Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

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

#2337117 1995 vs 2009 Red Wings squads

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 30 December 2012 - 07:45 PM

The Penguins were not on a power play when they had too many men on the ice. It was at a vital juncture early in game 3.

 

And lol @ the "the better team always wins" argument. OK, fine, take L.A.'s Cup-winning team and remove Quick, Brown, Doughty, Richards and Carter to freak injuries. Were the Devils to win under those circumstances, would they have been the better team? Your argument makes literally no sense. It has no anchor in reality.

lol @ you thinking his argument has no anchor in reality when it is based on playing the actual games.  Yours on the other hand has little anchor in reality as it is the one based primarily on your own opinion of who is better.  So since his actually happened, it literally makes a lot of sense.

 

In your fictional example, yes the Devils were the better team.  Because they won. On the ice.  In reality.  Where the game is actually played.  As to why they won, of course injuries play a factor.  Just like they do when the Wings win.   It seems like the Kings would've been better if they were healthy, but who knows?  We'll never know because that's not what happened.  What we do know was the Devils won. 

 

The Stanley Cup isn't won by who has the best team on paper or on your theories as to who is better.  It's won on the ice.




#2337026 NHL submits offer to NHLPA - **Suspension Warning Post #70 & #273*

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 29 December 2012 - 11:54 AM

I wonder when we will know the NHLPA's response. I think the owners made a very reasonable offer here, we will see if the NHLPA responds in like fashion or decides on more posturing instead.

So right under Vladdy's warning, you take a pot shot at the NHLPA, which is only baiting the people you've been arguing with.  

 

I know we have the reigns tight on these threads, but they have mostly been incessant arguing by the same 5 or 6 people which eventually escalates to personal attacks.  I didn't delete it for the sake of example but your post would've been fine like this:

 

I wonder when we will know the NHLPA's response. I think the owners made a very reasonable offer here, we will see if the NHLPA responds in like fashion or decides on more posturing instead.

 

You've made your general position regarding the NHL and NHLPA more than clear over the hundreds of pages of these CBA threads.  No need for the shot at the NHLPA.  Same goes for anyone taking pot shots at the owners side.  As Vladdy said just a couple posts above, everyone knows where everyone stands by now.

 

Any posts taking shots at the NHL or NHLPA side, no matter how subtly, will be deleted entirely.  Discuss the offers, not who's the villain.




#2336469 Who takes Hudler's shootout spot?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 20 December 2012 - 03:10 PM

After playing a whole game, and an overtime.
A long skate from center ice to the goal might be too much work for him.

Maybe if they let him leave through the zamboni gate, the shootout is kind of on the way?


#2336103 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

let the court fight begin

Like is often the case, the only winners in this whole mess are the lawyers.


#2336102 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 December 2012 - 05:10 PM

Case in point, look at what everyone here wanted to pay Suter to come to Detroit. I think he was vastly overpaid heading to the Wild. I would not want to hamstring my team for 10 years just to get one player. Still, you had fans here calling for Kenny's head, and they are still calling for it today for not spending a ton of money.


Also keep in mind that the ownership voted to give Bettman the ability to have 8 owners support him and to overrule any decision regarding the CBA. So it wasn't like Bettman just walked in and made the decision for them. The owners were fully complicit in that decision. I am sure you already know that though.

Actually I don't already know that. You don't either.

i have no idea how exactly that vote went, how many votes it took, if it was all 30 owners, if it took a simple majority or if he needed two-thirds. The few things I've read about it just say how Bettman "engineered" a rule change so he wouldn't get overruled again like he was in 1995.

Honestly I'm just tired of blathering on about this whole thing. I'm filling the void left by hockey with obsessing over the stupid lockout. It's only making the lack of hockey worse.

f*** em all. Burn it to the ground.


#2336075 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 December 2012 - 12:56 PM

I think I have a solution to the problem of Bettman's dictatorial powers... we should make him accountable to another larger group of people. He has too much power and needs to be held accountable. The group of people he is accountable to could be, oh I don't know... 30 people... kind of like one representative for each team in the league, what do you think?
.........
.........
.........

......... oh wait.

Are you trying to imply that Gary Bettman already is accountable to other people and that he didn't unilaterally force a lockout on the players, owners, and fans because he's a vicious little weasel who hates hockey and hates all of us? That's a novel perspective.

Of course he has to answer to owners. So I guess he gets a free pass in spite of being paid over $8 million dollars to run the NHL?

Right, why should the head of the NHL be held responsible for the third lockout under his reign?


