Fan 590 Reports Players Are Angry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
On the issue of Gary Bettman I will never ever support what he does. First off isnt Gary Bettman Mr. Big bad basketball guy? WHY doesn't he offer up the the NBA's soft cap system, has anyone once even TALKED about a soft cap ever? This is the system im actually in favour of, something like the NBA's and it seems this method is being completely ignored by both sides. Secondly, it's easy for a commish to do what the owners want him to do in the instance of this CBA, but how about the past 10 years of Bettman helping run the NHL into the ground? Was that all the owners telling him what to do as well? If it was then these guys definitely should NOT be owning anything sports related. Whether the cap is implemented or not Bettman should be FIRED because the NHL commissioner needs to be a man passionate about the actual SPORT of hockey and the game, not just passionate about the economic structure. And I think everyone will agree with me Bettman is not even close to being passionate about a game in which I think this sport needs a passionate commissioner more than any other.
I agree with your last point 100%!
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
On the issue of Gary Bettman I will never ever support what he does. First off isnt Gary Bettman Mr. Big bad basketball guy? WHY doesn't he offer up the the NBA's soft cap system, has anyone once even TALKED about a soft cap ever? This is the system im actually in favour of, something like the NBA's and it seems this method is being completely ignored by both sides. Secondly, it's easy for a commish to do what the owners want him to do in the instance of this CBA, but how about the past 10 years of Bettman helping run the NHL into the ground? Was that all the owners telling him what to do as well? If it was then these guys definitely should NOT be owning anything sports related. Whether the cap is implemented or not Bettman should be FIRED because the NHL commissioner needs to be a man passionate about the actual SPORT of hockey and the game, not just passionate about the economic structure. And I think everyone will agree with me Bettman is not even close to being passionate about a game in which I think this sport needs a passionate commissioner more than any other.

Bettman doesn't want to impose the NBA type system because that one isn't working for their owners now either. They are headed for a lockout next season also.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Trottier said:
Sorry, I cannot take seriously one who demagagues the hyperbolic "We already have one 'sport' ruined we do not want it to happen in hockey too."

Check out baseball's recent financials, consider the level of competition, try finding the article referenced previously (you need to register)...and then we can talk.


Until refuted, I pretty much proved my 'ruined sport' statement was not demagogery . . . or is a sport where all but 5 out of 224 playoff games are won by teams in the top half of spending, leaving many teams with zero chance of ever winning a playoff game, not ruined?

All the links that I posted worked, none need registration, I just rechecked them.

Face it, luxury taxes, unless so eggregious that they are virtual Caps (ie, a 1,000 percent tax when you are over the league average may work), luxury taxes are not feasible solutions. Baseball proves it. And the hockey owners are on the right side not going down that path.

ps, you did not address one fact posted with a counter-fact of your own. Just duly noting that fact. Attack the poster with names such as Demagogue when one has no response I suppose.

Fine, ignore me and merely address the linked facts and words. Or are Geroge Will, George Mitchel, Paul Volker and the President of Yale Demagogues too? BTW, some coverage of the political spectrum between those guys, isn't it?
 
Last edited:

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
1. Baseball parity - while it's true baseball has had four different champions in the last four years, it's also true that two teams - the Yankees and Braves - have owned a full quarter of baseball's playoff spots for the past decade.

The most recent CBA was signed in 2002. What does the point you raise above (indisputable as it is) have to do with that? That's enlightenment?

Jaded-Fan said:
Until refuted, I pretty much proved my 'ruined sport' statement was not demagogery . . . or is a sport where all but 5 out of 224 playoff games are won by teams in the top half of spending, leaving many teams with zero chance of ever winning a playoff game, not ruined?

Parity obsession rising its insidous head once again? In three playoff seasons since the last MLB CBA was signed, these have been three different winners. A then-moderate spending Angels team, Flordia and a high spending Bosox team. In your imaginary world of extreme parity, where the meek shall inherit the earth, I suppose that does not suffice?

Likewise, fascinating that you are yet to address the economics here, the entire reason why a threshold tax was instituted in MLB, and the entire reason why NHL owners are sticking to their guns in this CBA. (Not the mythical desire of some fans to "allow" run-on-a-rotisserie-league-budget NHL franchises have the ability to compete, to make it "fairer!". :cry: )


All the links that I posted worked, none need registration, I just rechecked he,.

