-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gary Bettman and his cronies can go pound sand
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
- Status
It was a goofy non-offer by the players, no one could have even imagined they NHL would accept it.
It's like you have to shop a company store that overcharges on everything by 30% and you can't go anywhere else, so you finally refuse to shop there. The store doesn't like that, so they agree to 'fix' the problem by giving you $50 back today if they don't have to change their prices more than a few percent - they're only offering it because they know they'll be getting it all back and more in a few weeks anyway.
It's like you have to shop a company store that overcharges on everything by 30% and you can't go anywhere else, so you finally refuse to shop there. The store doesn't like that, so they agree to 'fix' the problem by giving you $50 back today if they don't have to change their prices more than a few percent - they're only offering it because they know they'll be getting it all back and more in a few weeks anyway.
Honestly I don't follow hockey, but from what I've gotten from listening to conversations of people who do follow is that the payers are the ones holding things up with their focus on themselves and not the league. This quote says it all:
The league has been seeking a system of "cost containment" throughout talks with the union on a new collective bargaining agreement. The players' association regards any connection between revenues and salaries as a salary cap and a non-starter in negotiations. While the memo does not detail what the NHL's proposal will contain, Daly writes that "... under this scenario, the Union will likely (and quickly) break off negotiations."
They would much rather not work and eventually destroy the NHL rather then give in to what I think is a reasonable concession and that is a salary cap. Football and Basketball has a cap do these guys think they are above these sports. I know Baseball doesn't have a cap and look at how it has fucking hurt the game. You have to either field a moderate team that does decent in the regular season but has no chance in the playoffs or you go all out and pay the highest salaries and maybe win a World series before you have to let everyone go and go back to being a medocure or down right sorry team, ie Marlins and Diamondbacks, I think, I know there was one other team that went all out and won the World Series then sold everyone off the next season. Not every city is a New York where you can afford to constantly pay top dollor for the best players. The players need to eat it for the sake of the league rather than trying to line their pockets.
The league has been seeking a system of "cost containment" throughout talks with the union on a new collective bargaining agreement. The players' association regards any connection between revenues and salaries as a salary cap and a non-starter in negotiations. While the memo does not detail what the NHL's proposal will contain, Daly writes that "... under this scenario, the Union will likely (and quickly) break off negotiations."
They would much rather not work and eventually destroy the NHL rather then give in to what I think is a reasonable concession and that is a salary cap. Football and Basketball has a cap do these guys think they are above these sports. I know Baseball doesn't have a cap and look at how it has fucking hurt the game. You have to either field a moderate team that does decent in the regular season but has no chance in the playoffs or you go all out and pay the highest salaries and maybe win a World series before you have to let everyone go and go back to being a medocure or down right sorry team, ie Marlins and Diamondbacks, I think, I know there was one other team that went all out and won the World Series then sold everyone off the next season. Not every city is a New York where you can afford to constantly pay top dollor for the best players. The players need to eat it for the sake of the league rather than trying to line their pockets.
Drensch said:
This *is* the owners dealing with it. It's so annoying how ppl say "hey the owners should clean up their own mess"... well no shit, collective bargaining with the union is the ONLY EFFECTIVE way that 30 different organizations with different markets and situations can deal with it.
Players are wrong. Owners are right.
The fact that the players proposal still does not remove any of their own salaries and just puts restrictions on owners spending makes them look like the greedy bitches they are.
I'm glad the lockout is happening. Why? Because come next year the NHLPA will be thrown away by the NHL (It's the most powerful Union in the world) and will probably establish hard limits which can't be touched when a new union is formed.
Sorry... but the NHL players attitudes are really disgracing to the sport right now.
The fact that the players proposal still does not remove any of their own salaries and just puts restrictions on owners spending makes them look like the greedy bitches they are.
I'm glad the lockout is happening. Why? Because come next year the NHLPA will be thrown away by the NHL (It's the most powerful Union in the world) and will probably establish hard limits which can't be touched when a new union is formed.
Sorry... but the NHL players attitudes are really disgracing to the sport right now.
