Get rid of Jeremy Jacobs

[OlTimeHockey]

S'ok....not making fun of you, just this farce of an attempt to bring hockey back.....a thinly veile attempt to conquer the pool of dollars they salivate over when people start buing tickets again.

Do I seem too cynical?

 

[mr gib]

S'ok....not making fun of you, just this farce of an attempt to bring hockey back.....a thinly veile attempt to conquer the pool of dollars they salivate over when people start buing tickets again.

Do I seem too cynical?

i think we all have a right at this point - playoff time and we're dicking around yacking about it on the internet - check that larry brooks post - the mess gets messier - ( no pun intended )

 

[mr gib]

and ps - the one nba game i waited for all day isn't even on in canada and all the others were -

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I cant see Jacobs as a bigger problem than Bob Goodenow and the NHLPA not negotiating for the better part of last season instead waiting until the last minute for the NHL to blink.

That means nothing right now. That is done and negotiations are where they are and the PA seems very willing to negotiate, but clearly Jacobs isn't.

I can see where JJ's anger is coming from. The owners lost last time by a wide margin with the CBA. He is trying to do more than his fair share to make sure that doesnt happen again. Can you blame him? If more teams (both at the top and bottom) ran their teams like his (middle of the road type spending) we would not have this mess. Jacobs sometimes tries to be too much of a hawk, but if he doesnt he probably fears that other owners will sway the moderates. Bottom line no matter how much money either side has is that this is a business. Nothing but the bottom line should matter to the owners. It certainly is all that matters to the players.

But the deal the owners are going to get is going to be fine for the owners, especially one in a pretty big market like Jacobs. Even if the players don't make any more concessions, Jacobs still has a deal he can easily work with. So why threaten to end negotiations and piss of the other side?

I also think that JJ is an easy target because he has been the leader of the hawk group of owners, but he is speaking the same things many teams are thinking. Think about it people, if he was making soooo much money, why is he so insistant on not getting back to business until things are fixed? IMO the way JJ is so adament about this is a true testament to how bad things really are.

And doing what he did doesn't help fix them. He's a moron and your right, he is the leader of the "hawk" group of owners.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Should we be talking less about the "hawk" owners and more about the ignorant, selfish and metally void owners that are pushing for big money contracts and ramming fans in the rear with high ticket prices?

Jacobs bothers you for not allowing another cave in, but the guys who sign the Jagrs, Tkachuks, Lindros', Nolans, Holik's, Yashins, Josephs, etc. and have payrolls double the sanity level and who cause more inflation than Jimmy Carter on steroids.......they're just ok with everyone?

One loophole left open for the PA to exploit puts us back into the cesspool of ridiculous contracts faster that a fart in a tornado.

 

[kdb209]

So ignore the obvious solution of the NHL removing the Owners/GM's that are doing bad jobs, spending freely, and acting irresponsible with money they don't have and firing them. Making the team accountable for the people they hire as being competent businessmen, and able to do the job they are hired and paid to do, is asking too much I guess.

As much as I would love to see the Jacobs and Wirtzs of the world gone, their ain't nothing the league can really do about them. There is no mechanism to fire an owner.

The GM's, their hired by the owner - only he can remove them.

The owners - except for the leverage specifically granted in the franchise agreements and CBAs, there's not much the league can really do. The teams are the property of the owner and any sanction taken by the league not specifically authorized in agreements leaves the league open to lawsuits for damages.

Just like the CBA is the only time that the owners of all 30 teams can act in concert w.r.t the players (without worrying about anti-trust considerations), it is also one of the few times they can act in concert against other owners - ie forcing by majority vote a revenue sharing plan against the wishes of some franchises.

If a league could just get rid of an owner, don't you think Al Davis would have been gone long ago. Hell, the NFL couldn't even prevent him from moving his team.

 

[Bruwinz37]

That means nothing right now. That is done and negotiations are where they are and the PA seems very willing to negotiate, but clearly Jacobs isn't.

It means a lot right now. All of this leading to where we are now has some bearing on this. I havent seen the PA give a good offer yet....nothing that will cure the ills of the league.