For the sake of clarity, I was referring to the story which I mentioned, not yours.

I'm not going to convince you to open up your mind. Nor do I wish to. If we were having this conversation pre-2002 CBA, I would agree with your assessment of MLB. The current CBA is achieivng the goals that ownership wanted. They have said as much, as has Selig, and the numbers back them up. Feel free, however, to continue to claim a "win" here, so as to not ruin the rest of your day.
 
Last edited:

OlTimeHockey

Registered User
Dec 5, 2003
16,483
0
home
So the Yankees spending nearly a quarter of a billion dollars for the most boring game of the big five (Although NASCAR is more boring to myself, personally) is encourageable.

The Wings and Rangers should be encouraged to spend whatever they want to compete.

Economics being that the more you spend, the more reward you seek to reap.

Just trying to understand.

I tend to think of sport economics like cologne.

Use a little, you don't really stand to gain much. You use enough, you'll get noticed (win). Use too much, you might as well put on the gold chains and hop into a Trans Am with polyester seat covers that match your leisure suit, cus you're just an idiot wasting money.

The Yankees are the "hand made imported polyester" of fashion. (Dirk Diggler, Boogey Nights)

My question is.....how long til baseball dies (it's been dead to me for years)? Or they HAVE TO fix it AGAIN?

And then I ask the same of hockey.
 

BrettNYR

Registered User
Mar 26, 2004
2,567
0
19bruins19 said:
I'm from St-Hubert QUEBEC. It says that right below my avatar. Is it that tough to read?
I don't read locations. And Quebecians (That's what I call them, not sure if that's right) are usually Habs fans. You're an odd one, let me tell you that. ;)
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Trottier said:
The most recent CBA was signed in 2002. What does the point you raise above (indisputable as it is) have to do with that? That's enlightenment?

Well then, why raise the last four years, as you did, when only two were under the current CBA? But OK, let's talk about the last year's playoff teams (with payroll rank in parentheses):

New York Yankees (1)
Boston Red Sox (2)
Anaheim Angels (3)
LA Dodgers (6)
Atlanta Braves (8)
St. Louis Cardinals (9)
Houston Astros (12)
Minneosta Twins (19)

So, seven of eight were in the top half, six of eight were in the upper third and the three highest payroll teams were in the playoffs.
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
And I think everyone will agree with me Bettman is not even close to being passionate about a game in which I think this sport needs a passionate commissioner more than any other.
Well, I don't agree with you.

I don't think Bettman would have put up with all the grief he's gotten over the last dozen years if he wasn't passionate about the game. It's not about the money because I know a guy with his resume could make just as much money somewhere else. You can argue that he's been bad for the league but you can't question whether or not he's passionate about the NHL.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Trots, I give you credit for coming back and answering, more than can be said for SOS who has ducked out twice on these links. To address one point,

'I'm not going to convince you to open up your mind. Nor do I wish to. If we were having this conversation pre-2002 CBA, I would agree with your assessment of MLB. The current CBA is achieivng the goals that ownership wanted. They have said as much, as has Selig, and the numbers back them up. Feel free, however, to continue to claim a "win" here, so as to not ruin the rest of your day.'

I address that in my post . . . the gap between the biggest spender, the NYY, and the least is now approaching 8 times, far worse than when that blue ribbon panel met and when George Will wrote that article. The panel saw the disparity in team spending the biggest threat to the sport. The trend has only gotten worse with the new CBA. Do you actually trust Selig over the numbers? The owners, big and small, got what they wanted, big owners continue to be guarenteed playoff spots, and yes wins in the playoffs, even the smallest owners get bribe money that they mostly pocket. Sure they are happy, but the game is ruined.

Again, this is the path you all support for hockey?
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
Well then, why raise the last four years, as you did, when only two were under the current CBA?

To shatter the myth of NYY on-field domination of baseball. Nothing more. Their lack of anything to show for all there spending extends back beyond this current CBA.

But OK, let's talk about the last year's playoff teams (with payroll rank in parentheses):

New York Yankees (1)
Boston Red Sox (2)
Anaheim Angels (3)
LA Dodgers (6)
Atlanta Braves (8)
St. Louis Cardinals (9)
Houston Astros (12)
Minneosta Twins (19)

So, seven of eight were in the top half, six of eight were in the upper third and the three highest payroll teams were in the playoffs.

