NHL

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    Correct, Dez.  I'm not sure exactly how I was calculating it.  LOL  How dumb.  I must have been using Oatescam's calculator.

     

    $5.7M  is a more reasonable number.

     

    So, which do you think is more likely:

    1.  The Avs fold.

     

    2.  The Avs trade Paul Stastny for a seventh round pick.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Win-Jets. Show Win-Jets's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Replacement players ?

    All players in the AHL and European leagues have signed contracts. Who's left to sign as replacement players ? Players from your local professional senior league team ?

    Better question is who would pay the money to go watch replacements play.

    [/QUOTE]


    I,m thinking next year

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Win-Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Replacement players ?

    All players in the AHL and European leagues have signed contracts. Who's left to sign as replacement players ? Players from your local professional senior league team ?

    Better question is who would pay the money to go watch replacements play.

    [/QUOTE]


    I,m thinking next year

    [/QUOTE]

    This year. Next year. Does it matter ? If a person wants to watch lower caliber hockey there are leagues for this. The NHL is for watching the best players in the world. Replacement players in the NHL ? Inferior hockey that wouldn't cut it for NHL fans.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Win-Jets. Show Win-Jets's posts

    Re: NHL

    The NFL is the most successful Sport league.Didn't they once do it

    or want to do it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Win-Jets' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Replacement players ?

    All players in the AHL and European leagues have signed contracts. Who's left to sign as replacement players ? Players from your local professional senior league team ?

    Better question is who would pay the money to go watch replacements play.

    [/QUOTE]


    I,m thinking next year

    [/QUOTE]

    This year. Next year. Does it matter ? If a person wants to watch lower caliber hockey there are leagues for this. The NHL is for watching the best players in the world. Replacement players in the NHL ? Inferior hockey that wouldn't cut it for NHL fans.

    [/QUOTE]


    It'll have to be free and give out free terrible towels.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

     


    Sorry Nas but your math seems way off. The Avs average season ticket costs 3800$. 20% of their season ticket holders can't really be only 35 people right?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, and I'm not arguing that the Avs are folding, for one thing.

    But taking 20% of the fans and then trying to multiply it by a ticket price is a woefully inept method of measuring the impact of losing fans.  By that logic they could play in front of no fans if they trimmed their payroll a little further.

    Teams make money from tickets, concessions, merchandise, sponsorships, tv deals, radio deals, etc.  Losing fans effects every one of those income sources.  Losing 20% of the season ticket holders, when there are only 8,000 or so to begin with is a big impact.

    And the Avs have already cut payroll to the cap floor and have already cut tickets prices significantly.  So they're in a tough spot, taking on a much greater risk of plunging further into the red than teams in Boston, New York, and Toronto.  And they're still in better shape than several other smaller market cities.

    So, give the nonsense about Cody McCloud's salary a rest.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    Trading Paul Stastny would be the best thing, for sure.  Would anybody take him (at full salary)?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL

    What's wrong with Stastny, anyway? I mean, I know he's gone from key cog to dead weight, but do we have any idea why? Is he playing lazy? Is it the system? Is it loss of youthful enthusiasm/fat wallet syndrome? On the bigger question - I guess they're in a bind where short term pain may be the only way to stabilize over the long haul. The Avs are already losing fans in a slow bleed. Consequence of a spoiled fan base that benefitted from yanking a cup contender out of Quebec when it was ripe to win. The team has some nice pieces - Duchene, Landeskog, O'Reilly, Johnson (though I don't think he'll ever be the player St.Lou thought when they drafted him). Second tier of Downie, Parenteau (thought I think that may be wishful thinking), and that guy from the Monkees. They need a better blueline, but with Siemens, Elliott and Barrie as their top prospects, they might get a shot in the arm soon. And they need Varlamov to be the guy. Lots of ifs, but that's a team that could pull together in the next 2-3 years. The slow bleed is a bigger risk than the lockout. If it means having to stick close to the cap floor, then you're going to run into problems very soon with Duchene up for his third deal after next year, Landeskog looking to follow the pattern set this year with Seguin, Skinner and Hall's huge second deals, and then finding money to bring in D. The worst situation for that team would be being forced to live within a budget far below the cap. If a lockout brings the cap down closer to what they can budget, they have a better chance of being good again in the short term. Hopefully, for them, that would turn around the slow bleed and bring back fans.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What's wrong with Stastny, anyway? I mean, I know he's gone from key cog to dead weight, but do we have any idea why? Is he playing lazy? Is it the system? Is it loss of youthful enthusiasm/fat wallet syndrome? On the bigger question - I guess they're in a bind where short term pain may be the only way to stabilize over the long haul. The Avs are already losing fans in a slow bleed. Consequence of a spoiled fan base that benefitted from yanking a cup contender out of Quebec when it was ripe to win. The team has some nice pieces - Duchene, Landeskog, O'Reilly, Johnson (though I don't think he'll ever be the player St.Lou thought when they drafted him). Second tier of Downie, Parenteau (thought I think that may be wishful thinking), and that guy from the Monkees. They need a better blueline, but with Siemens, Elliott and Barrie as their top prospects, they might get a shot in the arm soon. And they need Varlamov to be the guy. Lots of ifs, but that's a team that could pull together in the next 2-3 years. The slow bleed is a bigger risk than the lockout. If it means having to stick close to the cap floor, then you're going to run into problems very soon with Duchene up for his third deal after next year, Landeskog looking to follow the pattern set this year with Seguin, Skinner and Hall's huge second deals, and then finding money to bring in D. The worst situation for that team would be being forced to live within a budget far below the cap. If a lockout brings the cap down closer to what they can budget, they have a better chance of being good again in the short term. Hopefully, for them, that would turn around the slow bleed and bring back fans.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll add their GM's tweaking with trades and letting players go has something to do with their dismal record.  IMO 

