Jump to content

sibiriak's Photo


Member Since 07 Sep 2005
Offline Last Active Feb 05 2016 01:52 PM

#2483875 Zetterberg out with herniated disc

Posted by sibiriak on 14 February 2014 - 01:43 PM

I do have leisure activities that I am unable to participate in and can be found legally negligent if I participate in them.  


If 10 of my best employees said, hey, we're leaving for 3 weeks, but we expect you to still pay us, you will have to close down your business, we expect you to still pay the 10 other employees that will sit and do nothing while we go, we will all have to work extra hours because of it and it will bring your business absolutely no extra money or exposure.  Oh and by the way, I'm too sick or hurt to work right now, though I'm still getting paid, but I'm more than okay to go off for 3 weeks and do my job for my pride.  There's also a good chance that when I come back I'll be too hurt to work also.  But you will still have to pay me.  I have been a good employee for 10 years, so I don't owe you anything.  But you still have to pay me.  Sorry, not going to fly.

Boy, one has to try hard  to be wrong on every single point one made.

1. Players get paid X dollars per year, to be available to play 82 games + playoffs. They are, with or without the Olympics  So "your 10 best employees"

are NOT paid by the Wings while they play in the Olympics.

2. Their NHL salaries are INSURED for injury by their national hockey federations. So the Wings are NOT on the hook for Zetterberg's salary from now until he comes back from injury.

3. The Olympic break is 9 days longer than the normal All-Star break. Just 9 days over a 160 days season.

So your analogy does not fly. Sorry.

#2483201 NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics (Mod Post #99)

Posted by sibiriak on 10 February 2014 - 02:24 PM

They won't care if they aren't playing against the other best players in the league.  That's what makes it appealing.  Like I said, no NHL players broke contracts or had clauses put into their contracts to play in the Olympics before 1998.  It wasn't important and it will again become unimportant.  

That was because North American "professionals" were not allowed to play in the Olympics before 1998. So they wouldn't have been allowed to play even if they broke their contracts. It's a whole new game after 1998.

I'm all for not participating in the Olympics, but part of me thinks this is going to be used as a bargaining chip on the part of the NHL.  They could probably get some pretty big concessions from the NHLPA.

I think you are right. This is Bettman starting his next CBA "negotiations" early. They (the owners) have done used the Olympic participation as a bargaining chip every time since 1998.

#2481654 NHL may rethink Sochi

Posted by sibiriak on 06 February 2014 - 10:29 AM

I wonder what the Russian women's curling team beds look like, since that's where they'll probably be spending most of their time.

They should be so lucky. That's the Russian curling team captain.


#2481429 NHL may rethink Sochi

Posted by sibiriak on 05 February 2014 - 12:37 PM


Are they supposed to ? No, but seriously the pictures, water quality and below average standard and we are talking about the best players in the world here they aren't used to that kind of stuff. If a city can't even offer good quality on top of spending 50 million $ they shouldn't get the games period.


The only thing players should have to worry is the competition and nothing else but in Sochi they have a lot of stuff to worry about: attacks, supbar quality of life, safety and water which isn't even drinkable...thats bad standards no matter how you look at it, pathetic.

   The water was yellow in one instance that we saw. If you ever moved in a brand new building, there is always dirt in he pipes. It flashes out in a few hours.

   Worrying about terrorist attacks? By your logic the Boston Bruins should refuse to ever play at home . Unlike the US, Russia had never had a terrorist attack at a sporting event. Newsflash: terrorism is a global threat. If we go by the historical number of victims, the USA would be in the top 4 right after Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria. Yet the NHL thinks nothing of holding games here.

   Quality of life? For the athletes it will be the same as in any Olympics before. The income level/standard of living of the Russian citizens of Sochi will not matter to the athletes at all. The environment around the Olympic events will be fine, the same as anywhere else.

   Safety? That's a new one. Even in this nitpicking thread I haven't seen any complaints about safety or crime in Sochi.

#2452797 Varlamov Arrested

Posted by sibiriak on 11 November 2013 - 07:21 PM

It wasn't just one and when the main Russian news station keeps repeating it and doesn't discount the comment, it gives it credence wether it's one moron saying it or everyone. And dude I was born there so I have plenty of perspective about what the Russian government or the government controlled media say.

Noone of consequence repeated this rubbish, and nobody takes (or should take) Perviy kanal seriously.

And as you might have guessed from my nick, I am also far from home.

#2435311 Datsyuk Robbed

Posted by sibiriak on 06 September 2013 - 05:59 PM

According to the Russian papers it was mostly cash, nothing hockey related. Some other flats in the same building were burgled as well.

Datsyuk was at the Russian Olympic camp at the time. Ekaterinburg police better catch the bastards, if they can't even solve a crime against Datsyuk, what are they good for?

#2403711 WCQF Game 7 GDT - Red Wings 3 @ Ducks 2 - (DET wins series, 4-3)

Posted by sibiriak on 13 May 2013 - 12:57 AM

Nice win :)

Great poise, especially from the less experienced guys, absolutely awesome work rate, stellar goaltending.

Chicago is still a favorite, but they will have to really work for it. I'm much more optimistic about facing the Hawks after tonight's game.

#2367199 3/9 GDT : Red Wings 0 at Blue Jackets 3

Posted by sibiriak on 09 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

Watch Babcock go right back to Abdelkader-Datsyuk-Cleary despite not scoring a single goal tonight. He's deliberately tanking right now.

If he were tanking, he would have pretended to change up the lines for the 3rd period of a 0-3 game, to get some scoring, but he would have put Datsyuk and Zetterberg together with some scrub, like Abdelkader, to make sure they don't score. Oh wait...

