Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

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

#2337239 Holland booed off Ford Field

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 01 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

I'm sure it's just frustration and that Kenny just represents to them the lockout.

Agreed.  Though I'm still a little surprised he got booed.  Obviously Holland has no role in this other than working for the Wings.

 

Fans are really pissed.  Good.  I hope they stay away for a while and send a message that this is not an effective strategy.




#2337164 List of Divers

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 31 December 2012 - 02:39 PM

Yes the league should crack down on divers, but it happens so fast I don't know that you can rely on refs to handle it in games.  

 

I think the best way is to have a video official reviewing questionable plays after a game.  The on ice refs could even let them know which plays they want looked at it. 

 

But even then only the most extreme cases will get punished.  The stick not actually hitting Carcillo's face.  Kesler's ridiculous flop. 

 

Fining those guys even after games though should help.  They embarrass the refs and league with their antics, so they should be publicly embarrassed too. 




#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.




#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.


#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.


#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.


#2335477 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 06 December 2012 - 07:22 PM

unbelievable.

I've seen thirteen year olds have more mature and productive communication than this.


#2335017 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 30 November 2012 - 11:07 AM

Not that he's the end-all-be-all authority on anything, but Danny Cleary at least is is keen on the idea...

And while it may prove to be a terrible idea for the players, it does at least address one question that we've seen raised several times here. The question of "What would happen if Bettman and Fehr (and their substantial egos) were not involved in the process?"

In the end, I don't think anything would come of that kind of a meeting, especially if hawks like Jacobs and Leonsis are involved. But it would at least be interesting to see what might happen with a direct meeting like that...

Hell at this point they should try just about anything. I guess it's good Bettman actually asked the union this time before trying the end around of owners talking directly to players.

Mostly I just meant that this definitely benefits the owners more than players. There's nothing they'd love more than to negotiate directly with players during contract negotiations and CBA negotiations. It'd be like the pre-NHLPA days. If hockey players were great at negotiations, they wouldn't need agents. Meanwhile they're sitting across from billionaire owners with extensive business and negotiating experience, as well as a massive support staff to help them.

Either way, my main position is still f*** this league. With the growth this league has enjoyed during this last CBA, the prudent move would've been a compromise that wouldn't lose games and damage the integrity and public faith in the NHL. What both sides gave up on the negotiating table would've been recouped fairly quickly.

Instead they're still arguing over how to arrange the deck chairs on the titanic.


#2334880 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 28 November 2012 - 02:41 PM

according to forbes, 13 teams are losing money


People keep repeating that but it's not true.

According to Forbes analysis with the financial info they have available to them, those teams have a negative operating income before things like taxes, depreciation and amortization. But it's inaccurate for them to simply say they're losing money.

These owners have multiple corporations with revenue and expenses moving between one and the other. The goal with corps is not to show a huge profit because you want to reduce your tax burden.

Clearly there are teams that are struggling financially but the Forbes report isn't a complete or accurate financial picture. In 2004 Bettman had an extensive audit of franchises to show in irrefutable detail how many were losing money. Strange how he didn't do that this time.

There's the secondary issue of how much it's actually the players fault that these franchises aren't profitable. Unlike 2005 the real issue is the disparity of the franchises, not the un-capped costs of player salaries.