Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

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

#2329209 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 04:42 PM

Jim, there's no need to get so upset here. Besides, if the league had let you buy Phoenix, you'd be on the other side of this argument now. :)

A fair CBA does exist for all 30 teams, it's just a matter of getting there. The quickest thing to do would be substantially lower the cap floor. The floor, while a good idea in theory, just serves to drive up the cost of scrubs while cheap teams need to fill roster space to get to the floor. If it wasn't for Florida needing to get to the floor, does anyone seriously think Tomas Kopecky makes anywhere close to 3 mil per season? Your bottom dwelling teams are all offering these crazy contracts to the same scrubs they always have, but now you have Ville Leino saying "If Kopecky is worth 3.5 a year, then I know I'm worth 6." Of course the players love this. If you're Jeff Finger or Wiznewski, you love getting a fat check for a mediocre skillset. But that's not healthy longterm, and leads to escalations of salaries ala Suter/Parise/Weber.

You say noone forced the owners to give these guys the contracts. This is true. However, if the owners all got together and decided they wouldn't spend more than x dollars for any contract, everyone would be complaining about collusion and how the system's not fair. Can't have it both ways.

If they got rid of the salary floor, or made it a percentage rather than a hard number based on the cap, and removed revenue sharing, that would go a long way to sorting this out. Let the CBJ spend nothing on players, and let them die. But they players wouldn't accept that either. Teams going away means less jobs in the NHL, and Ericsson, Emmerton, Drew Miller, etc. would end up in the AHL.

There's no easy solution here, but you can't pretend the players are operating in a vacuum either, and that the only party at fault is the owners/league.

The salary cap is exactly that. It's not collusion because they're all franchises of the league. But by linking players salaries to revenue and putting a hard cap on it, the owners have already done exactly what you're saying.

I'm not understanding how removing revenue sharing would help given the big problem is the disparity between the rich and poor franchises.

I do agree though that there's other ways to helps costs by doing things like lowering the cap floor. The owners seem fixated on just reducing players salaries, but they could help contract inflation through other avenues besides the players percentage. Lower the cap floor. Limit the length of contracts. have the yearly payout be the same as the cap hit instead of the average. Eliminate signing bonuses (I honestly thought those were already gone).

I'm guessing the problem is that the owners of the wealthy franchises like all those things because they give their team a competitive advantage. 30 owners may have voted for the lockout, but don't forget that the Flyers made an offer sheet to Weber structured so it would basically financially cripple Nashville. But the one thing they can all agree on is it would be great to pay players less.


#2329196 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 17 September 2012 - 03:10 PM

Being as that some of the clubs are not profitable right now, them asking the players for rollbacks doesn't surprise me. What surprises me are the levels of rollbacks the owners are asking for, which is just pure greed.

If anything, the owners in these areas that aren't selling tickets well need to be relocated. The owners don't see it this way though. I don't believe the players should have to go down to anything further than 52% of their share, with no rollbacks in salaries. The owners just have no interest in hearing any of that. The players don't believe they should drop their share except on a temporary basis.

Honestly them asking for rollbacks doesn't surprise me either. I was just surprised at how outrageous their proposal is.

Had they made a more reasonable proposal for a rollback, they probably could've gotten it by now. Instead they went nuclear.

52% seems like a good number. Get the players to give up 5%, but then make the concession that CBA term has to be longer like the league wants. Then when that ends, re-evaluate how many franchises are still struggling and why. The NHL's proposal was as if the league was in a massive financial crisis. It's not.

Like I said from the beginning, a group of knowledgeable hockey fans and hockey reporters could get together and knock out a a pretty equitable CBA in a day. This should have been the smoothest negotiations of all of them. I have to wonder if the owners saw the other league's negotiations and the players share under 50% and started licking their chops.


#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.


#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.


#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:

http://www.letsgowin...lockout-thread/


#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

http://sports.yahoo....03125--nhl.html

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.


#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.


#2328459 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 September 2012 - 04:19 PM

About the only thing I agree with Bettman on in his press conference is that a 6 year (or longer) deal would be better. Because hopefully in 6 years he will no longer be commissioner.


#2328457 2012 Lockout Watch

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

Link? Source?

I am trying to find a legit source that says it was an "ultimatum". So far, all I can find are unreliable twitter feeds from people who weren't there.

EDIT: This is the closest I have found. http://nbcsports.msn.../ns/sports-nhl/

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.

http://watch.tsn.ca/...9512#clip759512