I'm pretty sure no one who is really following the lockout is expecting there to be a season this year. I'm prepared to wait for hockey for another whole season if it fixes the problems with the league. Personally I want to see a hard cap that you CANNOT excede in any way. Make it 100% fair for every team, then the team with the best management/scouts/coaches will win, not the teams with the cash to buy players at the trade deadline.
DopeyFish said:
That's fine, do you think Tampa is going to be one of the lowest salaried teams once St Louis, Richards and Vinny get 'market value' contracts? No. Do you think under the current system Tampa could even afford to keep all 3 of those players? No. Do you think Calgary can afford to keep Kipper if he demands top-goalie money? No. Do you think Calgary will make the finals again this decade? No. Not unless the system changes.
Selfishly, I'd be willing to nuke next year too if it meant our secret goal would be fulfilled.
goJetsgo
Oh hey bitch, email me your cell #. I'm going with my brothers and my dad to Canada/Switzerland but you can only buy single tickets to the Finland/Canada game.
My family probably won't go but I'm a loser so I don't care if I sit next to strangers. You still going to the games? If so I'd meet you during intermission or before so at least I'm not a total friendless hermit.A random fluke that happened largely because the elite big market teams all got old at the same time. And as any Flames fan would tell you, making the Finals is great but if it means that you have to suck terribly and miss the playoffs for most of a decade before and after it's not really worth. With the current system the way it is the Flames would have to dismantle the team in a year or two (see: Oilers 1993-00
) after any brief success.If the current CBA kept on going, the bastard Avs, Wings and Flyers would just snap up half the Flames and at least 3 or so of the Lightning players in no time, and then we'd be stuck with them in the conference Finals most years for another decade. And the Rangers would overpay Iginla or St. Louis, with the difference being we probably wouldn't have to watch them in any conference finals.
I'm going to the Canada/Swiss game with some friends but I don't have a ticket for the Finland game, if you are going I'd probably consider going. I'll email you # hehe I can't pass up the chance to see Crosby play, especially if early line pairings are any indication (Crosby with Bergeron and Perry) I really hope Ryan Stone makes the team too.
The owners already have a slave free agency system in place, they control how high the bidding goes, they have a legal monopoly. They control wages, the players don't. If you want to tie revenues to salaries, fine. Do it like the Redwings and Avalanche do, they pay their best players a lot of money draft well, and sell tickets= they don't spend more than they make. I can guarantee that they both make a profit. I bet even the NYR make a profit with their shitty policy. The owners need to penalize teams like the rangers that take a player like Bobby Holik and multiply his salary by 10. If the owners didn't have the arachaic free agency system they created, player salaries would rise more evenly instead of someone like St Louis making 10 times more in a few years.
The problem is that not all the owners will do this.Drensch said:
What's to prevent the Rangers from offering more money for player-x than a small market team like the Flames can afford? (not like the Rangers will play any better...;p)
They need a market cap. That's the only way that small market teams will be able to compete (and survive).
Mike Works
Member
Going to the Brad May charity game yesterday made me realize how much I miss the game. I don't want this season to be salvaged, as I'm worried that the Canucks would win the Cup only to have an asterix next to it in the record books ("New Jersey fans" ran that same problem until the Devils won it again), but there will be hell to pay if this isn't fixed by the end of summer.
You realize that if the owners attempted to penalize teams for acting rashly it would be against the law right? The owners can ONLY use the agreement they make with the players to control themselves, any other informal system would be against the law and the union would sue them, like what happened in baseball when the MLB tried to set "internal" rates among themselves.Drensch said:
And really, the whole point is that if the Rangers want to give Iginla 15 million a year it might make economic sense *for them* to do that. The problem is of course that it would eventually drag the salaries of the rest of the league up too - if Iggy gets 15 mil to score 40 goals then why won't some guy on a team that can't afford half that salary ask for 10 million if he scores 30 goals? And if Iggy has an off year and only gets 35, then the teams with guys who get 30 goals have to bend over and resign themselves to overpaying (based on their market and means) no matter how well they run their own business because of the inflationary aspect of player salaries.