True. Can't dispute facts, as hard as some try do here, constantly.

Now talk economics, as in the economic health of the sport, relative to the prior CBA...beyond hyperventilating as some do, about NYY's excessive spending. To be sure, there are numbers to support the assertion that the sport is healthier economically since its last CBA, and that the majority of teams are realizing a semblance of cost-certainty/stability that was not there prior. That was the goal of this last CBA, per baseball, itself.

:)
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
'Now talk economics, as in the economic health of the sport, relative to the prior CBA...beyond hyperventilating as some do, about NYY's excessive spending. To be sure, there are numbers to support the assertion that the sport is healthier economically since its last CBA, and that the majority of teams are realizing a semblance of cost-certainty/stability that was not there prior. That was the goal of this last CBA, per baseball, itself.'

You make it hard to quote you Trots. ;)

And I actually agree with you, the goal of the last CBA was was not leveling the playing field but to assure that all the teams could make some money. Obviously though, giving any but the top half of spending teams any chance in hell of winning was not part of the equation. The owners, big and small get theirs. But the game remains ruined for most fans.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Trots, I give you credit for coming back and answering, more than can be said for SOS who has ducked out twice on these links.

I like a good debate. That's all it is, however, nothing personal.

To address one point,

'I'm not going to convince you to open up your mind. Nor do I wish to. If we were having this conversation pre-2002 CBA, I would agree with your assessment of MLB. The current CBA is achieivng the goals that ownership wanted. They have said as much, as has Selig, and the numbers back them up. Feel free, however, to continue to claim a "win" here, so as to not ruin the rest of your day.'

I address that in my post . . . the gap between the biggest spender, the NYY, and the least is now approaching 8 times, far worse than when that blue ribbon panel met and when George Will wrote that article.

To ignore that point (and its detrimental implications) would be absurd on my part. I think, however, that the excessive spending of NYY is the ONLY concern of some critics of the sport, to the exclusion of some of the more recent positive economic developments. That really is my point. Hence, I'm certainly not suggesting that MLB is a league that is without problems. (And the competition issue, as raised by you and Racki, remains a valid point. Though again, the common refrain of some that the Yankees "buy" a championship every year certainly has been debunked in recent times.) What I am saying is that the sport has progressed since 2002, albeit incrementally, toward addressing some of its problems. I simply cannot agree with your dire assessment. (And BTW, the irony here is that, expect for the playoffs, my interest in the sport today is minimal.)

Again, this is the path you all support for hockey?

As for the sport I care about :) : I've come around to the concept of a hardcap, in concert with a softcap and luxury tax. And, as I've stated, on the vast majority of issues, I am on the owner's side.

I remain convinced however, that some fans' perspective of how the league should run its finances is based on the vantage point of the league's poorest teams, only. That is faulty thinking, IMO, using the lowest common denominator(s) (no offense to fans of those franchises intended) as your benchmark. Just as the league cannot use the Wings, Avs and other of the "wealthiest" teams as the benchmark either.

A hardcap that allows for some degree of realistic payroll/roster flexibility, and which anticipates growth (that is, places a burden on all - owners and players - to grow the league, not just settle for stopping the bleeding/spending) is the ideal, IMO, speaking in very general terms. That is, something along the lines of the ficticious HF proposal.

:amazed:
 
Last edited:

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
We actually seem to be on the same page Trots.

1) I do not blame the Yankees solely either, I am as pissed if not more at the small market teams who pocket the revenue sharing. There is blame to go around in many places.

2) I agree with you regarding how this applies to hockey. Just as in the NFL there should be some 'loopholes' to allow a team to 'go for it' if they are close and bust the cap somewhat. As long as it comes back and they have to pay eventually. It makes no sense to apply the same numbers year to year when some teams are very close to a legit Cup run and others are rebuilding. In the NFL it is done with salary restructuring and playing with bonuses over a number of years. I am in favor of this as long as that cost comes back to effect you in later rebuilding years.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Trottier said:
:)

To shatter the myth of NYY on-field domination of baseball. Nothing more. Their lack of anything to show for all there spending extends back beyond this current CBA.

Well, let's be fair. I wouldn't call four consecutive division titles, a 400-245 record (best in baseball), 26 playoff wins (again, best in baseball), constant sellouts and two AL championships nothing to show for all the spending.