But the deal the owners are going to get is going to be fine for the owners, especially one in a pretty big market like Jacobs. Even if the players don't make any more concessions, Jacobs still has a deal he can easily work with. So why threaten to end negotiations and piss of the other side?

That is my question too. Maybe the goings arent as good as you are to believe. I dont know why JJ wants to not make money. Maybe the deals really arent that good.

And doing what he did doesn't help fix them. He's a moron and your right, he is the leader of the "hawk" group of owners.

He is a hawk and he is the lead hawk. But he is not a moron. He is probably far, far smarter than you are and you don't consider yourself a moron...do you?

 

[Dadof5boys]

No, Jacobs is looking for a deal that will benefit Jacobs not the NHL. He's a cheap SOB, always has been and always will be. He could care less about the players or the game as long as he is ahead of the game, yet it was his signings that put salaries out of control.

Players don't want to play for him and I believe that most players would rather play for an owner that treats them decent and respects them than an owner who treats them like trash.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=3&year=2003-04

Yep he sure treats his players like trash. Man he is cheap..... BTW I wish he would treat me like trash.

 

[Icey]

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=3&year=2003-04

Yep he sure treats his players like trash. Man he is cheap..... BTW I wish he would treat me like trash.

Three of four of the top paid players on that list are a big reason the NHL is in the position it is right now. Martin LaPointe is a Bruin and makes them money he makes because Detroit called him cheap and Jacobs signed him to prove he was not. So he signed a player for three times the money he was worth to prove a point. Half those players are no longer Bruins because he wouldn't pay them the money.

But besides money, I think most players would rather play for an owner who treated them like Human Beings vs. the dogs dinner. Listen to any ex-bruin player talk and you know that is what goes on there. There are teams that don't pay money, but player want to play for, because they treat the players well and then there are teams like Boston that is just a revolving door and everyone knows why.

Jacobs is a cheap SOB and most players want nothing to do with him and it is being more obvious why as these negotiations go on.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Three of four of the top paid players on that list are a big reason the NHL is in the position it is right now. Martin LaPointe is a Bruin and makes them money he makes because Detroit called him cheap and Jacobs signed him to prove he was not. So he signed a player for three times the money he was worth to prove a point. Half those players are no longer Bruins because he wouldn't pay them the money.

But besides money, I think most players would rather play for an owner who treated them like Human Beings vs. the dogs dinner. Listen to any ex-bruin player talk and you know that is what goes on there. There are teams that don't pay money, but player want to play for, because they treat the players well and then there are teams like Boston that is just a revolving door and everyone knows why.

Jacobs is a cheap SOB and most players want nothing to do with him and it is being more obvious why as these negotiations go on.

None of this is really true. That list was arbitrary in saying what the ten contracts were the problem, but it is taken totally out of context and leaves off some of the real problems, but I gather you didnt really dig that deep.

I really wouldnt say JJ is "cheap". That is shortsighted and gets you off the hook of figuring out what the real Bruins management problems are, but that is another dicussion. I honestly think you would be hard pressed to find 5 players who the Bruins let go because of purely monetary reasons that are now worth their new contracts. I can certainly show you more than 5 Bruins last year who got paid much more than they brought to the table however.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It means a lot right now. All of this leading to where we are now has some bearing on this. I havent seen the PA give a good offer yet....nothing that will cure the ills of the league.

No, it really doesn't. The two sides are at the table now, that's what matters. Besides, even if the PA's accused stalling more than a year ago had any impact, wouldn't that be more of a reason for Jacobs to shut up and just be happy the two sides are getting somewhere? The last PA offer was good and the meeting was good, until Jacobs of course.

He is a hawk and he is the lead hawk. But he is not a moron. He is probably far, far smarter than you are and you don't consider yourself a moron...do you?

If I was in a room with the two sides and they were FINALLY making progress and FINALLY on the same page, the PA was FINALLY even talking about linkage...than yes I would be a moron if I threatened to stop negotiations and decided to play hardball at this point.

