Brian Burke ON CKNW at 10:10 PT 1:10 AM EST

[GKJ]

Like I've said, if the Owners were serious about calling for an Impasse, they've would have done it a long time ago. But the NHL & their "well-paid lawyers" know that if they were to do it, they'd lose, and by losing, they'd be in a world of do-do.

You might call this an OPINION, but being a lawyer, and knowing how the NLRB operates, the chances of the NHL winning is slim.

Can the union call an impasse?

 

[Da Game]

Can the union call an impasse?

No. Only the NHL has the power to call an impasse, cause it's their business. The Union can only call for a strike, if an impasse is granted to the NHL. Once the Union strikes, the NHL can process by using replacement players, under their last CBA offer to the NHLPA.

I wish I could smoke some crack and give you some good news like Eklund (in a blogger format of course), but the only way I see a deal getting done, is if the two sides just reach a middle ground.

Something like, Soft Cap with a Luxary tax. Something like the NBA setup.

 

[SENSible1*]

Like I've said, if the Owners were serious about calling for an Impasse, they've would have done it a long time ago. But the NHL & their "well-paid lawyers" know that if they were to do it, they'd lose, and by losing, they'd be in a world of do-do.

You might call this an OPINION, but being a lawyer, and knowing how the NLRB operates, the chances of the NHL winning is slim.

I appreciate that your OPINION is an educated one.

I also appreciate that another lawyer may hold a different, equally educated, OPINION.

I do disagree with your premise that "if the Owners were serious about calling for an Impasse, they've would have done it a long time ago."

A thorough demonstration of the NHL's attempts to negotiate a settlement can't hurt their chances IF they attempt to take this before the NLRB.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I appreciate that your OPINION is an educated one.

I also appreciate that another lawyer may hold a different, equally educated, OPINION.

I do disagree with your premise that "if the Owners were serious about calling for an Impasse, they've would have done it a long time ago."

A thorough demonstration of the NHL's attempts to negotiate a settlement can't hurt their chances IF they attempt to take this before the NLRB.

it must be said ...

you sir are an obnoxious "know it all".

dr

 

[Morbo]

it must be said ...

you sir are an obnoxious "know it all".

dr

Not really.

He's a Sens fan who supports a hard cap.

'nuff said.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Not really.

He's a Sens fan who supports a hard cap.

'nuff said.

you can be all three (sens fan, cap supporter, know it all).

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

it must be said ...

you sir are an obnoxious "know it all".

dr

Hope that helps you feel better.

 

[Da Game]

I appreciate that your OPINION is an educated one.

I also appreciate that another lawyer may hold a different, equally educated, OPINION.

I do disagree with your premise that "if the Owners were serious about calling for an Impasse, they've would have done it a long time ago."

A thorough demonstration of the NHL's attempts to negotiate a settlement can't hurt their chances IF they attempt to take this before the NLRB.

Before I start, Thunderstruck, I'm not trying to start a flame war with you. I like debating, and I thought I'd just give my opinion to you guys on the impasse issue.

Now, on your last point. I mean, it's nice that the NHL is making some offers, but when you look at them, they'll basically all in the same form, just worded differently.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Of course, being a Sens fan and a cap supporter is illogical. Of all the teams in the league, fans of the Sens (like myself) should be the LAST ones hoping and praying for a hard cap.

 

[Morbo]

Of course, being a Sens fan and a cap supporter is illogical. Of all the teams in the league, fans of the Sens (like myself) should be the LAST ones hoping and praying for a hard cap.

I've noticed that Thunderstruck likes to avoid addressing this, though.

I wonder why.

 

[tantalum]

Before I start, Thunderstruck, I'm not trying to start a flame war with you. I like debating, and I thought I'd just give my opinion to you guys on the impasse issue.

Now, on your last point. I mean, it's nice that the NHL is making some offers, but when you look at them, they'll basically all in the same form, just worded differently.

As have the NHLPA's offers.

 

[SENSible1*]

Before I start, Thunderstruck, I'm not trying to start a flame war with you. I like debating, and I thought I'd just give my opinion to you guys on the impasse issue.
Now, on your last point. I mean, it's nice that the NHL is making some offers, but when you look at them, they'll basically all in the same form, just worded differently.

Me too.

Perhaps I should explain my reluctance to accept any lawyers opinion, if it is presented as fact.

I've been on the union side of the table in a few arbitration cases where our lawyer assured us our case was rock solid, only to see it dismissed out of hand by the arbitrator. Practical experience tells me that things are rarely cut and dry when it comes to labour law.

