Finally a Balanced Article - Duhatschek

Status
Not open for further replies.

gerbilanium

Registered User
Oct 17, 2003
274
0
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050602.wduhacol2/BNStory/Sports/

Q: So you don't expect to see commissioner Gary Bettman and NHL executive director Bob Goodenow sitting together, with fake smiles pasted on their faces, announcing a new deal by, say Friday?

A: No, and for this reason alone: The last time that charismatic pair came to terms on a CBA - for history buffs, that came in January of 1995 - the two sides essentially did a back-of-the-envelop deal. In an effort to salvage the final 48 games of an 82-game schedule, the owners and players agreed to a new deal only in the broadest terms. It was left to a handful of lawyers for both sides to draft an actual CBA - and it took them nine months to do so, mostly because the language on the back of that envelop was ambiguous on a number of issues. Ultimately, the NHL believed that the language of the last CBA on these poorly defined issues turned out much to favorable to the players' side.

Q: Meaning what exactly?

A: Meaning that the new agreement wasn't nearly as effective as the owners thought it would be. Salary escalation continued, virtually unabated, to the point where the average NHL player earned $1.8 million in the final year of the last CBA - an increase of well over 300 per cent. Accordingly, the league vowed that this time around, there would be no deal - and no announcement of a deal - until they could actually wave a thick document in front of reporters at a press conference. Sources indicate that they're not there yet - and until they get to that point, everyone will have to endure reports, some accurate, some wild guesses, as to when that day may come.
 

VirginiaMtlExpat

Second most interesting man in the world.
Aug 20, 2003
4,949
2,297
Norfolk, VA
www.odu.edu

gerbilanium

Registered User
Oct 17, 2003
274
0
JapanMontrealExpat said:
Good read. I've often found that he is head and shoulders above other hockey writers, outside of perhaps Mathias Brunet of La Presse, who is also fairly balanced but probably not as exhaustive.

I also found that he responds kindly to email to him. Very nice gent.


Yup he responds fairly to emails I have written him. Shows how you can walk the line without alienating the players or fans or the owners. Just puts it in simple language.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
The only part I think is BS......."For months now, the league wants the largest portion of revenue-sharing funds to come out of playoff monies. The reason: They don't want to see their clubs continue make playoff bets, the way they did under the old CBA by adding expensive players at the trading deadline. That sort of behaviour fuels salary inflation, which is something the league wants to eliminate - or minimize - in the new CBA. They believe a small playoff bet on player personnel at the deadline is OK. However, they doesn't want clubs to have massive incentives to take playoff bets - by spending to the upper limit of cap because in the hopes of going two rounds deep in the playoffs. From their perspective, that's just not a healthy dynamic. And if revenue-sharing dollars come out of playoff revenues, it reduces the temptation to spend big in March in the hopes of winning a Stanley Cup in June."

First of, how is making a deadline trade inflationary to the league. Teams will only make them if they think they can take on that extra salary for that season, not to mention most deadline deals are for to be free agents who leave the teams payroll after 2 months. And, for every contract that a team takes on, another team loses it. It's not like teams sign free agents at the deadline, they make trades where that player is making the same amount, just for a different team.

Plus, the NHL should see the deadline trading as a good thing. It creates energy for most teams, gets attention and can change the outlook of the entire season. NHL shouldn't be trying to minimize the trade deadline.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,833
13,333
nyr7andcounting said:
The only part I think is BS......."For months now, the league wants the largest portion of revenue-sharing funds to come out of playoff monies. The reason: They don't want to see their clubs continue make playoff bets, the way they did under the old CBA by adding expensive players at the trading deadline. That sort of behaviour fuels salary inflation, which is something the league wants to eliminate - or minimize - in the new CBA. They believe a small playoff bet on player personnel at the deadline is OK. However, they doesn't want clubs to have massive incentives to take playoff bets - by spending to the upper limit of cap because in the hopes of going two rounds deep in the playoffs. From their perspective, that's just not a healthy dynamic. And if revenue-sharing dollars come out of playoff revenues, it reduces the temptation to spend big in March in the hopes of winning a Stanley Cup in June."

First of, how is making a deadline trade inflationary to the league. Teams will only make them if they think they can take on that extra salary for that season, not to mention most deadline deals are for to be free agents who leave the teams payroll after 2 months. And, for every contract that a team takes on, another team loses it. It's not like teams sign free agents at the deadline, they make trades where that player is making the same amount, just for a different team.

