Cox's take

[HockeyCritter]

I think the PA (in the person of Goodenow) thought that the owners would cave. He went into this negotiation with that mind set and that thing above all hurt the PA’s cause. I don’t think he ever thought that the owners would stick to their proverbial guns and as such had no plan “B†of attack.

 

[King_Brown]

See someone said Goodenow cant see into the future, yet thats what his whole strategy was based on. Seeing the owners cave in January and accept that wack proposal they gave in December. Goodenow did nothing, he just sat there, and said they will cave, we don't belive you, they will cave, we don't trust you. Bob screwed the players big time, thats why they shoved him to the side and did it there way.

 

[HockeyCritter]

See someone said Goodenow cant see into the future, yet thats what his whole strategy was based on. Seeing the owners cave in January and accept that wack proposal they gave in December. Goodenow did nothing, he just sat there, and said they will cave, we don't belive you, they will cave, we don't trust you. Bob screwed the players big time, thats why they shoved him to the side and did it there way.

I don’t blame the players for sticking with Goodenow through January and February. His strategy worked for them in the past and at that time they had no reason to think it would fail them again.

 

[Jarqui]

And to me, the mindset of "they will cave" is a wrong mindset. A good deal is a good deal for both parties. The "great" deal that Bob got them the last time has wound up to some significant extent to screwing the players this time. They'll never make the money they've lost on this lockout back. What goes around usually comes around.

If the mindset is to get a good deal for both parties so that both parties win, that's a good business deal and they're usually the ones that bear the most fruit long term.

They're a 4th place at best pro sport falling fast. No one party of the two can correct that without the other. They have to do it together. The real "enemy" is not each other. It's the other entertainment businesses that have been cleaning up on the $2.1 bilion not spent on the NHL this season.

 

[HockeyCritter]

I didn’t say it was a great game plan, or even a good one. I did, however, say I understood why the players supported Goodenow as long as they did.

However, someone, somewhere along the line should have had a little talk with Goodenow et al when it became apparent the owners were very strong in their resolve this time around. It eventually happened, but it happened a bit too late (in my opinion).

 

[vadardog]

Goodenow was actually in a no win situation for himself. The only way he could have come out of this negotiation looking good would be if the owners had folded. The owners haven't folded. If Goodenow had accepted one of the owners offers he would have been seen as having lost. If he signs the ones being offered now he will be seen as having lost. Either way no difference to him, he still gets payed. The ones getting screwed are the players. But its their own fault, they choose the leader and didn't align his priorities with their own (unless their is some bonus for signing a contract that I don't know about).

 

[HockeyCritter]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Goodenow once the CBA is signed. Doesn't he have a ten million dollar Golden Parachute on his contract?

Ouch!!

 

[PecaFan]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Goodenow once the CBA is signed. Doesn't he have a ten million dollar Golden Parachute on his contract?

And Bob didn't even have a good year, his scoring was way down.

I guess it isn't only owners who give out stupid contracts, eh?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

And Bob didn't even have a good year, his scoring was way down.

I guess it isn't only owners who give out stupid contracts, eh?

LOL post of the week!

 

[Lobstertainment]

the next one that launches a personal shot/flame of another poster in this thread will not be here when the league returns.

Wow a 10 year ban?

 

[Gee Wally]

Wow a 10 year ban?

nah..they'll be back soon...besides , I ain't getting any younger !

 

[Lobstertainment]

It's not hindsight. Myself and numerous others were pointing out in September that their best deal was to sign something right away. Get it done, don't lose any money this season, and let the owners natural greed and competiveness drive up salaries in the future, just like last time.

Hindsight. Bah.

I remember this too, everyone said the owners would not fold, they could not afford to fold.

and the whole while there were players making comments, then saying they were misquoted and the union was equally as strong as the owners if not more so, what a crock.

I don't blame the players for the lost season, but I thought it was clear to everyone at the start of this that the owners would not fold, it seemed like in September the new CBA would be a CAP despite what the PA said, the Owners wanted a Cap and come hell or high water they were going to get it.

so this talk about Hindisght has me raising some question marks myself, Everyone from TV Analists, to the Owners, to the very fans themselfs said the owners would die before they fold.

 

[Lobstertainment]

nah..they'll be back soon...besides , I ain't getting any younger !