Yeah, they haven't won the Series the past four years, but they've certainly been the most dominant team in baseball.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
It does relate . . . the NHLPA propose a luxury tax and oppose a Cap. Baseball is the only place where the luxury tax has been tried, so seeing what actually has gone on there is very relevant to whether the NHL should go with a Cap or Luxury tax, which is the very heart of the labor dispute.

It's not relevant because baseball's luxury tax is silly.
If they had a tough tax, it would be worth talking about.

It would be like saying the UHL's luxury tax to what the NHL is proposing.

Pick some realistic target numbers and talk about them.

Baseball's luxury tax does not in anyway have any bearing on whether a luxury tax would work or could work for the NHL
 

Verbal Kint*

Guest
There's no way in hell that the NHL is coming back this season. Even if it did, I know I'd get sucked into the 28 game schedule despite the fact that its only 28 games and would be prectically pointless by this point in time.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
Well, let's be fair. I wouldn't call four consecutive division titles, a 400-245 record (best in baseball), 26 playoff wins (again, best in baseball), constant sellouts and two AL championships nothing to show for all the spending.

Yeah, they haven't won the Series the past four years, but they've certainly been the most dominant team in baseball.

Perhaps most underachieving? If $$$ gives a franchise such an "unfair" advantage as some claim, should that not include winning the sport's championship?

Again, as in the NHL, you and I simply do not put the same amount of importance on various criteria for on-field/ice success. I respect your parameters, and certainly they are part of the equation. (And economically, there is no debate as to the most successful franchise in baseball.)

That said, my #1 criteria is that of GMs, coaches/managers and players (and a particularly baseball owner in NY): rings. You are the last team standing, you are the best. (I hope we can agree on that basic premise.) As such, the Yankees have not been the best team in baseball the last four years. And all that unfair! horrific! spending should buy more than regular season dominance, no?
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
London Knights said:
He should be fired for how the league has gone under his reign since he took office, not so much for the lockout. Gary has yet to show any signs of being a visionary that can lead this game to greater heights and I am absolutely not willing to watch him fail to do this for another 10 years.

Also because it's clear part of this lockout was prolonged due to their hatred for each other. I'd be much happier with Saskin/Daly taking the full reigns than having Bettman Goodenow. With the first two at least the absolute distain for each other isn't there, they may not like each toher, but they don't hate each other.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Crazy Lunatic said:
NHL has lifted the owners gag order and have requested they call their players to discuss what is going on from the owners end. Fan 590 just reported that the players have been calling Goodenow and are very upset at the prospect of a cancelled season. Now if this ESPN thing is true (that they reported the NHLPA is willing to discuss a cap with no linkage) then the end might be near for the lockout. I can't believe I actually have my hopes up again, but here goes.

Bettman clearly hasn't given up as asking the owners to start calling all of their players and pleading the owners case is a big move. If the Fan 590 and this ESPN report (which I can't verify yet) are indeed true, then there may be hope!
Smart move. :dunno: The NHL has just committed an unfair labour practise. Employers cannot bypass the bargaining agent and go to the members during a labour dispute.

Say goodbye to any chance of an impasse try by the owners.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Wetcoaster said:
Smart move. :dunno: The NHL has just committed an unfair labour practise. Employers cannot bypass the bargaining agent and go to the members during a labour dispute.

Say goodbye to any chance of an impasse try by the owners.
That is true .. End arounds are seriously frowned upon by either side in negotiations and have consequences just as you stated that they just made a fatal mistake if IMPASSE was a serious option ..

but from learning that BC and Quebec would be serious problems with replacement workers .. How could the NHL moved forward with Vancouver and Montreal sitting on the sidelines and not all teams participating in an replacement player league..
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Wetcoaster said:
Smart move. :dunno: The NHL has just committed an unfair labour practise. Employers cannot bypass the bargaining agent and go to the members during a labour dispute.

Say goodbye to any chance of an impasse try by the owners.
They can't negotiate independently but the owners are allowed to talk to the players, I would imagine.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Wetcoaster said:
Smart move. :dunno: The NHL has just committed an unfair labour practise. Employers cannot bypass the bargaining agent and go to the members during a labour dispute.

Say goodbye to any chance of an impasse try by the owners.

Weird that you could figure this out, yet it completely slipped past Gary Bettman, Bill Daly, Bob Batterman and dozens more high-priced lawyers. :shakehead
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->