The owners don't really need to "save themselves" so much as they need a system where the economic disparity doesn't create a system where 5 or 6 of the richest teams inflate the market to the point where it hurts the league at large. That sort of thing can only be done with the CBA, telling the Oilers or Sabres they need to "run their team better" is a farce because the salaries they have to pay are largely influenced by what the richest few teams do. I personally think a seriously harsh luxury tax would work as well if the players gave a little on other issues (arbitration, bonuses) but since the PA calls anything that acts as a signifcant retardant on salaries a de facto salary cap there's no hope there either. Which leads us to the hilarious image of NHL players loudly proclaiming how they'd never agree to a cap because... uh, because.... well the NBA and NFL guys have them and they just hate it so bad.
One other issue about the CBA negotiations that annoys me (and really, I gotta stop watching TSN and Sportsnet before one of the dumbass ex-players gives me a stroke
) is the notion that the league must give major concessions now because the players can't give it all. It all goes back to the way the players always said they didn't believe the league was losing nearly the money it claims (their latest offer clearly put the lie to that though). But if one side truly is as desperate as they say - and I for one have no trouble with ppl distrusting the owners because they've certainly earned distrust over the decades - then that side won't give up much period. I think the owners giving up on a season in order to gain cost certainty clearly shows that the situation is probably nearly as bad as they say because if it wasn't the league would have gotten the best deal possible during training camp so they could go back to making money.Kabuki Waq
Member
a hard salary cap is the only answer. The NHLPA is trying its best to avoid it tho. Im with the owners on this one.
Donkeypuncher
Banned
I love the NFL system the best. Every year you have a handle of teams that can potentially win it all. This is how I wan't the NHL to be and if that means a salary cap and missing this season, then so be it.
That's what a luxury tax is(does). They should tie it to overall profit as well as gross total salary. The owners are the ones who need the players, not the other way around. The players can go overseas. The owners are responsible for the escalation of salaries. The owners could deal with revenue sharing, it's not really a players issue. You can't fault players for protecting themselves and wanting money. You can fault the ownersfor spending more than they have. Small market teams can only be helped through revenue sharing, that's it.
One thing though, I sure don't blame the players for taking what they could get while they could. The NHL had a shitty system where the few teams that generate MUCH higher revenue than most basically bid against themselves for players and drove up the costs for everyone. The players would have had to be morons to not use every method at their disposal to get whatever they could.
That being said [/bobmckenzie], now seeing those players act like it's a god given right to have a fucked up economic system that was only fueled by expansion (done for good) and speculative franchise costs (made sense in the 90's when cable nets were throwing billions around for everything) does piss me off. Yeah, you guys made out like bandits and who could blame you, but don't act like you have some great moral and ethical stand against the evil salary cap (wah wah those poor basketball players it's so unfair to them we can't ever agree to be exploited like that wah) when really all you want is for the league to keep on pretending the franchises are worth over a hundred million and therefore the owners can justify 30-60 million dollar payrolls on the assumption that there will be more TV money down the road.
Drensch: who, or what, are you arguing against again? You said the owners should take it upon themselves to clean up their mess, and then you use examples of things the PA is dead set against as methods of doing it. Everything you mention (except revenue sharing, which absolutely needs to be expanded and improved if the NHL is to have any credibility at all while asking for cost certainty) are things the PA would consider de facto salary caps. The players won't agree to what you're proposing, and doing any of those things outside the CBA would be massively illegal, and yet you act like it's the owners fault somehow that they don't do it.
That being said [/bobmckenzie], now seeing those players act like it's a god given right to have a fucked up economic system that was only fueled by expansion (done for good) and speculative franchise costs (made sense in the 90's when cable nets were throwing billions around for everything) does piss me off. Yeah, you guys made out like bandits and who could blame you, but don't act like you have some great moral and ethical stand against the evil salary cap (wah wah those poor basketball players it's so unfair to them we can't ever agree to be exploited like that wah) when really all you want is for the league to keep on pretending the franchises are worth over a hundred million and therefore the owners can justify 30-60 million dollar payrolls on the assumption that there will be more TV money down the road.