The NHL, if it is going for impasse, has been carefully prepared and has shown flexibilty while not leaving its core position. I doubt they will go down that route, but it has been in their best interests to keep it as an option and the final result is far more uncertain than the picture you presented.


Dr,

For all your pretense at "thinking outside the box" you certainly don't seem to apply it to the propoganda job being done by wetcoaster on this board. He has raised the level of discourse and I have learned a good deal from reading his posts and the links he provides, but I won't stop examining his postition with a critical eye towards his obvious bias.

His description of the NFL/NFLPA replacement player/decertification resolution as having worked out well for the players is spin doctoring at its finest.

Call me any name you like if it makes you feel better, but turning your brain off when someone claims credentials doesn't seem like your normal MO, so why is it happening here?

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Me too.

Perhaps I should explain my reluctance to accept any lawyers opinion, if it is presented as fact.

I've been on the union side of the table in a few arbitration cases where our lawyer assured us our case was rock solid, only to see it dismissed out of hand by the arbitrator. Practical experience tells me that things are rarely cut and dry when it comes to labour law.

The NHL, if it is going for impasse, has been carefully prepared and has shown flexibilty while not leaving its core position. I doubt they will go down that route, but it has been in their best interests to keep it as an option and the final result is far more uncertain than the picture you presented.

If there is anything I've learned so far, it is that there are really no questions/positions that cannot be disputed. Even what seems to be the clearest black letter law often has room for distinctions and debate. And this it seems, is very far from clear black letter law.

I also think there is demonstratd good reason to be wary of what some "experts" have said on this board recently. Sorry if I leave the wrong impression, this is not directed at you Thunderstruck.

 

[SENSible1*]

I've noticed that Thunderstruck likes to avoid addressing this, though.

I wonder why.

I've addressed the issue repeatedly, but if you want the reader's digest version, here goes.

I'm far more concerned about the overall health of the league and the Sens, than the short-term prospect of losing some talent.

The Sens would lose players under either system. I'd rather those players be spread out over the entire league, than accumulated in the big spenders markets.

The Sens have clearly demonstrated their ability to excel at drafting, player development and managing on a limited budget. Those are exactly the skills needed to succeed in a capped NHL. Why would I fear the Sens prospects in that scenario?

Give the Sens a league where brains matter more than bucks and I'll gladly take their chances at continuing to be one of the best teams for years to come.

Ticket prices won't suffer push effect inflation. Demand will continue to be the major factor, but teams won't be forced into pushing the envelope to cover a greater % of expenditures on salary.

 

[Greschner4]

Wetcoaster,




I'm confused, the NFL used replacement players, got a hard cap and in return "lost" by giving free agency.

Do you think the NHL would have a problem with that outcome?

You should be confused because Wetcoaster doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

In exchange for the NFL "giving up" free agency, which the courts would have made them do anyway (and which every other league had done years before), the NFL gained a hard cap.

No other league has gotten back anywhere near what the NFL got back in exchange for holding firm for so many years on free agency.

 

[Morbo]

I've addressed the issue repeatedly, but if you want the reader's digest version, here goes.

I'm far more concerned about the overall health of the league and the Sens, than the short-term prospect of losing some talent.

The Sens would lose players under either system. I'd rather those players be spread out over the entire league, than accumulated in the big spenders markets.

The Sens have clearly demonstrated their ability to excel at drafting, player development and managing on a limited budget. Those are exactly the skills needed to succeed in a capped NHL. Why would I fear the Sens prospects in that scenario?

Give the Sens a league where brains matter more than bucks and I'll gladly take their chances at continuing to be one of the best teams for years to come.

Thanks for the response. I hadn't read your full opinion on this before.

This "brains over bucks" thing is a red herring, though, since the cap will limit per-team talent. You will be losing MORE talent under this system than, for example, the fake $50 million hard cap rumour, where you'd have a shot at keeping a lot more of it. This is of particular note for a team with a lot of talent near RFA age who is at or above the cap already, like yours.

But as long as you support the cap knowing this, as you seem to be doing, then fine.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

What are you basing the 'sens will lose players' no matter what on?

Give me a LOGICAL breakdown of which players we will lose and why. The only elite level talent the Sens had ever lost in his prime was Alexei Yashin, and we all know there were several reasons behind that. And it wasn't his salary, since we have Alfredsson, Chara and Redden making more, even during Bryden years.

Besides they got better with Chara and Spezza, or are you going to try and say that that was lucky?

Try again.

 

[Da Game]

If there is a Salary Cap put into place when the season starts up again, I would hope the Cap would be closer to what the NBA has, but with a slight change, where you are allowed to re-sign your only talent without much effect on the Cap.