    Although with those young studs coming up along with a CBA that the owners are working for and in favor of these smaller market teams I think it's a matter of time they'll be going the right direction. Unless the GM makes some bad moves.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What's wrong with Stastny, anyway? I mean, I know he's gone from key cog to dead weight, but do we have any idea why? Is he playing lazy? Is it the system? Is it loss of youthful enthusiasm/fat wallet syndrome? On the bigger question - I guess they're in a bind where short term pain may be the only way to stabilize over the long haul. The Avs are already losing fans in a slow bleed. Consequence of a spoiled fan base that benefitted from yanking a cup contender out of Quebec when it was ripe to win. The team has some nice pieces - Duchene, Landeskog, O'Reilly, Johnson (though I don't think he'll ever be the player St.Lou thought when they drafted him). Second tier of Downie, Parenteau (thought I think that may be wishful thinking), and that guy from the Monkees. They need a better blueline, but with Siemens, Elliott and Barrie as their top prospects, they might get a shot in the arm soon. And they need Varlamov to be the guy. Lots of ifs, but that's a team that could pull together in the next 2-3 years. The slow bleed is a bigger risk than the lockout. If it means having to stick close to the cap floor, then you're going to run into problems very soon with Duchene up for his third deal after next year, Landeskog looking to follow the pattern set this year with Seguin, Skinner and Hall's huge second deals, and then finding money to bring in D. The worst situation for that team would be being forced to live within a budget far below the cap. If a lockout brings the cap down closer to what they can budget, they have a better chance of being good again in the short term. Hopefully, for them, that would turn around the slow bleed and bring back fans.

    [/QUOTE]

    A good analysis, I think.  I believe that they are pretty far along into the slow bleed since they departed from being a perennial playoff contender years ago.  And to second Legion's point, their GM decisions have paved the way for this over the last half decade.  Instead of rebuilding in the early down years they've dealt away top draft picks in preposterous fashion and traded younger talents (Drury, Morris, Ballard) for guys like Chris Gratton.  A first round pick to Columbus to bring back old man Foote in his retirement years??  A first and second round pick to Washington for their backup goalie who was planning to leave for the KHL??  So it has been hard to rebuild, while cutting salary significantly, and not getting all of the draft picks they sorely could have used.  And Siemens looks like a bust.  Elliot and Barrie remain unproven.  First round pick from 2010, Joey Hishon, looks small and suffers from concussions already.

    Stastny looks awfully uninspired to me.  He's really crafty but thrives with other good players who can get things set up in the zone.  Stastny's skating is awful so he can't carry the puck in the zone or be the first guy in on the forecheck.  If his linemates can get things set up in the offsensive zone he's very good and he can be deadly on the powerplay.  Rumor has it he can be pouty too and he isn't very tough.  His Dad went off publicly after the Eric Johnson trade and ripped the organization.  Worst of all is the $6.6 million salary for a guy who is not a top line center.  Time to cut losses and move on, IMO.  Duchene and O'Reilly can be the top two centers and Landeskog is already the best player on the team. 