Drensch: who, or what, are you arguing against again? You said the owners should take it upon themselves to clean up their mess, and then you use examples of things the PA is dead set against as methods of doing it. Everything you mention (except revenue sharing, which absolutely needs to be expanded and improved if the NHL is to have any credibility at all while asking for cost certainty) are things the PA would consider de facto salary caps. The players won't agree to what you're proposing, and doing any of those things outside the CBA would be massively illegal, and yet you act like it's the owners fault somehow that they don't do it.
Mike Works
Member
Look at the list of champions for the past 30 years;Drensch said:
12 teams have won the championship in the past 30 years (the statistics get even worse if you continue on, but there were fewer teams after then), in a league with 25-30 teams. That's not good. Yes, it's true that we are now seeing new teams contend (like Tampa Bay), but the majority of these teams just got lucky having a successful playoff run. What did the Canucks do after 1994? Only made the playoffs 1 other time until 2002. Minnesota and Anaheim in the Western Conference Final, where are they now? Carolina from the year before. There are a nice handful of teams that can realistically go all the way each year, but the problem is it's always the same teams. This is one area where I truly envy the NFL from a fan's point of view. Look at the fucking San Diego Chargers. They were god awful for the longest time, now they're an elite team in one season. It's a roller coaster ride, but at least teams and fans get to experience a peak. I could just imagine what it's like to be a big Buffalo Sabres fan.
Ah look, you've got me off in a rant and it doesn't even matter. This is all just fucked up.
I'm for the players. The owners can go fuck themselves. They are responsible for all of the problems. I have no problem with revenue sharing, as it's the only viable solution for teams that don't make money(if they're to be kept), and some sort luxury tax is the only way you can really share revenue. However, it does bother me that the successful teams have to pay for the transgressions of someone like NYR fucking up. It doesn't bother me nearly as much to help the teams like Edmonton (although they're fairly well managed).
The players get hosed in the whole free-agency system, up until they hit 31(etc). The owners have all kinds of methods of controlling the salary market and yet they still manage to fuck up? Screw that. If a team doesn't think a player is worth x, don't pay it. I don't wanna hear crying, because some other team will over-pay a guy. Did it suck when the Rangers front loaded their offer to Joe Sakic? Yeah, but was he worth the 10 a year?, sure. But I don't think you would have seen the Avs match much more than that. Guys like Naslund, Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Brodeur(underpaid imho) all deserve what they're paid. They are guys that come to play and put asses in the seats, and all make their teams contenders. To a team close to being a contender it's worth dropping 10 on a guy who can put them over the top. To a team like Minnesota who hopes to make the playoffs it's not worth it.
The way it works is if you think a player is worth it, pay it. If not don't. And most importantly, if you can't afford his price, don't pay it anyways. The league can tie salaries to revenue already. Everyone in the real world does, don't spend what you don't have. The players don't set the prices. I could tell Toronto I want 50 million dollars, but since they decide to pay or not, the power is with them. The owners are the ones who stand to lose the most, their franchise values, their tv deal, their merchandise. They need to look at their teams, and decide what is their team can afford. The owners need to understand that they are given antitrust exemptions, and they need to understand that they need to keep the league together for their benefit: Sharing cash/draft pics etc with poor teams/markets.
The players can only protect the players. Player asks for money and if a team accepts it he gets paid that. It's not like he can magically demand and get more. Not every single person who wants to play hockey is in the union. If you can't make a team, get a real job like everyone else.
In the same time period(73-74 til 2004) the Nba had 12, Nfl 17, and baseball 18. I don't see repeat championships as as sign of league weakness. If anything the trap has made the NHL more competitive, not less.
The players get hosed in the whole free-agency system, up until they hit 31(etc). The owners have all kinds of methods of controlling the salary market and yet they still manage to fuck up? Screw that. If a team doesn't think a player is worth x, don't pay it. I don't wanna hear crying, because some other team will over-pay a guy. Did it suck when the Rangers front loaded their offer to Joe Sakic? Yeah, but was he worth the 10 a year?, sure. But I don't think you would have seen the Avs match much more than that. Guys like Naslund, Forsberg, Sakic, Blake, Brodeur(underpaid imho) all deserve what they're paid. They are guys that come to play and put asses in the seats, and all make their teams contenders. To a team close to being a contender it's worth dropping 10 on a guy who can put them over the top. To a team like Minnesota who hopes to make the playoffs it's not worth it.
