Third lockout in as many tries for Bettman. 3/3 on league time lost due to labor disputes. Anyone still think this buffoon still needs to keep his job? Apparently a majority of the BoG does, which is sad...
As a result of the lockouts under Bettman's reign, Wings fans have missed:
1994-95: 35 games for a 29 year old Yzerman, 24 year old Fedorov, 24 year old Lidstrom, and a 27 year old Konstantinov.
2004-05: 82 games for a 39 year old Yzerman, 34 year old Lidstrom, 36 year old Shanahan, 26 year old Pavel Datsyuk, 23 year old Zetterberg. Both Z and Dats led the Wings with 85 and 87 points when the league resumed games the next season. Shanny scored 40 goals and 81 points. Lids won the Norris.
2012-13: ??? games for a 34 year old Datsyuk, 31 year old Zettberg, 32 year old Franzen, 29 year old Jimmy Howard.
Over his 20 year career, Lidstrom missed only 46 games, including playoffs. Because of the lockouts under Bettman, Lidstrom missed an additional 117 games. Thankfully he decided to retire this year so we were saved the heartache of him deciding to come back for another season, only for there not to be a season.
Obviously these are only a few highlighted Wings players and don't even include potential playoff games in 05, but you get the idea. Careers are short, prime years even shorter. All the scoring records in the Bettman era should have an asterisk because of the games lost.
For some reason I can't kick this feeling that kindl could be a 4/5 dman if we gave him the chance. he has the size and skill. I watched almost every game last season and every game he played in and I think there is something there...
As the highest pick the Wings have had in years, I was hoping for even more than that from Kindl. But last season he couldn't even outplay Commie for a spot in the lineup.
Here are couple other things players can offer to the league. - Make the cap number to equal actual salary (kill the front-loaded contracts) - Remove players option for the 5% cap inflator
That first one I think is a great way to make things more equitable between the big and smaller franchises besides reducing player salary (which doesn't actually achieve that). Right now the rich franchises can extend massive contracts that nearly cripple the small ones (a la Shea Weber) and essentially circumvent the cap with long term.
I didn't realize the players even had an option for inflating the cap. It's definitely something else they could negotiate off of. Even if not eliminating, they could reduce it.
I finally get it. frankgrimes is Jim Balsille. One of the 3 people left on earth who use a blackberry, and has a total hate hard on for Bettman and the owners to the exclusion of everything else. Still mad they wouldn't let you buy the Pens or Predators, or circumvent everything for the Coyotes?
Seriously, we get it. The owners should be forced to give 99% of the revenue to the players, pay for all other costs out of their own pockets, and let the players pick what nights they play and who their teammates are. Hell, lets dismantle the front offices, and let the players have a multibillion dollar beer league. Screw the owners who pay for the buildings, staff, insurance costs, medical, etc.
Has anyone in this thread put together a reasonable argument for the owner's side without resorting to a straw man or some other fallacy?
Everyone is just accepting that players need to reduce their share of revenue (including myself), but why exactly? The most common argument I hear involves comparing it to the NFL or NBA, which has little relevance to hockey.
Yes yes, the Forbes report where it lists 18 teams as having negative income. Forbes lists the Coyotes as dead last with -24.4 mill operating income. Their payroll was a very reasonable $55 million last season. They made it to the conference finals. I'm pretty sure the Forbes report was before the playoffs but assuming they didn't have a positive income (using the Forbes standard) if a team can't turn a profit with that payroll and a conference finals finish, the problem is not players salaries.
Obviously that's just one example, but my point is it's not as easy as saying they need this reduction because the league is in trouble. This isn't 2004. The NHL overall is profitable.
With a combination of contract limits, revenue sharing AND a reasonable reduction in player salary, the league could help the smaller markets succeed. Or at least give them the opportunity to succeed if they have any idea what they're doing. Instead they are asking for massive reduction in player's salary, with little compelling evidence as to why exactly other than they're willing to hold hockey hostage until the players cave. And at the same time they want to re-define what even constitutes the Hockey Related Revenue before they even give players less of it.
As Fehr pointed out, what's in it for the players in any of these offers from the NHL? The concessions the union is mainly asking for is a less insane reduction from the league. They're not asking to get rid of the cap. The league is so fixated on ratcheting down players salary that it seems like they haven't even discussed things like contract length. And that's where I think the union can do some giving. Length of CBA. Length of player contracts.
Instead, Bettman uses the nuclear option again and we as fans lose more hockey.