    Maybe getting better play from Eric Johnson and Varlamov will be the key.  But the work stoppage is bad timing for the team.  I know all NHL teams lie about attendence, but I went to some weekday games last year where I swear there were no more than 6000 people in the building.  The local press rips on them repeatedly and I think the lockout could turn the slow bleed into more of a hemorrhage.  Hope I'm wrong, and Denver sports fans are fickle so maybe they'll come running back.  But they need some more bait, and soon.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    New article...

     

    All Things Avalanche — Blogs — The Denver Post OCTOBER 14, 2012, 11:00 PM The enveloping sadness of the NHL By  ADRIAN DATER |    17 Comments

    Something really bad is happening between the people who love hockey and the game’s highest league. I can only try to put it in my own perspective here, of course. What it is increasingly coming down to is: it seems like a lot of us are in the developing stages of an irreconcilable divorce from the NHL.

    I may be wrong, but I sense it. A slow but sure drift away from the league. I’m not talking about our love of the game itself but the league and its principals in power, who have once again decided it is better to play no games at all than play the games if it means getting two or three fewer percentage points in “hockey-related revenue.”

    I may be wrong, but I do not feel like the bread-and-butter fan will be back to NHL games whenever the masters of the universe deign to drop the puck again on a real game. Not this season anyway. I’ve just talked to too many people that I trust to be hardcore hockey fans who say they really are tired of all this and don’t feel like giving their time, money and attention to this league as much anymore, even if they come back.

    Strangely, I’m feeling that way myself. I just can’t seem to muster any passion for either side in this tired standoff anymore. At first, I thought I was 100-percent pro-player, but it’s wearing off some. Donald Fehr, I fear, doesn’t have any real passion for hockey players. He’s a lifelong baseball guy. He can say he feels 100-percent committed to the players’ cause, but I don’t sense it all that much. I see a guy who has basically been sitting on his hands the last month, as games get increasingly X-ed off the schedule, not trying to come up with any innovative solution out of this.

    I see myself nodding my head less and less whenever Fehr talks about how this kind of thing only happens in the “cap sports” and always trots out how wonderful the example of labor harmony there is in baseball. Well, except Donald, baseball once was the poster child of labor disharmony, partially under your watch, with only one other example in pro sports history (the NHL of 2004-05) of a postseason tournament being cancelled because of labor strife (1994 playoffs and World Series).

    The Major League Baseball you helped produce is “harmonious” only by the fact that half the teams in both leagues are lobotomized from the socialized medicine of revenue sharing, which keeps teams like the Rockies and Royals and Twins and Mariners and Padres and Brewers and A’s (fluke run this year notwithstanding) and Pirates and Marlins and Astros and Blue Jays from ever truly trying to compete with the big boys for titles. The peace and harmony you espouse is a league bereft of true competition, save for a four-leaf clover now and then for a welfare team. Then, their players sell out for the big-market teams. If that is your vision for the NHL – well, we already had that, from about 1994-2004. The same few teams won the Stanley Cup, largely based on payroll (a couple exceptions, yes, but generally…).

    As for Gary Bettman, well: I’ve lost faith in you.

    You had a pretty good thing going and we all gave you high marks for reintroducing a fresher on-ice product following the last lockout, and for fighting for a better national U.S. TV deal and for sticking up for franchises in trouble. But you blew it all with your incredibly ill-thought out first proposal to the players on a new CBA this year – the 43-percent, no arbitration, big-time reduced free-agency monstrosity you forged on everyone.

    You had it so good; you had a player group that swallowed huge reductions last time, but still worked hard and in good faith to grow the game after that. They never whined about being routed at the bargaining table. They accepted it, and after a big-time increase in revenues that they helped provide, your thank you to them was to want an incomprehensibly bigger bite out of their livelihoods.

    You’re so smart, Gary. Really. Rarely have I been as intimidated verbally as I’ve been around you. I grew up around Ivy League people my whole life and have a good vocabulary, and yet you made me feel like a bumbling idiot around you often times.

    But you need a crash course in PR, sir. You don’t get that part of the world. You don’t seem to surmise that, no, it wasn’t in your best interests and in the interests of those you represent to try to sneak a foolhardy second draconian offer like that past the players. Yeah, you’ve come up a little since then, but you still won’t get into world of reality and make a real offer – something like a 53-52-51-50-50-50 split. The players would take that. Do you know this? They would. I’ve talked to them. Maybe you haven’t. They would take that deal TODAY if offered.