QUIET!

*is banned*

 

[ceber]

so this talk about Hindisght has me raising some question marks myself, Everyone from TV Analists, to the Owners, to the very fans themselfs said the owners would die before they fold.

I get the impression people think hindsight is a negative term. Lots of people, myself included, didn't think the ownership would fold easily. But, just because it turned out to that they didn't doesn't mean mean the NHLPA should've folded like a tent at the first opportunity. Had the NHLPA positioned themselves slightly differently and tried to make some key concessions early on, the resolve of the owners could've been tested much more, and things may have taken a different path. Unless you're omniscient, you can't be sure that giving in very early in the process would've been better for the PA. Lots of different and unanticipated scenarios could've played out.

 

[Lobstertainment]

I get the impression people think hindsight is a negative term. Lots of people, myself included, didn't think the ownership would fold easily. But, just because it turned out to that they didn't doesn't mean mean the NHLPA should've folded like a tent at the first opportunity. Had the NHLPA positioned themselves slightly differently and tried to make some key concessions early on, the resolve of the owners could've been tested much more, and things may have taken a different path. Unless you're omniscient, you can't be sure that giving in very early in the process would've been better for the PA. Lots of different and unanticipated scenarios could've played out.

That's acctually a very good point, one which I didn't consider and should have.

 

[DETROIT SKABOY]

what both sides forgot about is the fans

 

[MHA]

what both sides forgot about is the fans

people always say that, but lets say they didn't forget about the fans, what would be different

 

[MHA]

I get the impression people think hindsight is a negative term. Lots of people, myself included, didn't think the ownership would fold easily. But, just because it turned out to that they didn't doesn't mean mean the NHLPA should've folded like a tent at the first opportunity. Had the NHLPA positioned themselves slightly differently and tried to make some key concessions early on, the resolve of the owners could've been tested much more, and things may have taken a different path. Unless you're omniscient, you can't be sure that giving in very early in the process would've been better for the PA. Lots of different and unanticipated scenarios could've played out.

good point, but the biggest problem that the PA had was not having a Plan B. Goodenow presumed the owners would fold again, but he should of told the players that if they don't fold at this time we have to concede a cap and try and get as much as they can. He did not communicate with the players well and did not have a Plan B.

 

[Paxon]

Great comment oil...

The players had a single strategy, break the backs of the NHL and force the League to give them what they wanted.

Shouldn't that read, "The owners had a single strategy, break the backs of the Union and force the players to give them what they wanted."

Isn't that seemingly what they did if the rumors are true?

To say that this isn't their fault because there was no way to know how that strategy was going to play out makes zero sense. Here's a bunch of guys who are getting fantastically increased paychecks over the last 10 years and while they command over 70% of the revenues the fabricate a strategy that seeks to fold the owners?

What was at fault and remains so today is their mental mindest that allowed them to even conjur up this strategy. Its a sick minded bunch of people who (the players) have so much and then hold a gun to the game's head (our game) in order to get what they want.

The rest of this post is just anti-player drivel. You are bleeding bias here. It shouldn't matter whether you wanted a cap or not, your expressed viewpoint here is ridiculous fanaticism.

Let's not forget it was the NHL who instituted the lockout. It was the owners who greenlit the GMs to sign players to these ridiculous salaries. How is it then only the fault of the players? Any reasonable person would conclude both sides were equally at fault for the situation leading up to the lockout. Both sides were equally at fault for everything that happened during the lockout. The players have now appeared to cave and people are even trying to find fault in it. "Why didn't they cave sooner?!"

I'm sure if they agreed with the NHL they'd have had a deal done a year ago. However, they didn't agree with the NHL just as the NHL didn't agree with them. As you're someone who obviously wanted a cap, I assume you would have been very angry if the owners caved easily. Why would you then expect the players to cave easily? It is because you don't agree with their stance, not their bargaining tactics. Instead of limiting your disapproval to what you actually disagree with, the players not only have the wrong viewpoint but their bargaining tactics are evil, they smell bad, and they ate your children.

Sick-minded bunch of people? For wanting to work in a free market? Personally I could have cared less as to whether or not they got a cap, but I find no difficulty in putting myself in either sides shoes. I can assure you it does not take a sick mind to want to get paid whatever your boss is willing to pay you. I'll tell you something else... it isn't greedy, either.

