Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private
***--

#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

Attached File  Weasel.png   277.5KB   13 downloads


#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.


#2325543 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 16 August 2012 - 03:58 PM

What I want to know is, why aren't the sides getting together with their leadership? I know that Fehr is traveling, but by the time they meet next week, we are going to be 3 weeks away from camps opening. It just seems to me that both sides are just lollygagging around. Where is the sense of urgency? If I was in charge of either side, I would have my calendar clear and ready to negotiate.

Agreed.

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.


#2325390 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 August 2012 - 05:30 PM

I agree wholeheartedly that Bettman is a prick, but remember what i was saying about the NHLPA not adding a lot of different issues in their proposal.

From Gary Bettman's statement:

"There's still a wide gap between us with not much time to go," NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told reporters after Wednesday's session. "This is a process that we're going to continue to work hard on. I think there's still a number of issues where we're looking at the world differently."

Bettman says he understands what the NHLPA has put forth, but adds that it isn't a full proposal and he is "disappointed" that he's still waiting for one at this late stage.

I normally don't agree with the Anti-Christ, but I was sort of afraid of this being the answer back from the NHL. The players while being reasonable in their proposal, once again like i said earlier, left out the meat and potatoes of the new CBA. They added jack about contract length and front loading contracts and all that stuff. They want a quick fix and want to play when the scheduled games start, but they need to cover all aspects when they make their counter proposals.

Bettman is just pulling more political bs to try and make the union look bad. It doesn't sound like the players left out the meat and potatoes, they just didn't include everything Bettman would want in there. Which isn't really a surprise considering it's a negotiation.

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.

And what good is a "full proposal" from the NHL when most of what they proposed is insane?

Just listen to the tone that Fehr takes in his public comments about the CBA negotiations, then listen to Bettman. Bettman takes every opportunity to take shots at the union and threaten lockout. When the NHL took until mid July to give their first proposal to the players union, was he disappointed in the timeline then?

Seems like Bettman's got a case of short man syndrome and loves to wield his power whenever he's given the opportunity. That or he really wants to get the lockout hat trick.


#2325366 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 August 2012 - 02:07 PM

Bettman's response, from THN's "The Stats Guy"...


He's such a prick.

The NHLPA's response might have been more timely had they known the league's offer would be insane and not worth waiting to see before responding.


#2325190 What do you consider a fair CBA?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 August 2012 - 02:04 PM

3 LOCKOUTS! unacceptable!


This, we already lost a season of a still prime 35 year old Lidstrom. Are we potentially about to lose a season where Dats is 34 and Z is 31?

They're going to have to put an asterisk by total stats for players whose career fell under Bettman's reign because they lost a season and a half (and counting) of hockey and had to suffer through a decade of clutch and grab before the league did anything about it.


#2324662 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 August 2012 - 02:49 PM

Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we fellas? Just because Bettman says they will lock out doesn't mean there will be one. That crazy bastard in Iran keeps saying he's going to wipe Israel off the map but we haven't see any of that either. So far, it's all theater and should be treated as such.

Bettman has never renegotiated a CBA without a lockout so when he threatens to lock players out again, it's hard not to fear the worst.