    And what would you really lose by giving that kind of deal to them? They’re already at 54.3 percent in their last offer. You’re at 49 (on the first year of a deal). Ok, you know what? You give them 53 or 54 on the the first year – so what? You still gained three or four percent from last time. Can anyone on the owners’ side really get too mad about that? Of course not, and you know they don’t even care.

    But for some reason, maybe it’s you telling the owners or maybe it’s them telling you – either way it doesn’t matter – but for some reason you have it that you can’t give them 53 or 54 percent on that first year. Because it’ll look like you “lost”, you “caved” on the players. But here’s the thing: WE DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT. We don’t think you would be a loser if that was your cut of the revenues on the first year. You’re STILL ALL REAL BIG WINNERS IN LIFE. We aren’t going to judge anybody as a “winner” and a “loser” when this thing is over. Well that’s not quite honest; we all think you are losers for letting things get this far – owners and players.

    But whether you get 52 or 53 or 54 on the first year of a deal that we all know is going to slide down to 50-50 – WE DON’T CARE. Only you seem to care. And what for? So Phil Anschutz can go back to his mansion in Colorado and say “Well everyone, I got 1 percent extra out of that deal with the NHL, aren’t you all so proud of me now?”

    Or, Zach Parise, do you think we will be impressed when you go back to your family and friends and say “Hey guys, great news! We can all stop the food stamp applications, because we’re getting 54 percent this year instead of 53!”

    We don’t care. We don’t care about any of this right now. We see grown men who have lost all touch with reality, who don’t know how good they really had it, who couldn’t do what normal people do, which is work on a solution that works well for both sides – in an industry that is guaranteed to be good to both sides.

    It’s why people like me and my hockey friends are basically saying, “It was sad, but I had to let (the NHL) go. There was just no hope in saving the relationship anymore.”

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    And then there is my side of the story, not produced to fill page in an abyss created by the lockout:

     

    I can't wait for them to solve this and get back on the ice!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: NHL

    Agreed! I want to see some Bruins! And as much as I don't want to support their lockout balogna I will probably end up going to a game this year if/when it resumes.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And then there is my side of the story, not produced to fill page in an abyss created by the lockout:

     

    I can't wait for them to solve this and get back on the ice!

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually like your side of the story and want it to be true.  But I hate it when people stake out an argument here and then disappear and don't defend it.  So, when I make one and then come across a very relevant article I feel compelled to post it.

    That said, enough about the Avs.  I'm actually more interested in the Providence thread.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And then there is my side of the story, not produced to fill page in an abyss created by the lockout:

     

    I can't wait for them to solve this and get back on the ice!

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually like your side of the story and want it to be true.  But I hate it when people stake out an argument here and then disappear and don't defend it.  So, when I make one and then come across a very relevant article I feel compelled to post it.

    That said, enough about the Avs.  I'm actually more interested in the Providence thread.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Good article Fetch, thanks.  I don't see the logic as being exclusive Denver, I'm hearing a lot of the same stuff in Canada.    Like the writer, I'm getting worried about what looks to be Fehr's win at all cost attitude, as I don't think the process can work well with two of those personalities at the wheel.  I don't think either give a hoot how long this thing lasts, or the casualties...it's merely winning.  I agree with the writer that what's driving this thing, is the ridiculous way things started off, and thats all on the league.  If it had opened with the PA looking to go up to 72%, UFA after 2 years, and arbitration on everything.....then I'd feel they get all the blame.  But the players aren't really asking for anything, which makes any idea that the PA hasn't "countered ' enough kinda lame.

    As far as who gets what percentage for this year?....if the regular season got going in 2 weeks, whatever that number is....would already be a joke.  Neither side will get anything close to what they want in real dollars.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    You're worried about what?  The Boston Bruins aren't folding or moving.  The NHL isn't dying.  If six or seven teams do get killed off, well, see you later to the weak links.  My life remains exactly the same.


    NHL hockey will be back when they get it all sorted out.  When they do, I'll return to watching every single B's game, twice as usual.  Until then, I do other things with my time.


    If 50% of the fan base bolts for (.........) and doesn't come back, the Boston Bruins will continue to play NHL hockey.  So will the Habs, Rangers, Leafs, Wings and Blackhawks.  What else matters?

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You're worried about what?  The Boston Bruins aren't folding or moving.  The NHL isn't dying.  If six or seven teams do get killed off, well, see you later to the weak links.  My life remains exactly the same.