They held a gun to "our" game's head? First of all, you say "our game" as if it isn't their game; as if they have no love for the game. As if they have less right to the game than we do, disregarding that they've dedicated their lives to playing it.

Secondly, if the players held a gun to the game's head, the owners gave them that gun, fully loaded, and told them where to aim.

The NHLPA needs to find a soul (after they fire Goodenow), cuz these heartless bastards, who have each already won life's lottery, just blew away our game for an entire year due to their arrogant self-centered greed.

I don't really know where to begin here, but this kind of hateful garbage adds nothing to conversation or debate.

Yep, the players have no souls. In fact, they even steal souls from fans in an attempt to fill that void!

They've won life's lottery because they make a lot of money? Sure. Do you hold doctors, lawyers (well, maybe you should ), businessmen, inventors, or other people of wealthy professions in the same level of contempt? Is it strictly jealousy or are there some other issues at play here?

The entire league, from the owners to the players, took away the game for a year. The owners said "we're not going to have games until you give in on this, this, and this" and the players didn't do so (though it seems they did now). I wonder if rather than a lockout the players went on strike, would you instead blame the owners for not giving in to their demands? I doubt it.

Being that this is a hockey board where we talk about hockey players, I really wish this sort of hateful nonsense was disallowed.

 

[Paxon]

Dude I have abosolutely nothe to be envious of these Jack-holes.

I love the game and am sincerely pissed.

Get a clue, its not about envy.

Do you often describe people as having "won life's lottery" when you don't feel they've got anything over you?

 

[SuperUnknown]

Yourself and numerous others were theorizing that the best deal was available in September. Just because events turned out the way they did doesn't mean the players should've caved right away.

Well when you can assess in September that the owners situation was bad enough they'd be better off holding out 1-2-3-4-5 years if required, and when you can assess the money lost by the players by not playing last year would never be made back even with a favorable deal, it doesn't take that much intelligence to see that the window opportunity for the players was really small for getting the best deal inked.

Obviously, imo, the players had more negociating room when the season could still be cancelled. But they failed terribly then.

Economical signs were clearly pointing to the owners not "caving" in, although with the good offer they could still have been swooped at some time in a deal that would have been less to their advantage. I think several posters explained that over and over again, with solid basis.

Heck, even last year (or was it 2 years ago?), there were people on this forum that were already demonstrating that the owners would have the bigger end of the stick in these negociations.

I'm sorry, but if some board amateurs can get to this conclusion using the data that was available to them, then the NHLPA leadership should also have been able to do the same with the data that they had. Which means that they failed terribly. Now they're going to pay a heavy price for this, as the cancelled season will affect the money going into their pockets for years (and they'll most likely sign at less than they were offered and turned down $1B earlier this year).

In 90% of the conflicts, the party that is losing the more money will be the one that will have to make the more compromises. In this conflict, it's the players this time around (while last time it was the owners).

Oh well, I'm sad that the players had to follow such a terribly blind leadership (Goodenow, Damphousse, Klatt).

 

[PecaFan]

I get the impression people think hindsight is a negative term.

That's because it's almost always used as such. People love to toss out "hindsight!" in an attempt to discredit your argument, or minimise your success. It's a polite way of saying something like "You didn't actually have the foresight or knowledge to predict that trading for player X was a mistake, you're just pretending that you thought that all along..."

Unless you're omniscient, you can't be sure that giving in very early in the process would've been better for the PA. Lots of different and unanticipated scenarios could've played out.

I know what you're saying, but it was pretty darn obvious the owners would cancel the season if they got into a game of chicken with the PA at the deadline. The huge $300 million nest egg that they didn't have last time, the Levitt report and Forbes that proved they were losing money, etc.

I've never had a problem with the union playing hardball at all, of course that's generally the best strategy for them, the more hurt they can impose, the more likely they are to get a better deal. My personal belief was that anything extra they could get in February, wouldn't make up for losing 1/2 a billion+ in salary. But then that's because I've watched unions for years stay out for months on end, sometimes over a year just to ultimately get so little extra that it didn't make the extra time lost worth it.

But losing the season was inexcusable for them. Fine, play chicken, but somebody has to give in to avoid the crash.