No offense, but only a fool would say that more time is bad when it comes to a negotiation. You are right, no one knows what would have happened, but when the league was ready to negotiate and the NHLPA didn't step up to the table, that went largely unnoticed. To not at least say that it was a bad move by the NHLPA to not start negotiating early and wait until June is telling.
I pretty clearly spelled out why extra time doesn't matter. But I'll try and put it more simply. We're three days away and both sides are deadlocked. Yet you're saying starting 6 months earlier would've somehow helped? As if back then with little real threat of losing a season, they somehow would've started making concessions?
I didn't say it was a bad or good move. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Lack of time is not the issue.
And you say no offense, then call me a fool?
I'm tired of the insults built into your arguments and the constant misrepresentations of what I've said. Your mind seems made up and you're constantly responding to some idea of what you think I believe, instead of what I've actually stated I believe.
Carry on your merry way, but I'm done discussing this with you.
Not really an ultimatum. Hell, at the end of every CBA, all deals go out the window anyway.
No they don't. The current CBA of course officially expires, but there is nothing that says any proposal being made by either side also goes out the window.
When you make a counter proposal and say the union has until the 15th to accept or the deal will be removed, that is an ultimatum.
Listening to Bettman talk in the press conference, in between all his cheap shots at the union, he does sound like there may be the possibility of further negotiation before the deadline. But it's hard to know if that's sincere since his main purpose seemed to be spinning things that the union hadn't conceded anything, the league had "meaningful movement" and tried to make it sound as if the union is the hold up in further negotiations. All that after Bettman said "negotiating publicly doesn't help the process."
The difference in professionalism and tone of the press conferences held by Bettman and Fehr is amazing.
After any CBA expiration, all deals are typically off the table. I thought that Bettman said "Sign this, or else we will ask for a 60-40 split in revenues" or something along those lines.
Again, that is false. The CBA expires, but that has no effect on proposals unless Bettman and the owners link the two, which they've done.
And the implication of pulling any offer off the table is obviously that later offers will be even less favorable. By giving an expiration date on a deadline, there is the implicit threat that things will get worse later.
It certainly would be nice to hear about the details of these proposals.
From the way it sounds.....both sides are proposing "my way or the highway" with no concessions. Not really a way to bargain.
It's beyond me that someone could watch Bettman's press conference and think this is equally both sides fault.
He takes several shots at the union, then later lectures about "not negotiating publicly." And even goes back to blame the players for the lost season in 2004.
When asked directly if it was a final offer, Bettman refused to answer and once again fell back on his "not negotiating publicly" dodge. He also said repeatedly revenue sharing is not the issue.
Concessions go far beyond money. The percentage the players are getting is just one portion.
Why not offer the NHLPA expanded revenue sharing along with the final $5 million dollars in the cap system a luxury tax? Why not offer the NHLPA arbitration, signing bonuses, and no cap on salaries?
Those are just a couple examples, but so far, they haven't offered any concessions.
Just as the NHLPA hasn't offered any real concessions either.
Why not offer the NHL a 52-48 hard linkage in favor of the players? Why not offer the NHL a entry level contract cap to 3-4 years? Why not offer the NHL a cap on over contract length to 7 or 8 years?
From the way it looks, both sides are demanding. The owners are demanding that the players take the salary cuts, the contract limits, no arbitration, and so on. That is wrong. The players are demanding that things stay the same or the hard linkage goes down to 53% for year one and moves back up to 57% in year 3 with a 4th year player option at the same level. How does a temporary change fix this problem? It doesn't. While the player offer was less draconian, its still not the solution.
Whats worse is that both sides are posturing and being inflexible.
As a fan, I find it disgusting. Just get in the room and work on the deal.
I will be doing this when the lockout is announced on Saturday.
Relative to what the owners first proposal was, the union's first proposal should have been the elimination of a salary cap. Their first offer already was a large concession.
It boggles the mind that in spite of making over a billion dollars more revenue in 7years, that ownership thinks this is the solution to the league's issues. Revenue has increased 50% in seven years! How many industries see that kind of growth??
While the union's proposal certainly isn't an end point for the CBA, it's based on the idea that the league will continue to make money, increase revenue and be successful, which is what Gary has been telling us for 7 years and what has happened for 7 years. What ownership is trying to sell fans on is that in spite of a 50% increase in revenue in 7 years, the players need to make massive concessions on salaries and contracts in order for franchises to be successful. That's bulls***.