The way it works is if you think a player is worth it, pay it. If not don't. And most importantly, if you can't afford his price, don't pay it anyways. The league can tie salaries to revenue already. Everyone in the real world does, don't spend what you don't have. The players don't set the prices. I could tell Toronto I want 50 million dollars, but since they decide to pay or not, the power is with them. The owners are the ones who stand to lose the most, their franchise values, their tv deal, their merchandise. They need to look at their teams, and decide what is their team can afford. The owners need to understand that they are given antitrust exemptions, and they need to understand that they need to keep the league together for their benefit: Sharing cash/draft pics etc with poor teams/markets.
The players can only protect the players. Player asks for money and if a team accepts it he gets paid that. It's not like he can magically demand and get more. Not every single person who wants to play hockey is in the union. If you can't make a team, get a real job like everyone else.
In the same time period(73-74 til 2004) the Nba had 12, Nfl 17, and baseball 18. I don't see repeat championships as as sign of league weakness. If anything the trap has made the NHL more competitive, not less.
soundwave05
Member
The NHL needs a salary cap. No one gives a crap about hockey in the US, there's no way an NHL player should be making more than an NFL player unless you're talking one of the top 10 player's in the game.
That's the bottom line. The NHL is completely out of control.
You can't say "well the Flames and Oilers made a profit", yeah sure they did, the Oilers have that Heritage Classic which won't be the same every year and the Flames had a miracle run after over 13 years of mediocrity.
If the NHL accepts that deal, I have little doubt that teams in Edmonton, Calgary, and even the smaller U.S. markets where there's less interest will start to fold in the next 10 years.
Get a cap. It may kill the season, but in the long term, it will make for a more stable NHL.
If the NHL is so popular and these players generate so much revune/interest how come the NHL can't even get a TV deal? A 13-year-old re-run of the Cosby Show on cable got higher ratings than this year's Stanley Cup Finals. The players know the NHL system is f-cked up but they're hoping the owners will cave again like they did in 94-95. But that isn't gonna happen.
That's the bottom line. The NHL is completely out of control.
You can't say "well the Flames and Oilers made a profit", yeah sure they did, the Oilers have that Heritage Classic which won't be the same every year and the Flames had a miracle run after over 13 years of mediocrity.
If the NHL accepts that deal, I have little doubt that teams in Edmonton, Calgary, and even the smaller U.S. markets where there's less interest will start to fold in the next 10 years.
Get a cap. It may kill the season, but in the long term, it will make for a more stable NHL.
If the NHL is so popular and these players generate so much revune/interest how come the NHL can't even get a TV deal? A 13-year-old re-run of the Cosby Show on cable got higher ratings than this year's Stanley Cup Finals. The players know the NHL system is f-cked up but they're hoping the owners will cave again like they did in 94-95. But that isn't gonna happen.
Mike Works
Member
See, that's the problem right there. Is Sakic worth 10 million dollars in the NHL? Yes.Drensch said:
But is Sakic worth $10 million in sports?
In 1999, Brett Favre was making less than $6.3 million a year. Think of how many people watch the NFL, how many fans go to a Green Bay game, how much revenue the league generates through advertising, etc.
Brett Favre is worth way more than Joe Sakic. Yet Joe Sakic makes more money than Brett Favre.
That's the problem.
Both basketball and baseball players are incredibly overpaid as well, even moreso than NHL players. But the difference is, both the NBA and MLB markets are WAY bigger than the NHL. So while Alex Rodriguez making $20 million a season or whatever it is may look much worse than Joe Sakic making $10 million, in reality, an argument can be made that they're equal- if not, then the Rodriguez contract is more in tune.
