Posted by Echolalia
on 08 December 2012 - 11:43 AM
I suspect that Fehr isn't playing the game with just this lockout in mind. Its apparent that the players are unhappy with how often and willing the league is to use a lockout as leverage to get what they're looking for. Based on what I've heard through the players, Bettman, media, etc, it sounds like Fehr is trying to make this process as uncomfortable, difficult, and frustrating as possible for the owners (even if that means turning down an offer that seems relatively reasonable for the players).
I think there are two goals here: 1) To get a fair CBA, and 2) To prevent the owners and Bettman from wanting to lockout the players again after the new CBA expires.
All I care about is seeing current contracts honored fully. If that ends up being too much to ask and owners insist on a contract value reduction, then current contracted players should be able to opt out of their contracts if they so desire, which would make the contract void and those players become UFAs.
I wonder what sort of implications this would have. On one side, the owners are free from the massive contractual obligations that are allegedly crippling growth. On the other hand, these players are now UFAs likely to go to the highest bidder. Do owners refrain from paying more than they should this time around, or is everyone still payed the same, just for a different team? How many low/mid level players would opt out of their 2M contract to pursue a higher pay elsewhere?
It would have been interesting to see the responses had Brunner been included in the list. Personally, I'm not holding my breath on a smooth transition for him into NA style hockey, but you cannot deny that he is a pure goal-scorer based on how he is lighting it up overseas. I hear his shot is reminiscent of Brett Hull, but I haven't seen him play yet...
Bowman loved to shuffle lines like nobody's business. The degree to which he shuffled lines I think forced players to play on their toes and be especially aware of their surroundings, as well as force them to be receptive to their teammates, which results in a strong, unified team come playoffs. I suspect Babcock is following Bowman's philosophy, but to a lesser degree than Scotty applied it, and consequently we are seeing diminished effects.
But who knows, I'm not a coach. Bowman did a lot of things other coaches wouldn't dare try, even today.
The only thing that matters here is money, and like others have said, unfollowing NHL or some player or whoever won't amount to much or help solve the lockout issue.
Some folks suggest boycotting the NHL altogether, but that isn't viable either. We all understand just how passionately we love the game, and the moment the Wings take the ice again, everyone will be watching and spending money on memorabilia. Besides, a boycott punishes us as fans moreso than the big guys at the top, whose wallets are already quite stuffed.
As fans there is very little we can realistically do that will echo into the upper tiers of NHL management. But we aren't completely hopeless. Despite what they may want us to think, the NHL does not have a monopoly on hockey. There are other leagues around that can provide good entertainment. Instead of sitting the year out as a fan, stay invested in the game, but turn your attention (fully) to the Griffins, or the Whalers or whoever tickles your fancy. Spend the same amount of money on tickets as last year. You'll go to more games and have better seats! Buy a jersey and a hotdog on hotdog night. Go out to a local restaurant or bar before the game. Help the local economy.
If we're very very lucky and enough dollars are put into other leagues, it may remind the NHL and/or players how much their losing, and may entice them to reach an agreement sooner (although admittedly not likely). At the very least, us as fans still get to enjoy quality hockey, and check out some top prospects while we're at it, and maybe some of us will start a lifelong fandom into a totally new league. There's also the plus of helping out the local economy and financially backing some of these smaller teams. You would be spending all that money on the NHL anyway, so why not?
I know I'm already planning to take the 2.5 hour drive to Grand Rapids to catch the Griffins play a few games this year. If FSN gets enough votes the Griffins games will be televised, too (there's another thread floating around where you can cast your vote). I'll be staying at a hotel and eating at the local hot spots when I visit, and I'll be spending about as much as I would spend in Detroit if a lockout wasn't occurring.
Posted by Echolalia
on 25 September 2012 - 03:52 PM
This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.
I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.
I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.
There are a handful of folks, including members of this board, who believe that both sides are being selfish and need to apply the actual definition of compromise to their "compromises". On the second point I do agree with you. The owners vs players debate has a lot of political philosophy behind it, and those who identify as strictly republican or democrat may be influenced by their political beliefs when determining what side to support. In that sense it will be a tough sell to get someone to "see the other side".
Posted by Echolalia
on 14 September 2012 - 11:20 AM
I guess that is a difference of opinion. Illitch is an outspoken guy. I believe he voted with every other owner to lockout the players. If he didn't like the situation, he would say something.
Illitch has plenty of reasons to vote lockout too. Make no mistake about it.
The owners are not allowed to publicly speak on the matter, but I'm with you on Illitch's vote. The owners of all 30 teams are looking at gaining millions of dollars in revenue by saying "lockout" instead of "start the season". As much as we like to think some of these guys are altruistic city and fan lovers (and maybe some of them are), but they're businessmen first and foremost and the bottom line is always the most important thing in business.