Plus, the NHL should see the deadline trading as a good thing. It creates energy for most teams, gets attention and can change the outlook of the entire season. NHL shouldn't be trying to minimize the trade deadline.

i think the point is with teams taking on salaries on a gamble that a playoff run will pay for it. Even that month and a half of a big salary can push a team into the red without a deep playoff run and not every late season trade is for an upcoming free agent. That and it goes hand in hand with the annual firesales that the bottom end teams are throwing. The league would like to quell that so those fanbases don't get hosed and besides a new CBA should minimize the necessity to cut vast amounts of payroll.
 

GirardIsStupid

Registered User
Dec 15, 2002
4,518
377
Visit site
nyr7andcounting said:
The only part I think is BS......."For months now, the league wants the largest portion of revenue-sharing funds to come out of playoff monies. The reason: They don't want to see their clubs continue make playoff bets, the way they did under the old CBA by adding expensive players at the trading deadline. That sort of behaviour fuels salary inflation, which is something the league wants to eliminate - or minimize - in the new CBA. They believe a small playoff bet on player personnel at the deadline is OK. However, they doesn't want clubs to have massive incentives to take playoff bets - by spending to the upper limit of cap because in the hopes of going two rounds deep in the playoffs. From their perspective, that's just not a healthy dynamic. And if revenue-sharing dollars come out of playoff revenues, it reduces the temptation to spend big in March in the hopes of winning a Stanley Cup in June."

First of, how is making a deadline trade inflationary to the league. Teams will only make them if they think they can take on that extra salary for that season, not to mention most deadline deals are for to be free agents who leave the teams payroll after 2 months. And, for every contract that a team takes on, another team loses it. It's not like teams sign free agents at the deadline, they make trades where that player is making the same amount, just for a different team.

Plus, the NHL should see the deadline trading as a good thing. It creates energy for most teams, gets attention and can change the outlook of the entire season. NHL shouldn't be trying to minimize the trade deadline.

I don't think sharing of playoff revenues will impede the deadline frenzies we've seen because of the ultra-competitive nature of each team in their quests to win the Stanley Cup. After all, the majority of NHL teams are not modeled after the Boston Bruins or the Chicago Blackhawks. Most fo them care actually care about winning.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
I get as pumped up around the trade deadline as anyone, but I think it would be better for the league as a whole if they'd simply move it up 3 or 4 weeks.
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
handtrick said:
One of the best reads in a while......Duhatschek just rose in my depth chart of objectivity...
Duhatschek is one of the best (if not the best) hockey writers,i really miss his daily column in the Calgary Herald instead of that goof Dowbiggin.

Opps,i forgot. Dowbiggin has been suspended for plagarizing the New York Times :amazed:
 
Wolfpack said:
I get as pumped up around the trade deadline as anyone, but I think it would be better for the league as a whole if they'd simply move it up 3 or 4 weeks.

Under the old CBA I agree with this 100%. I'd like to see how a trade deadline works in the "new NHL" though before moving it back though. You need *some* action at the trade deadline.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
T@T said:
Duhatschek is one of the best (if not the best) hockey writers,i really miss his daily column in the Calgary Herald instead of that goof Dowbiggin.

Opps,i forgot. Dowbiggin has been suspended for plagarizing the New York Times :amazed:
I thought you were going to say Dowbiggen was suspended from HF...


At any rate, if the NHL doesn't open ON TIME in October, I'm of the view that they should never open again. I wouldn't spend any money on them ever again.

I know how much money I didn't spend last season. I'm sure Moslon and Labatt have informed the NHL about the hit they took too.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
jericholic19 said:
I don't think sharing of playoff revenues will impede the deadline frenzies we've seen because of the ultra-competitive nature of each team in their quests to win the Stanley Cup. After all, the majority of NHL teams are not modeled after the Boston Bruins or the Chicago Blackhawks. Most fo them care actually care about winning.

Thankfully, you're right. What an assbackward system though, the League actaully wants to discourage teams from winning. Maybe in the next CBA, the Stanley Cup Champion can absorb the player costs of the entire league. That'll learn em.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
Thankfully, you're right. What an assbackward system though, the League actaully wants to discourage teams from winning. Maybe in the next CBA, the Stanley Cup Champion can absorb the player costs of the entire league. That'll learn em.

How about saying the league doesn't want the likely eventual champ to be able to spend 3x what their first round oppenent is able to afford. The NHL wants to make it about giving all teams an equal opportunity to win over the long term.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Beukeboom Fan said:
How about saying the league doesn't want the likely eventual champ to be able to spend 3x what their first round oppenent is able to afford. The NHL wants to make it about giving all teams an equal opportunity to win over the long term.

Cut him a little slack... as a Wings fan he's having trouble accepting the fact that his team won't be able to outspend everyone but the Rangers and are headed for another stint as the doormat of the league.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->