    NHL hockey will be back when they get it all sorted out.  When they do, I'll return to watching every single B's game, twice as usual.  Until then, I do other things with my time.


    If 50% of the fan base bolts for (.........) and doesn't come back, the Boston Bruins will continue to play NHL hockey.  So will the Habs, Rangers, Leafs, Wings and Blackhawks.  What else matters?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sigh...Sorry NAS, but once again you're just providing the ultimate narcissistic response to an otherwise interesting discussion that passed by the importance of your personal reaction many posts ago.  We've all heard you repeat that you don't care, and you have other things to do, and you will be back (see above).  That's great.  I'll be back too.  We get it.

    What the other posters here are talking about, is the sad situation that is playing out and the unfortunate impact that it may have in a bunch of other cities.  And it should be obvious to you that other people do care about that, even if you don't.  My original point was that some views here seemed a little Boston-centric in laughing off disgruntled fans as irrelevant.  Each response from you has confirmed this notion in spades.

    At this point in the discussion, whether the (lack of) negotiations bother you personally or not, is neither relevant nor interesting.  The negotiations seem like an unfortunate waste of money, time, resources, many low/medium paying jobs, and our entertainment.  They seem foolish on some level because the two sides will have the exact same set of circumstances whether they choose to deal now or in 9 months.  If they wait, a lot will be lost, and the fear in some areas is that the losses might collectively change the product.  And the whole show is being run by two ego-maniacs who seem more motivated by saving face (winning!) than by reaching agreement.  At some point you have to assess the collateral damage and weigh it against the benefits of being the last one standing.  No?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    So your point of view is important, but mine is not?


    Why do you care if the NHL wastes resources?

    Why do you care?

    What losses could change Boston Bruins hockey?

    Why do you care if a hot dog vendor in Columbus loses money?

    You say that I'm the ego here.  You are the ego here.  You're the pathetic mother on yelling "But think of the children" when she doesn't have any kids.  You are minimizing my thoughts to maximize yours (or Dater's), when neither of you have anything more than 100% love for the game and cannot wait for it to return.

    Get off your soapbox.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So your point of view is important, but mine is not?


    Why do you care if the NHL wastes resources?

    Why do you care?

    What losses could change Boston Bruins hockey?

    Why do you care if a hot dog vendor in Columbus loses money?

    You say that I'm the ego here.  You are the ego here.  You're the pathetic mother on yelling "But think of the children" when she doesn't have any kids.  You are minimizing my thoughts to maximize yours (or Dater's), when neither of you have anything more than 100% love for the game and cannot wait for it to return.

    Get off your soapbox.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah...what I expected.  If you'll read the posts we're discussing more carefully, you'll realize that I'm not talking about my personal perspective.  I have said that I'll be back whenever they play again, just like you.  So while it is true I'm sharing an opinion, it isn't about my personal perferences, but rather about the harm that may be done around the league and the possible mis-calculation of the patience and importance of NHL fans.  I'm looking at other fans/other cities and gauging the reaction.  And the articles I've posted are not about me either -- they're about other people.

    So again, it isn't about your ego or mine, but instead of making any interesting comments on the discussion, you just keep repeating the reaction of NAS when everyone else is talking about the reaction of others.  The whole point of the thread was to look outside of your immediate perspective as a Bruins fan and consider what the impacts are in other cities.  You keep telling us you don't care, as if it is a rebuttal to any concern, from any fans, in any city.  Don't worry people of Denver, NAS doesn't care.  He has other things to do.  Problem solved.

    I'm trying to avoid conflict here and am sorry if I've been rude.  But as someone who frequently has snappy, condescending comebacks for people here (which I sometimes enjoy), don't freak out when someone gives you a hard time because you keep forcing an entire thread to come back to your immediate personal reaction.  We heard you.  You're missing the point.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You're worried about what?  The Boston Bruins aren't folding or moving.  The NHL isn't dying.  If six or seven teams do get killed off, well, see you later to the weak links.  My life remains exactly the same.


    NHL hockey will be back when they get it all sorted out.  When they do, I'll return to watching every single B's game, twice as usual.  Until then, I do other things with my time.


    If 50% of the fan base bolts for (.........) and doesn't come back, the Boston Bruins will continue to play NHL hockey.  So will the Habs, Rangers, Leafs, Wings and Blackhawks.  What else matters?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm 'worried' that the competing personalities could ensure  this debacle continues well into the future.  I'd rather see it sorted out soon.   I don't recall even one poster suggesting the B's could fold over this dispute.  