 

[Icey]

None of this is really true. That list was arbitrary in saying what the ten contracts were the problem, but it is taken totally out of context and leaves off some of the real problems, but I gather you didnt really dig that deep.

I really wouldnt say JJ is "cheap". That is shortsighted and gets you off the hook of figuring out what the real Bruins management problems are, but that is another dicussion. I honestly think you would be hard pressed to find 5 players who the Bruins let go because of purely monetary reasons that are now worth their new contracts. I can certainly show you more than 5 Bruins last year who got paid much more than they brought to the table however.

"worth their contracts" of course makes it totally subjective. The general concensous on this board seems to be that no player should make more than $200,000 so I guess according to that, no player earned his contract. I however don' think like that and think that professional athletes do deserve the money they make for a number of reason, none of which I care to discuss right now, but how about Don Sweeney, ended the season as a +20 and was paid $550,000. I think he was worth his contract. Bill Guerin. You may not like him as a member of NHLPA executive committee but he remains one of the top scorers in the league season after season. Perhaps you don't think he is "worth his contract" but when he is the top scorer on a team and they pay him $8M,most nights he does earn his contract. Sean O'Donnell is a top d-man, but yet they let him go this summer and was snatched up by Phoenix who was more than happy to pay what he was worth.

Letting a player go for monetary reasons doesn't necessarily make an owner cheap. I don't think anyone was calling the Penguins, Capitals, etc. cheap when they were sheding salary last season. But what makes an owner cheap is when he lets a player go knowing that player makes his team a better team but does it because he doesn't want to pay a player rather than that he can't afford to. Players think he's cheap, other owners think he's cheap and mostly because he is cheap. Jeremy Jacobs has more money than most of us can dream of, and instead all he does is talk about how Boston needs a new system to survive. They don't need a new system to survive, he wants a new system so he can make more money. And if that's what he wants, fine, then say so, but don't cry that Boston needs a new system to survive when nothing is further from the truth. Jeremy Jacobs is one babystep above Bill Wirtz, and that is not something to be proud of.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I don't think Jacobs is cheap either. I just think he doesn't spend his money wisely though. I mean c'mon, Martin Lapointe at 5.5 million a year and then when Jason Allison asked the same, they low balled him. And that's what bugs me. They low balled the teams best player at the time and dictated that they can do so. Fine and dandy, but it's that type of poor spending that permeates throughout and shows how "cheap" Jacobs can be.

 

[Icey]

When you lowball a player like Allison and not pay him what he's worth and yet turn around and spend $5.5 on LaPointe because the owner of the Red Wings calls you cheap, sorry but in my eyes that is a classic example of cheap. If he wasn't cheap he wouldn't have worried about Detroit calling him cheap. He didn't low ball Allison because he couldn't afford him, he low balled him because he was too cheap to pay him what he was worth.

But its all subjective. I suppose some would say he was staying within a budget, but IMO he didn't make bad judgements with money, he reacted to being called a name. He turns around a pays a rookie more than anyone had ever been paid (Thorton) and I could even understand that since he was the #1 draft pick,and then he offers almost the same to the #8 pick. Then he turns around and low balls a valuable player and lets him walk. If its not cheap, I guess its just stupid.

 

[thinkwild]

If I was in a room with the two sides and they were FINALLY making progress and FINALLY on the same page, the PA was FINALLY even talking about linkage...than yes I would be a moron if I threatened to stop negotiations and decided to play hardball at this point.

Im still missing the reason why everyone is saying the players are FINALLY on to linkage. The whole point of the Jacobs blow up, was that he was fearing that the negotiations were going ahead on the players framework without linkage. Granted their framework gives a lot of concessions, but its not linkage, as Jacobs bluster made clear, as well as the immediate leaks from the owners how the rest of them are no longer on side with him.

In terms of linkage as how the cap increases as revenues increase, the Players February offer already allowed for that. HF'ers are all hot&bothered over some infamous clause 7, but regardless the principle was there and ready to be negotiated. The owners could of had this to save the season. It is not something the players have FINALLY given up on now as I see it.

