a joke. Burrows is a yapping, hair pulling, finger biting, d-bag. Clark was a tough player who backed up anything he did on the ice.

I didn't like Clark on the Wings but only because I hated him so much when he was on the Leafs.




#2325990 Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 19 August 2012 - 01:56 PM

Back in the 80's, and even up to the late 90's Kronwall would've been forced to stand up for himself - clean hit, or not...Intimidation had it's role back then.

With that being said - today's game is much different, and with the rules in place he doesn't have to worry as much about retaliation - although getting jumped can still happen.

Not really, unless he went after a star player.

Back in the 80s and into the 90s players actually accepted that a clean hard hit was part of the game. They'd take a number and get him back later.

Players jumping guys for throwing a clean hard hit is a relatively recent development.


#2325884 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 August 2012 - 06:53 PM

From Hockey Memes twitter:

https://twitter.com/hockeymemes

Weasel.png


#2325882 Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 August 2012 - 06:28 PM

Because beating up Kronwall's face might keep him from charging my guys. I like Krons, but your % is so far off. He leaves his feet 50% of the time. Watch old videos of Vlad if you want to see good hitting technique. Only red wing fans think Krons is clean.

His percentage may be off, but yours is even farther off.

I think Kronwall has left his feet too much in the past, though he was much better this last season. I'm guessing he took notice that the league had been cracking down. But even when he was leaving his feet, it wasn't anywhere near half the time.

He was credited with 113 hits in 2011. There's no way he left his feet 56 times. Raffi Headhunter Torres doesn't even reach those kind of numbers. Kronner would've been called for charging several times and likely been suspended.


#2325854 Should Kronwall have to answer the bell for his hits?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 August 2012 - 03:44 PM

In a perfect world, Kronwall would crush someone with a clean hit, then when some idiot dropped the gloves and went after him, Kronner would start throwing haymakers and drop that guy too. But he's just not that player.

Would I love him to beat the crap out of someone who expects him to fight for a clean hit? Yes.
Should he HAVE to fight for a clean hit? No.


#2325817 Hockey News sees us finishing 7th

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 August 2012 - 10:48 AM

Why aren't the Wings considered serious contenders?

Look at the current defensive corps. Kronwall, White, Quincey, Ericsson, Smith and Kindl.

Anything can happen but making predictions based on the current roster I can understand why the Wings are a big question mark.

Hopefully players will step up, but even more importantly hopefully no one gets injured. Can you imagine if Kronwall went down with an injury?


#2325678 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 August 2012 - 12:23 PM

And the players *don't* want more money? They're being just as greedy as the owners here. I wish everyone would quit acting like the players are being altruistic, and are totally "just out for the fans." If that was the case, why not accept the initial deal? That would get a new CBA in place, and allow the season to start on time. The reason is, the players are greedy too. They see all that pie, and they want more of it than the other guys.

Who has said anything like that?

The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.

Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.

Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.

I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?

Sorry, this ones more on ownership.