Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#2329187 Who is the Best Russian the Wings Have Ever Had?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 02:52 PM

First of all I don't know if you mean 94-95 or 95 -96, in either case there was a lot more scoring than any of the years datsyuk has played 94-95 5.97 (basically 6) and 95-96 6.29. the league has never averaged anywhere close to 6 goals a game since Datsyuk has been in it

You've mentioned that a couple times now and it's not true.

Datsyuk played in 2006 when the average goals per game was 6.05 or 6.17, depending on the source.

In 2009 and 2010 the average goals per game was 5.83 and 5.68. Both of those are fairly close to 6.

Also, in 98, 99, 02, 03, and especially 04, the average goals per game was lower than any season Datsyuk has played in.

You're overstating the goal scoring discrepancy between the two eras. Like I said before, the biggest years of difference were 91-94. Otherwise it's pretty much a wash.

#2329159 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 12:40 PM

The players just want to keep what they already have and what they were contractually promised. Its the owners that want more money.

Good point.

The players are fighting to reduce the amount of money that will be taken from them. None of their proposals ask for an increase in salary. They ask for a smaller reduction.

#2329076 Team or Players?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 11:35 PM

I wouldn't be happy that the Red Wings were playing, because they wouldn't be.

Guys like Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg and the like are all under contract by the Red Wings. They are Detroit Red Wings hockey players.

Besides, no one can match what Dats does out there. Certainly not some replacement player that couldn't crack the NHL except as a scab.

#2329073 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 11:32 PM

Protect the rights of players, keep them from getting crewed by owners? B**S**T!!

If their role is so well established, spell it. Give one impiric example of player right violation that can not be spotted and fixed by his agent?

Well, actually, I give one myself. Remember Fehr rejecting realignment despite majority of players and fans liked it...

Got a link to verify Fehr rejecting it in spite of the majority of fans and players liking it?

Because what actually happened is the union wanted more time than the deadline the league put on it and requested more information. When they weren't given that information from the league, the players voted overwhelmingly to veto realignment.

It was a tactic by Bettman to make the union look bad that you apparently bought. He dropped a massive change to the NHL on them, gave them a short deadline to respond, and didn't give them very much info to go on.



Really, and why exactly does Ferh keep bringing back subject of revenue share to the table?

Because the biggest problem facing the league is not player salary but the financial disparity between large and small franchises. That's not the same as them losing money. The union's propsal, while far from perfect, actually acknowledges that disparity problem and tries to address it. The league's proposals involve just taking more from the players.

One great example of unions membership protection - unions sueing Boeng for creating 4000 jobs in right-to-work state. For me, f*ck such unions.

Unions shoud've been banned after WWII. And they definetly do not belong in professional sport.

I hate what Bettman does to game of hockey, but from business perspective he is doing pertty job and you have to admit, his employers like it. Yes, he is trying to manage expense and keep business at least viable. Union, on the other hand, wants guaranteed paychecks for its members. See the difference?

The section I bolded has nothing do to with the NHL's and NHLPA's CBA negotiation or the lockout, which is the topic of this thread.

Though it does demonstrate that your opinion is based mostly on your hatred for unions and not what's actually transpiring in this lockout.

#2329008 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 12:32 PM

It's staggering that in spite of a 50% increase in revenue since the last CBA 7 years ago earning the league over a billion dollars more in revenue, there's a lockout.

This should have been the least dramatic of all CBA negotiations.

#2328994 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 11:45 AM

Sad that its come to this, yet again.

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...

I just have to say, that's an awesome avatar.

#2328988 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 10:53 AM

Buck Fettman.

#2328987 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

In spite of how successful this thread has been, all members are locked out until you give into the mods demands. :P

Official Lockout Thread here:


#2328838 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 September 2012 - 12:51 AM

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.

#2328748 Wings sign Carlo Colaiacovo to 2 year deal, $2.5m cap hit

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 September 2012 - 01:19 PM

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.
  • Nev likes this

#2328706 Doan staying in PHX 4 yrs $21.2 mill

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 September 2012 - 09:37 AM


It's funny that the owners voted to lock the players out for "cost certainty" while at the very same time you know a handful of them were throwing piles of money at him in the Doan sweepstakes.

#2328666 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 September 2012 - 12:46 AM

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.

#2328660 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 September 2012 - 12:09 AM

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.

#2328625 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 September 2012 - 07:35 PM

What's with Uncle Gary's infatuation with trying to be on the same level as the NFL and the NBA?
It was funny when he called out the media for twisting his words about the "final offer".

In 2004 he was saying comparison to other leagues wasn't really relevant because the sports are so different.

Now that the percentage of players salary in those leagues works in his favor, funny how he's changed his tune.

#2328482 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 September 2012 - 05:29 PM

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.