If the owners do negotiate this framwork this summer, it will have to be asked why they didnt do this to save the season. Why they thought they would just continue to make worse offers. How billionaires could wait out millionaires. How eventually the players would come crawling back on their hands and knees because replacement players were such a viable option, and impasse and implementation would easily succeed and bad faith bargaining charges easily shook off.

I dont want to defend Jacobs, but Martin Lapointes salary affected no one. Who got a similar salary? Who compared? His salary had no effect. Allsion and Thornton is redundant. Also who compared to Thorntons contract? These are very rare players, who as youngsters become dominant players andlead your team. And yet still he gets than Lapointe or any big name UFA of equal status. For those one or two very special talents a year, like maybe Crosby, you want to have some avenue to reward them, make sure they are payed the best in the NHL. But Thorntons contract hasnt really had a huge ripple effect. And both sides are already in agreement over how to limit this. But you wouldnt want to eliminate it. Or else you incent Crosby to start his career in Europe.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Im still missing the reason why everyone is saying the players are FINALLY on to linkage. The whole point of the Jacobs blow up, was that he was fearing that the negotiations were going ahead on the players framework without linkage. Granted their framework gives a lot of concessions, but its not linkage, as Jacobs bluster made clear, as well as the immediate leaks from the owners how the rest of them are no longer on side with him.

In terms of linkage as how the cap increases as revenues increase, the Players February offer already allowed for that. HF'ers are all hot&bothered over some infamous clause 7, but regardless the principle was there and ready to be negotiated. The owners could of had this to save the season. It is not something the players have FINALLY given up on now as I see it.

If the owners do negotiate this framwork this summer, it will have to be asked why they didnt do this to save the season. Why they thought they would just continue to make worse offers. How billionaires could wait out millionaires. How eventually the players would come crawling back on their hands and knees because replacement players were such a viable option, and impasse and implementation would easily succeed and bad faith bargaining charges easily shook off.

I dont want to defend Jacobs, but Martin Lapointes salary affected no one. Who got a similar salary? Who compared? His salary had no effect. Allsion and Thornton is redundant. Also who compared to Thorntons contract? These are very rare players, who as youngsters become dominant players andlead your team. And yet still he gets than Lapointe or any big name UFA of equal status. For those one or two very special talents a year, like maybe Crosby, you want to have some avenue to reward them, make sure they are payed the best in the NHL. But Thorntons contract hasnt really had a huge ripple effect. And both sides are already in agreement over how to limit this. But you wouldnt want to eliminate it. Or else you incent Crosby to start his career in Europe.

Put it however you want but you have to admit that those 2 meetings were the first 2 of maybe this whole process where the sides made progress, and actually stated so. Whatever linkage the players talked about, it was finally something the owners liked.

Therefore, only a moron would disrupt the progress that was made by playing hardball.

Not to mention, if you are accurate, what exactly is wrong with negotiations moving forward on the PA's framework? If they are giving a lot of conessions and it is something that works and the normal negotiating crew for the NHL said that it would be workable, than what exactly is wrong with going forward with it?

 

[coppernblue]

If Jacobs indeed was the reason the meeting went sour, it would be a tremendous gesture of good faith on the NHL's part to not invite him to further meetings, either replacing him with someone who shares similar views (CAR owner? I know Nashville's guy is already there) or to simply let the other voices in there convey his message but not his attitude.

just a question how is nashville's owner already have a seat as they are a recent expansion team?
wat creditentials must an owner possess to be invited to the meetings?

 

[SENSible1*]

Wouldn't the owners willingness to negotiate off the players framework suggest; 1) the "owners are out to break the PA" theory was nothing more than hot air, 2) that the framework, though not direct linkage, addressed some of the owners desire for a tie between revenues and player costs?

Maybe the PA crowd should consider the earth-shattering possiblity that the business was in some serious trouble and that all the owners wanted was ANY system that made financial sense. Better yet, just keep assuming the owners have shut down the league for a year and done damage to the league simply because they were unwilling to use up the bags of money they are hiding from the PA.