 

[Da Game]

If there is a Salary Cap put into place when the season starts up again, I would hope the Cap would be closer to what the NBA has, but with a slight change, where you are allowed to re-sign your only talent without much effect on the Cap.

If that were to be included into the new CBA, the Draft would become very important to all 30 teams, and not just the smaller markets.

 

[Da Game]

^^ Why are you quoting and replying to yourself?

Cause I wanted to add something into my first reply.

Why, is it against the rules?

 

[Marconius]

There are not enough American kids in the AHL to fill 26 rosters. You would be seeing a lot of guys a step above beer league in the US. The Canadian teams would be loaded though. Is that competative balance?

I really think that replacement players could work. The NHL can draw talent from:

1. European teams: You don't think the Euros would jump here in a second to triple their salaries and at the same time take the jobs away from the NHL bigwigs that did the same thing to them?

2. NHL Players crossing the line. I have no doubt that their are a lot fo players who would cross

3. The minor leagues, not the greatest talent, but enough to fill out the rosters.

The first year might be kinda sketchy hockey-wise, but I think it wouldn't be a whole lot better if the NHL resumed and all the NHLers came back after having saty out so long. At least everyone else has been playing hockey for the last year. Next year and the year after, the NHL would start gathering eleite talent again through the draft. If a player like Crosby truly realized that the NHL was serious about using replacements, I think he would allow himself to be drafted. In fact this could be the NHL's ace-in-the-hole. If it was a regular draft year, with no clearcut superstar in waiting, it would be a lot tougher on the NHL. If Crosby decides to play, the NHL immediately has one of the highest media-touted players in the world again.

After 1 season with replacements, I think you'd see even more NHL'ers cross the line. I honestly don't think the quality of hockey would suffer that much. Sure we'd be missing the elite players, like the Prongers et al, but after their brilliant comments in the news, I think most fans would be glad to keep the stars locked out, and watch heart & soul guys.

I have no animosity towards the players for getting the best deal they can thus far, anyone else would do the same. But you have to be realistic and look at the disconnect this creates with the fans. When fans see players turning 6 mil down as chump change, they can't be expected to realize that theyw ould do the same in their workplace. All they see is the bills piling up, never quite catching up, and seeing those who live the dream snubbing the game.

 

[i am dave]

Cause I wanted to add something into my first reply.

Why, is it against the rules?

You could have just edited your first reply.

 

[Da Game]

I really think that replacement players could work. The NHL can draw talent from:

1. European teams: You don't think the Euros would jump here in a second to triple their salaries and at the same time take the jobs away from the NHL bigwigs that did the same thing to them?

2. NHL Players crossing the line. I have no doubt that their are a lot fo players who would cross

3. The minor leagues, not the greatest talent, but enough to fill out the rosters.

The first year might be kinda sketchy hockey-wise, but I think it wouldn't be a whole lot better if the NHL resumed and all the NHLers came back after having saty out so long. At least everyone else has been playing hockey for the last year. Next year and the year after, the NHL would start gathering eleite talent again through the draft. If a player like Crosby truly realized that the NHL was serious about using replacements, I think he would allow himself to be drafted. In fact this could be the NHL's ace-in-the-hole. If it was a regular draft year, with no clearcut superstar in waiting, it would be a lot tougher on the NHL. If Crosby decides to play, the NHL immediately has one of the highest media-touted players in the world again.

After 1 season with replacements, I think you'd see even more NHL'ers cross the line. I honestly don't think the quality of hockey would suffer that much. Sure we'd be missing the elite players, like the Prongers et al, but after their brilliant comments in the news, I think most fans would be glad to keep the stars locked out, and watch heart & soul guys.

I have no animosity towards the players for getting the best deal they can thus far, anyone else would do the same. But you have to be realistic and look at the disconnect this creates with the fans. When fans see players turning 6 mil down as chump change, they can't be expected to realize that theyw ould do the same in their workplace. All they see is the bills piling up, never quite catching up, and seeing those who live the dream snubbing the game.

But for all of this to happen, the NHL would need the NLRB to grant them an Impasse, which in MY OWN OPINION, doesn't have a good chance of happening.

 

[Da Game]

You could have just edited your first reply.

I'm sorry if anyone on this board was offended by me replying to myself.

 

[SENSible1*]

You should be confused because Wetcoaster doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

In exchange for the NFL "giving up" free agency, which the courts would have made them do anyway (and which every other league had done years before), the NFL gained a hard cap.

No other league has gotten back anywhere near what the NFL got back in exchange for holding firm for so many years on free agency.

Wetcoaster most definitely has a clue.

He also has a clear agenda and is an accomplished spin doctor.