#2339586 Red Wings 2013 schedule

Posted by sibiriak on 12 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

With 48 games they could have played 1 vs every Eastern team, 2 vs own Conf and 3 vs own division, with 1 more game against somebody, a traditional rival or division rival or Columbus :)

Instead, its West only and not even the equal number of games vs own division. What genius came up with that one?

#2339504 Pavel Datsyuk Penalty Shot Goal

Posted by sibiriak on 12 January 2013 - 12:55 PM

Here's Pavel's KHL All-Star penalty shots. He won that event, by the way.

#2337159 Yakupov VS Cherry

Posted by sibiriak on 31 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

I'd like to thank the Russians for their clean play.  Those 2 power play goals as a result of the Russian player cheapshot really helped Canada in their win today.

Well, McKinnon got away with a crosscheck in the face today. Shalunov got 5+game+extra game for a similar hit against the Slovaks. Sometimes the refs see it and sometimes not. See you in the final, if you can beat the US again that is.

#2331455 Russians Possibly Staying In KHL After Lockout

Posted by sibiriak on 12 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

KHL is not as good as the NHL, but is ways better than AHL or any other league.
And a salary that's 60% of NHL is actually a net after taxes. If you take into account all the federal ,state, and local taxes that the NHL players pay, the salaries are actually about equal. And they can play at home and will have no problem getting permission to play at the Worlds and the Olympics.

#2331327 Russians Possibly Staying In KHL After Lockout

Posted by sibiriak on 11 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

How can Ovi stay in the KHL when he has that monster of a contract? Will Dynamo buy it out?

He is contracted to play for the Caps in exchange for 9.7 mil. (IIRC) per year. If the Caps won't pay him the agreed salary, why should he be bound by the contract?

#2331074 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 09 October 2012 - 12:27 PM

You seem to keep assuming that I am ignorant of the supposed benefits of labor unions. I don't believe this is a matter of education, but rather a difference of opinion on the supposed benefits of labor unions in general, and if those benefits can be obtained through other means that are not restricting to running a successful business. Here is what I said in full:

... now, I did not realize that labor laws force acceptance of a union in order to institute something like a salary cap. Whether a salary cap was the only option to address the problem in question is a debatable matter. That aside, it is a very true statement that we would not have a lockout currently if the union didn't exist. Ergo, if your only goal is to watch hockey and you couldn't give a crap about the politicking... you should support dissolving the labor union.

I think that you are being deliberately obtuse, to avoid admitting that your idea of dissolving the NHLPA is totally clueless.

There's NOTHING about an NHL team that is even close to "free market". If you offered the NHL owners an option to get rid of all non "free-market" elements in their business, they would run you out of town on a rail.

Here's how a typical NHL team operates.
1. Their arena is built with all or majority government financing, with few exceptions (most of them in Canada). "Free market" would force the owners to shell out their own money.
2. When they don't own the arena, they are usually paying subsidized rent etc. Local law enforcement usually helps to provide security in and around the arena, while the team never pays full cost of that.
3. Their local taxes are way lower then for any other business, when they pay any.
4. Their employees can not choose their place of employment and have to play for the team that drafted them until they are more than halfway into their careers. In a "free-market" there can not be a draft or restricted free agency.
5. They can collude with other owners to set limits on employee compensation and labor conditions. Again, in a "free-market" that would not be possible.
6. They can prevent any other team from coming into "their" geographically (very broadly) defined market. Try that in a "free-market".
7. In a "free-market", the owners couldn't renege on the already signed contracts short of declaring bankruptcy, which is what they are trying to do now.
8. In a non "free-market", the players can get together to defend their interests, just like the owners are now free to collectively conspire to limit the players compensation, In a "free-market", neither could occur.

You can not pick and choose what elements of a "free-market" you want to have and which you want to get rid of. It's an all or nothing deal. So in real life, given the existing laws, if there is no union, then the salary cap, the draft, the RFA, waivers draft all have to go.

In a "free-market", there wouldn't be a players' union, but the league would have gone bankrupt years ago, because the owners repeatedly demonstrated their inability to stick to their budgets when signing players. Again, before 2004, when there was no salary cap and no guaranteed players share of the revenue, the salaries rose very fast and the players share of the revenue went up to 70%+ just before the last lockout. That was not the union doing. That was the owners signing ridiculous contracts.

#2330958 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by sibiriak on 08 October 2012 - 01:43 PM

Without a union, there would be no lockout. Without a union, there wouldn't have been the need to negotiate a salary cap... and therefore there wouldn't have been a lockout last time.

Owners spending more than they can afford is a complicated topic, but without question the current CBA largely contributes to it. Without a union, there is no need for a CBA. If you believe the core problem with the leagues finances is rich clubs driving up the players salaries... how does the union solve that problem? I would argue that the NHLPA contributes to that problem, through forcing a CBA.

You really need to read back this thread. Your misconceptions were exhaustively addressed earlier.

In short, without the union, what the owners are doing would be illegal. They would have no way of getting out of the already signed player contracts, without going to court and paying penalties for breach of contract or declaring bankruptcy.

Without a salary cap the owners would (and did) spend much more on salaries relative to revenue then they do now.

Without the pro sports antitrust law exemption, (that is if they had to operate like any other industry in America) it would have been illegal for the owners to consult with each other on hiring/salary decisions, let alone bargain as a single unit.

And lastly, the union's existence has nothing whatsoever to do with the owners spending insane amounts of money to get free agents. If you run a restaurant and hire a famous chef for $$ millions, but your revenue stream isn't enough to pay him, you don't get to leach off of more successful/better-run restaurants, nor can you lock out the chef and force him to accept lower salary. The owners do not and absolutely don't want to live under real free market conditions. They get the best of both worlds now.