Some interesting reading:

“He’s in charge,” said Jonathon Gatehouse, whose book

“The Instigator: How Gary Bettman Remade the NHL and Changed the Game Forever,”

the first in-depth biography of Bettman, was recently published. “It has been a gradual process over 20 years and has accelerated since his victory in the last lockout.”



To make sure the disunity of 1994-95 did not happen again, Bettman engineered a change in the voting rules: if he was against a settlement, he could be overruled only by a vote of three-quarters of the owners. And he was given the power to fine any owner or team official as much as $1 million for divulging internal league matters.



Since that victory,(the 2005 lockout) Bettman’s authority has been unassailable.



Jacobs, the chairman of the Board of Governors, and Snider, who as chairman of Comcast helped secure the N.H.L.’s $200 million deal with NBC, are his strongest supporters.


“In the old days, basically the owners ran the league and almost ran it into the ground,” Snider said last December. “Now it’s Bettman’s league. He’s a great commissioner. Basically he’s the force behind everything we do.”


http://www.nytimes.c...l-enforcer.html


I don't see how torching the season and firing Bettman is going to solve anything at this stage. In order for there to be real traction on the negotiating front, you need to fire the leadership on both sides. Not just Bettman and Fehr, but their leadership teams as well.

Unfortunately a big part of the leadership team is the law firm representing the NHL in these negotiations, which also represents all 4 major sports and was a big player in both the NBA and NFL lockout. Not coincidentally, it's the law firm that Bettman and Stern used to work for.

I would love to get rid of Bettman, Fehr, and that law firm as well .

It's starting to feel like Bettman and Stern are the two old guys in Trading Places, and they have a bet for $1 to see who can get the best deal for the owners, no matter what it does to the sport.


#2336062 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 14 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

Per Dreger:

Wild speculation ranging from potential deals to decertification.Both sides still have plenty of fight. As for decert, it would kill the yr.



I don't think the NHLPA should decertify, but I'm back to the point of just saying screw it, lose the season. Fire Bettman. Burn it to the ground and start over.

I'm gonna be too pissed off to watch hockey for a while anyway.


#2335947 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 December 2012 - 07:38 PM

Ever have a friend who's in a bad relationship? And every time you hang out with him all he does is complain about how awful things are, ask for advice that he never takes, and generally bring you down so you stop hanging out with him?

That's how the NHL has now become for me.



And as yet another reminder. No political discussion in this thread or on this site (no one really had yet but I wanted to head off any possibility from St. James' tweet) and no directing personal comments about the person making the post. Keep the discussion about this ridiculous lockout.


#2335826 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 December 2012 - 06:31 PM

One thing I think people are overlooking regarding this CBA negotiations is that while this does involve business owners and a union, this really has little to do with typical labor negotiations.

For starters, hockey is entertainment. Yes the players get paid ridiculous sums of money to play game. They don't get paid that amount because they are very good at hockey. They get paid that amount because people will pay a lot of money to watch them play.

It's why the owners need the players and the players need the owners. Sure, the owners could get rid of all the players and start over, but people won't shell out the ridiculous money they do for NHL games to watch 4th line scrubs play the game. there's already plenty of existing leagues with that level of talent, and ticket prices reflect that. That's the second point, the players are an elite and very small talent pool, and it's reflected in their salaries.

That's why these negotiations have more in common with the entertainment industry than the auto industry. Adam Sandler gets paid a boatload of money to be in movies not because he's great at acting, but because a lot of people will pay money to go see him in a movie.

Just a point I wanted to make clear because it seems to be getting lost in the noise. I don't hate the owners, but the players generate massive amounts of revenue for the owners. Both sides need each other and should have been able to come to a sensible agreement.


#2335816 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

good article on the breakdown of the core economic issues and while those are the most important issues, there are some things that the owners have given the players. and while they aren't nearly as important as the big issues, i'm sure the players will be glad to have them. also, that article didn't mention the pension issues, which would be considered an owner's concession

http://www.startribu.../177160641.html

legally, the owners are the ones being generous with the make whole because all contracts signed are subject to changes to a new cba. the players and agents are fully aware that contracts could and most likely will be changed when a new cba comes along, which is why i believe suter and parise got so much signing bonus money, which is not subject to cba changes. now you could argue morally and ethically the owners are in the wrong if they don't offer to honor contracts in full which i agree they should, but legally they don't have to.

I know what you're saying, but I'd hardly call it generous to agree to honor a portion of the contract you've decided not to pay in full, some of which were signed only months ago.

My understanding is they tried a similar move in the NBA lockout (which isn't surprising since all 4 major sports are repped by the same law firm in CBA negotiations) and it got quickly shot down. While they NBA players agreed to 50/50, they play in a league with a soft cap and luxury tax and had the owners make a large increase in revenue sharing.