It all comes down to the market. Hockey is bigger than baseball, basketball, and football in Canada, easily. But Canada only has around 30 million people. Baseball, basketball, and football (and fucking racecars driving in a god damn circle fucking rednecks) is more popular than hockey in America, which has around 300 million people.
If the NHL were as big as the NFL, then there'd be no strike in the first place. But they're not, and owners are finally realizing this. Who's at fault?
The owners. They're the stupid fucking retards (at least a select handful are) who offered these players 10 million dollar contracts in a league where no player was worth 10 million dollars. There's no way at all that you can blame a player- a man- for accepting more money than he's worth because his employer feels differently. And now, thanks to all of this inexcusable spending, the owners are hurting, and they want a change.
The thing is, what the owners want is completely acceptable. They want the NFL's structure because, basically, it works. Just think of the NHL (and it pains me to say this, because I find football to be boring as hell and I love hockey) as the NFL Jr. The owners want fair competition (well, the majority of them do, a few couldn't give a shit either way, New York, NEW YORKKKK, I'M GONNA- sorry) and fair prices.
The players don't want this to change because they weren't the people who started this whole mess. The owners gave them a sweet deal and convinced themselves and, in turn, the players that it was fair. Imagine having two companies bidding for your service, winding up getting a terrificly high paying job, and then showing up for work one day and having your boss announce over the PA that, effective next month, everyone gets a 33% paycut and other losses in their contract, because the head of the company felt he overpaid for his employees. The players have a right to be pissed at what's going on right now, just as everyone else would in their position.
And this is why we're having so much trouble. The owners were fucking morons. They screwed up. And now they want to change the entire infastructure to make the league work as a business. Which is completely fair. You can't blame them for wanting what the NFL has. The players don't want to suddenly lose millions of dollars through their line of work, which is also completely fair. But the reality is, the NHL simply can't work the way it's set up now. Once you run out of million and billionaires who want to own a hockey team for the fun of it, you're fucked. No one's going to want a winning team that loses them money.
So who do we blame? Everyone. We blame the owners who got us into this mess in the first place. We blame the players who aren't willing to reform in order to save the company they're working for because they want to continue to be overpaid. Both sides have excuses and perfectly valid reasons as to why they feel- and are- in the right. The problem is, both sides are also in the wrong- the owners in the past, and the players in the present.
It's difficult to tell the players to accept a salary cap or whatever, because it's not their fault. But unless the two sides can reach an altered agreement- like one Brian Burke or TSN proposed- then that's what's going to happen.
Both sides are being stubborn, both sides are at fault, and we're all caught in the middle of it like kids in a divorce. It fucking sucks.
PS: Leafs suck
Spectral Glider
Member
Mike Works said:
Yep, and the finals from 95-96 on, with the lone exception of last year, have been some of the most damn boring finals ever.
The NHLPA knew the NHL would turn it down. I'm sure they did. This was to get the media/public on their side, for whatever that's worth.
The latest conspiracy theory:
The NHLPA made this move to get the public on their side, so they would be better justified in disbanding and creating their own league. How about that?
The latest conspiracy theory:
The NHLPA made this move to get the public on their side, so they would be better justified in disbanding and creating their own league. How about that?
Mike Works
Member
To be fair, that doesn't have anything to do with the price of salaries. Logic dictates that two of the most stacked teams should reach the finals.Spectral Glider said:
Florida, Buffalo, and Anaheim were slightly above average teams both riding hot as hell goalies. Calgary was a lesser team riding a tremendous amount of work ethic and two big game players. Philly just decided not to show up.
But all that's irrelevant. If the finals were boring, it was because of the style of play/trapping, which is a whole other issue the NHL needs to address. I can understand how you may have been pointing out that it's boring to see the same teams always competing for and winning the championship.
It's sad that there's so much that needs to be fixed with the league, and I still love it more than every other single sport combined.
Mike Works
Member
Fine, fine. Even though I hate the player and think he's a stupid whiny bitch on the ice, I have to give props to Darcy Tucker for doing Brad May's charity cause. That was quite cool of him.
It was funny, because Tucker and (Claude) Lemieux were the only two players who I didn't like in the event, and they wound up getting something like 3 goals and 6 points between the two of them.