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    All around the nation, around the blogosphere, around FB and Twitter and everywhere else, people are talking about the worst this and the worst that.

    I prefer to look on the bright side and use history as a measuring stick.  We have been through this before.  As a result, we got better hockey from it!  No teams folded.  The fans flocked back.  The game took off like a rocket. 

    If it takes them a year to sort it out like last time, fine.  If it takes half a season to figure it out like in '94 fine. 

    I guess what I'm wondering is why, considering the direct recent history, is everyone batting around the worst case scenarios?  I understand that Dater is because doom sells, but what about everyone else?  Fletch, you're a level headed, civil minded person.  Why are you buying into the doom?  stevegm, you're off your rocker on many occasions, but are still all there in general, why are you buying into the doom so much that you are now concerned?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    Thanks.  I don't think I am necessary bringing the most reasoned argument to the table here and I might be totally naive about things if everything gets worked out before the end of the year and the shortened season provides an exciting playoff battle.  Maybe my personal disappointment id seeping into my opinions about the bigger picture, but the basis of my concern, or worry, is this:

    1. That a prolonged work stoppage might be very damaging in a number of NHL cities and may be difficult to recover from.  In some places where the 'slow bleed' of viability has been under way, a long stoppage could be a knockout blow.  I'm not suggesting that teams will up and fold, but they might just keep bleeding instead of recovering when things are back on and their owners won't spend money.  I don't think Dater is just being dramatic.  Two guys on my beer league team have had season tickets since '96 and cancelled them last week.  I think that is dumb, but it does seem to be happening.  And I don't care much about losing southern teams with questionable fan bases, but I think Columbus and Denver are good hockey towns (both sold out for a half dozen years).  Now, I think they are twisting in the wind because of the desires of owners who are in much better situation.  I don't understand how the owners remain a unified front when the risks/costs of the lookout seem so much greater for some. 

    2.  It seems like an unecessary stalemate to me.  The players definitely had a favorable situation for a while.  The owners took back a bunch last time and stand to take back a bunch this time.  It's hard not to conclude that a meeting in the middle would be favorable for everyone, compared to a long work stoppage.  It is also hard not to conclude that the ego of the negotiators plays a role in this.  Bettman can't cave and has to save face.  Fehr's reputation as a hawkish negotiator goes out the window if the players lose badly.  Both guys seem like lousy negotiators, froma big picture standpoint.

    3. I don't think anyone wins if this goes on any longer.  The 'winner' will be getter a bigger piece of a smaller pie.  Then calculate all that was lost during the stoppage, and I'm not sure it makes any sense.  Or, those who win are already the successful franchises and the gap grows larger between profitable and unprofitable teams.  I think the league is better when more teams can consider FA signings (within a cap mind you) and the competitive balance is better. 

    4.  I'm convinced we'll be in the exact same place on January 1st or next summer or whatever.  The same negotiations and the same numbers.  Everybody has flexed their muscles made good on promises to walk away.  Can't the real work begin now?  Whatever the terms may be of an eventual agreement -- can't that be determined now?  Why lose all of the jobs associated with hockey and alienate fans when the outcome/compromise can already be predicted, for the most part.

    I realize that analysis is full of holes and is overly simplistic, but I've typed enough in this thread.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skater68. Show skater68's posts

    Re: NHL

    It would be great to have the euro league become real competition for the NHL . All it would take is for players to sign on after their NHL contracts expire. Not easily done but possible, I remember when the AFL started everyone predicted that it would never draw fans. Back in the old Boston Patriots days

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: NHL

    Interesting comments from Paul Kelly recently about Gary Bettman.  Kelly had a lot of respect for Bettman and said he's not a guy who's afraid to come off his position if that's what it takes to get a deal done.  He wasn't describing a win at all costs egomaniac or a union-buster.  Steve Fehr is the bellweather for the other side - he's the one with the more inflammatory comments.  I think Don Fehr is a puzzle, but a very smart s.o.b.  You show him the logic behind your position to explain the solution you've proposed, and he will come back with a solution that's viable even if you find it distasteful, and that solution protects his side.  So you end up in a spot where there are two solutions to a business problem, and the question is who will pay for the solution?

    It's also a sure sign that the current deal favours the players when the union isn't asking for anything.  The old axiom about a good deal meaning neither side is happy comes to mind.  If the NHLPA is happy enough to continue under the current terms indefinitely, or even better, with only modest gains over the next 3-4 years, you know the owners aren't happy.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share