All sports are different, but the NBA is a relatively close business to the NHL. And in comparison, the NHL players are getting hammered in this negotiation, in great part due to the sins of the owners.

And of the things that benefit players listed in the article:

1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players;
That helps the owners just as much for teams to get under the cap. And I would hardly call that a benefit to players, other than things could have been much worse. They're having their salaries cut back and the cap further restricted. Not waiving players isn't a benefit offered to the players. It just means the owners didn't make things even worse for them.

This is the problem I have with the logic of the league side. Because of the owners ridiculous first proposal, Bettman keeps claiming all they've done is concede. Starting at an insane point and moving towards something reasonable, however, is not really a concession. It just means you've actually decided to negotiate in good faith. Fehr should have started by taking the cap off the table, or increasing player share to 70%. Then he could have "conceded" to allowing the cap be in play again. Or having the percentage come down to 60%.

At best, this one's a wash.

2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted);
probably benefits owners more in that they can dump the awful deals they've made. At best, also a wash.

3) eliminate re-entry waivers;
I'd say wash, but I may be missing something on how this benefits players more than owners because I don't know all the ins and outs. Teams being able to send players down without potentially losing them is a benefit.

4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted);
This helps the league and unlike anything the owners have proposed, actually addresses the fundamental problem in the league's economic structure. Definitely a wash.

5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).
This one I don't know much about but I initially read somewhere it would probably be a very rare circumstance.

Taken in total, none of those even come close to moving from 57 to 50% in salary and giving up all the contracting rights the players will need to in order to make a deal.


Negotiations are give and take. The starting point for who determining who is conceding something is the last CBA, not the first ridiculous proposal the NHL made. Bettman keeps trying this slight of hand and it seems to be working on people.


#2335703 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 09 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

A fan protest video retweeted by McKenzie. It's a pretty simple plan and message to the NHL about fans boycotting games.




#2335627 New CBA

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 December 2012 - 07:04 PM

If Bettman is still commissioner, yes. Losing the entire season in 2005 didn't change his negotiating style, why would this lockout?


#2335616 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

McKenize tweeted a link to some guy who made an interesting argument. One he wasn't even necessarily completely sold on, but is an interesting point.

The basic idea is that even though the 5 year contract length only involves a handful of players, it indirectly affects a lot of other players. The longer contracts are really only going to be with star players. And because of the cap and contract restrictions, it's more difficult for franchises to compete for star players. One way they can compete is by extending longer contracts. That means more job security for the player, but it also means a lower cap hit because of the longer term. That frees up more cap space for the lower line players.

The thinking (as I understand it) is if there's 5% variance and 5 year contracts, contracts could just get maxed out for the star players and eat up a greater portion of the cap, thereby depressing salaries for the lower line players because there's less cap space left to split among several players.

It's an interesting idea. And if the logic holds up is a counterargument to why the contracting issues affect more than just those 40 or 90 players.

So I don't know what to think about it anymore. I just want hockey.


#2335583 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 December 2012 - 02:04 PM

while i disagree with the owner's take it or leave it approach, fehr purposely misled the public. he knew full well that the league wasn't going to accept his proposal.

That or he badly misread the situation. Either way it's not good.

Someone should have had a sense of how the owners felt, many that they had already offered too much, so even if the NHLPA wasn't going to accept that offer outright, that is should have been handled more delicately than it was. Like maybe more conversation about the contracting issues instead of making an outright proposal that doesn't include what the owners want.

Either way, the fact that both sides got this close and it fell apart over contract issues takes it to a new level of idiocy, and the idiocy level was already extremely high.


#2335504 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 06 December 2012 - 08:10 PM

"my way or no way" - Bettman.... it's like his negotiating tactics have been the same since he was 5

That's the thing, it's just so friggin hard to tell. From what I read on TSN it sounds like the league made a pretty good offer, one that should be able to get worked into a final deal.

Then it sounds like the union comes back closer to their demands but not accepting them outright, so the league bolts again.

Could it possibly be true they rejected the offer via voicemail??

But it's all so much conjecture I can't really even tell how far apart they are. I know the league wants 10 year CBA, didn't the union propose 8 years? Have both sides not heard of the number 9?

And while I think not honoring existing contracts is a screw job, it seems like something the owners are willing to sacrifice at least one season for. And the league apparently did increase make whole money. but it gets convoluted so friggin fast.

Though it is pretty funny Bettman saying the NHLPA offer was insulting to the owners, given what the owners first offer in this whole mess was.