It was funny, because Tucker and (Claude) Lemieux were the only two players who I didn't like in the event, and they wound up getting something like 3 goals and 6 points between the two of them.
Drensch said:
What, the owners be responsible for their own actions??? Never!!!
The funniest thing about this cost certaintity crap is that it'll never, EVER be applied to ticket prices. So why fans continue to root for this shit as if they'll personally reap the rewards is beyond me. You think the Maple Leafs are going to make their ticket prices the equivalent of the ticket prices in fucking Nashville if they get their utopian system? Gimme a fucking break. Hell, I bet they all charge the same current ticket prices for the shit replacement players they try to foist on the masses next year. Knowing the dumb fucks in this town, they'll still eat it up...fucking sheep.
And a hard salary cap eats camel balls. All the excitement generated over trade deadline day? Kiss that shit goodbye. Trades would be done strictly contracts for contracts, meaning they'd have to match up exactly for that to happen. Which lowers a team's ability to improve themselves if injuries occur, or if something they really need falls a bit out of range because salaries don't match. If a GM fucks up with one or two players, the franchise (and thus the fanbase) could pay for four or five years of shit hockey. A number of NBA teams have been the victim of this, including my Raptors. And that's supposed to improve competitive balance? Whatever.
Now if they get the ability to cut contracts whenever they want then that makes such a sceniro a non-issue. But if I'm a player I'd probably strike for five years before I allow that to happen.
Wish people would make up their own minds instead of just swallowing the bullshit that's fed to them by the owners, most of whom really couldn't give a shit about the league or the game. Word is that a number of owners just want a cost certaintity deal so they can sell their franchises at the highest possible price. That tells you all you need to know about their love for the game.
Bottom line, fuck the owners. Fuck the players too though...they don't have much perspective on just how unimportant the NHL is in the US, probably because they spend 90% of their free time here in Toronto where the media does nothing but talk about the Leafs and the NHL 24/7.
The only good that's been done in the last six months was the summit Brendan Shanhan held last week, talking about ways to improve THE GAME that's gone to fucking hades in the last decade. You want people to give a shit about the NHL in the US? Fix the fucking product. Make it something that's actually watchable, instead of this clutch and trap shit fest that's masquerading as the game of hockey. Blaming the ills of the league on the high salaries just doesn't wash with me.
Mike Works
Member
You know what the sad thing is? I haven't done any research on this. I didn't watch one segment on Sports Center nor read one article about the lockout in the Sports Section. I've am VERY uninformed on the issue. There are many intricacies that I'm unaware of, one being the way NFL owners exploit the players.Drensch said:
Yet it is such a cut and dry issue that I can bust out an analysis of the problem and situation off of common knowledge gathered years ago.
It's incredibly fucking disturbing that this simple information which has been evident for over a decade was not ingested by both sides for that span of time, eventually allowing the situation to come to this. It really does make you wonder how much Bettman and Goodenow are fighting for the people they represent, and how much they're fighting for their jobs.
Spectral Glider
Member
Mike Works said:
Well, there were several factors of why they were boring. Seeing Detroit, Colorado and Jersey sweep almost every final they were in is one of them, yes. And yeah, the other big part of it is the style of play. But I suppose you could also argue that Jersey developed that style of play out of need because they couldn't stock pile their team with the most talented players like a Detroit or Colorado could. So in a way, it's almost all related.
I can't believe so many of you think a cap is a good idea. I know I'm in the minority but the cap is a joke. I would never accept one at my job. It also means small market teams that suck are going to get to sign all the good players. How is that fair? Teams that run a good business and make money are going to be punished.
The problem with the league is BETTMAN! Since day one with this idiot the league has been in a downward spiral. Where were all the tears for the small market Canadian teams like Quebec and Winnipeg. A cap would never have saved them but now it will save the small market US teams. Please!
The problem with the league is BETTMAN! Since day one with this idiot the league has been in a downward spiral. Where were all the tears for the small market Canadian teams like Quebec and Winnipeg. A cap would never have saved them but now it will save the small market US teams. Please!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked