Jeremy Roenick on TV in Philly

[London Knights]

If the league is falling apart after the cap is put in place and "parity" is brought to the game, the players will just leave for Europe and the NHL will die. Some will stay, but contrary to the idiotic belief that if the Europeans leave then the game will be better, the league can't support that kind of talent loss. The majority of the European players over here are in the top half of the talent pool in the league. The NHL is supposedly drawn thin with talent as is. The cap will make it more so. Taking 15% of the talent off the top is going to only make things worse.

Personally I have not been a fan of the Gary Bettman era of the NHL. Going through the list of accomplishments, there are question marks beside every event that could be considered a positive, and there are a lot of gaping holes in both the on ice product and the business/economics of the game. Supposedly this has been fixed by Gary's, and the owners...I'm not falling for the trap that Gary runs around on his own doing things all his way, new economic structure to the game. If that fails then Bettman will be cemented as potentially the worst Commissioner in league history and he will go down in infamy as the guy who killed professional hockey in North America.

The thing that concerns me is the way JR spoke during that interview. He was broken and resigned to the fact that they lost the CBA. That wasn't the air about the previous CBA that the players in the end won handily. This type of owner-player relationship isn't going to benefit the league coming into a very testy period.

 

[Icey]

it seems to kind of be a problem with sports in general that the players really don't pay attention to stuff like CBA negotiations, they just hire someone to do it and then sit back. that looks like what basically happened here...then when they noticed things weren't sailing along fine, they get involved and still end up with a crap deal

if the players took more of an interest in these things and represented themselves better, things would probably work out for them better

It actually seems to be a problem with life in general. How many defendents are sitting in prision for crimes they didn't committ because they trusted their lawyers? How many employees never got the raises or promotions their bosses said they would get because they trusted their bosses? How many people sit back and let the "professionals" do the work? Goodenow afterall did get them the deal of the century last time. He made them rich and rightfully so they trusted him. He let them down by not conceeding on certain issues sooner, but they were right to trust him in the beginning.

 

[i am dave]

-"terrible deal for the players"

I'd take that to be the "saving face" strategy for the Union moving forward. They need to do what they can to make it look like sacrificing millions to (still) make millions was indeed a sacrifice. And I say this not in a "shame on the PA" way - it just is what it is.

 

[SuperUnknown]

On Comcast SportsNet this morning:

-deal is "reached" and should be announced in a couple of weeks

-"terrible deal for the players"

-more about getting the game back on the ice and making sure the NHL saves face with the fans


http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/flyers/062205-roenick.wmv

not sure if the link works, it's not working for me

No doubt the deal will be terrible for the players. They just have to blame themselves for their inconscious negociation tactics.

So when the deal's come out and really look bad, who's going to be the pro-PA posters, the ones that encouraged the players in getting the worst deal, or the ones who were advocating an early settlement even if the PA had to give in on some key elements (those labeled pro-owners???).

I've been saying since over a year (almost two years) that it was in the best interest of the players to find the best settlement for them the sooner because as time went by they'd be losing more and more. If I could do that analysis at home, why couldn't the NHLPA? Especially with the amounts they had on hand (over a billion). Anyone justifying Bob Goodenow's incompetence at this point is a lost cause.

Edit: Might I add that Roenick was put down for trying to circumvent the NHLPA's negociators and getting a deal done for a season last year, which would have given the players billions more over the next CBA than what they're going to sign? I think he has every right to be seriously pissed off.

 

[GKJ]

No doubt the deal will be terrible for the players. They just have to blame themselves for their inconscious negociation tactics.

So when the deal's come out and really look bad, who's going to be the pro-PA posters, the ones that encouraged the players in getting the worst deal, or the ones who were advocating an early settlement even if the PA had to give in on some key elements (those labeled pro-owners???).

I've been saying since over a year (almost two years) that it was in the best interest of the players to find the best settlement for them the sooner because as time went by they'd be losing more and more. If I could do that analysis at home, why couldn't the NHLPA? Especially with the amounts they had on hand (over a billion). Anyone justifying Bob Goodenow's incompetence at this point is a lost cause.

Edit: Might I add that Roenick was put down for trying to circumvent the NHLPA's negociators and getting a deal done for a season last year, which would have given the players billions more over the next CBA than what they're going to sign? I think he has every right to be seriously pissed off.

I wonder what Mike Commodore and Pierre Dagenais are thinking....

 

[MHA]

I feel bad for JR he was one of those players who was part of the group that tried to get a deal done in April and fight for a salary cap. The PA stabbed him in the back and treated him like an idiot.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

If the league is falling apart after the cap is put in place and "parity" is brought to the game, the players will just leave for Europe and the NHL will die. Some will stay, but contrary to the idiotic belief that if the Europeans leave then the game will be better, the league can't support that kind of talent loss. The majority of the European players over here are in the top half of the talent pool in the league. The NHL is supposedly drawn thin with talent as is. The cap will make it more so. Taking 15% of the talent off the top is going to only make things worse.

What in the hell are you talking about? Jagr took a 80% pay-cut to go play in Russia. BTW, this is a country he supposedly hates and he wears 68 to remember that Russia invaded his country in 1968.

Is the league any worse off if Sami Pahlsson or Jorgen Jonsson stay in Europe? I sure don't think so. The skilled players you are afraid will stay in Europe will still be making anywhere from 2-5 TIMES as much (after their rookie contract) in the NHL than they would be making overseas.

 

[MHA]

While I agree there will be no strike...ever, I would like to see what your crystal ball says if in fact the owners don't make as much money as they think they will and the revenue is down.


"It's not going to happen" is not an answer.

one thing is for certain, they will be losing less. That is what's important.

 

[MHA]

It doesn't necessarily have to be linkage. If the owners win on basically EVERY issue on the CBA, and the players don't really get anything because it seemed like both sides motives were to destroy the other side and not bargain, then I could see a strike at the end of this CBA too. This is just speculation though that its an awful deal for the players all around. That's why I kept saying I want a fair deal so we can avoid this mess for a very long time.

too bad, the players could have gotten a good deal if they had a common sense.

 

[SuperUnknown]

too bad, the players could have gotten a good deal if they had a common sense.

We can't fault all the players. After all, they had people in charge which were supposed to get them the golden goose once again. But once again (like many other times in history), the long ruling of Bob Goodenow and some NHLPA execs got them to sit back, think they were the strongest, and they didn't do their homework properly. Which got them in this terrible position where they are "damned if they sign, damned if they don't". Keep in mind this just doesn't happen in hockey, it happens in all fields where someone is really successful for years, there's a tendency to become overconfident and wake up when it's too late.

 

[MHA]

We can't fault all the players. After all, they had people in charge which were supposed to get them the golden goose once again. But once again (like many other times in history), the long ruling of Bob Goodenow and some NHLPA execs got them to sit back, think they were the strongest, and they didn't do their homework properly. Which got them in this terrible position where they are "damned if they sign, damned if they don't". Keep in mind this just doesn't happen in hockey, it happens in all fields where someone is really successful for years, there's a tendency to become overconfident and wake up when it's too late.

I agree there were people who stood up and we're forced down and they should be commended

 

[GSC2k2*]

Why do you think Mike Gartner was brought in. People here wanted him from the start because he was a former player, a guy who knew hockey even though he wasn't really in a negotiator position until after the season ended. I think his title has something to do with being the treasurer.


Mike Gartner knows more about the NHL and hockey than Bettman and Goodenow put together.

You don't need to know about hockey to negotiate a deal like this, really. You need to know about money, contract negotiations, and hockey economics.

 

[Beauty eh?]

I'm in an overly optimistic mood! I bet they sign on the dotted line today.

 

[Jacob]

On Comcast SportsNet this morning:

-deal is "reached" and should be announced in a couple of weeks

-"terrible deal for the players"

-more about getting the game back on the ice and making sure the NHL saves face with the fans


http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/media/video/flyers/062205-roenick.wmv

not sure if the link works, it's not working for me

He said the same things on FSN Pittsburgh last night at some Lemieux golf tourny, so I can confirm.

 

[Jester]

I liked his comments about "it doesn't matter who wins or loses the bargaining", it's more important to rebuild faith with the fans".

A year late I would say...

in fairness... JR has from the start been very proactive in trying to get some kind of deal done.

 

[barnburner]

Why do you think Mike Gartner was brought in. People here wanted him from the start because he was a former player, a guy who knew hockey even though he wasn't really in a negotiator position until after the season ended. I think his title has something to do with being the treasurer.


Mike Gartner knows more about the NHL and hockey than Bettman and Goodenow put together.

We agree...

 

[WalterSobchak]

Ratification always takes the longest because owners are going to make sure that the deal will be air tight and idiot proof as much as possible. As for the players, they are going to look for any kind of loophole they can find to exploit the agreement for what it's worth.

Which is exactly why it is (and needs to be) gone over with a fine-tooth comb by lawyers. This period of (2 weeks) is going to take as long as necessary to get it as close to "Right" as it can.

 

[GKJ]

You don't need to know about hockey to negotiate a deal like this, really. You need to know about money, contract negotiations, and hockey economics.

This is what I meant by "NHL"

 

[SuperUnknown]

You don't need to know about hockey to negotiate a deal like this, really. You need to know about money, contract negotiations, and hockey economics.

I agree and disagree both at the same time. While you don't need extensive hockey knowledge, it sure doesn't hurt to know the fans, the structure and to be close to the "roots" of hockey. On the other hand, when you negociate a CBA, your best asset probably ain't your hockey knowledge.

Imo, where the NHLPA really failed was in assessing the strenght and power of the negociating parties (which are mostly based on the economic impact on both parties of a lockout or a strike). From the start, when analysing the economic position of the owners, you could see that they didn't stand to lose much with a long lockout. Their franchise prices were tumbling, which is a clear sign their business wasn't going well, fan and media support were at an all time low, salaries were out of control, etc. This meant they'd have a great interest in holding on until they got a satisfactory deal. On the other side, there were the players, with guaranteed contracts worth billions, losing out on that money everyday. Even with the initial proposal by the NHL, they were the ones losing out the most (54 cents on every revenue dollar going straight to their collective pockets vs 46 cents minus expenses going to the owners). Add to this the success of the NFL and Nascar as future business plan examples for the NHL, where there is "parity" between the teams (or cars) and the balance was heavily tilted for the owners gaining much in these negociations. Based on that, it was the duty of the NHLPA's head to negociate early, as in order to get a quick settlement (and keep as many of the fans possible), the owners would have had pressure to sign a deal (a bit like what just happened in the NBA, where the owners settled for a lot less than they were asking).

 

[WalterSobchak]

The skilled players you are afraid will stay in Europe will still be making anywhere from 2-5 TIMES as much (after their rookie contract) in the NHL than they would be making overseas.

Not as true as you would like it to be.

 

[Jaysfanatic*]

I heard this on Sportsnet last night, boy JR, cry me a river buddy.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Not as true as you would like it to be.

The NHL average salary with the new CBA will be higher than what most "stars" in Europe will make. As well, players come to the NHL because it's the highest level of competition, not just for the money.

There are a few exceptions, but as a rule, Europeans will still earn more in the NHL than in Europe, so it's not particularly a threat.

 

[Gus Fring]

I liked his comments about "it doesn't matter who wins or loses the bargaining", it's more important to rebuild faith with the fans".

A year late I would say...

i was thinking the same thing

 

[CarlRacki]

I like JR. Really, I do.

However, comments like these (and by other players) about how they're accepting a raw deal for "the good of the game" strikes me as nothing more than a self-serving attempt to make themselves appear to be the good guys in all this.
Hogwash. If the good of the game were such a priority for the players - or the owners for that matter - the lockout never would have gone this long. Negotiations would have started well before last summer. The two sides wouldn't have gone weeks without talking to one another while the season wasted away.

Yeah, the players are getting a lesser deal than the one they wanted. But it's not because they love the game so much. It's because they haven't got a choice.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gscarpenter2002
You don't need to know about hockey to negotiate a deal like this, really. You need to know about money, contract negotiations, and hockey economics.

This is what I meant by "NHL"

Oh....

Well, if that is what you mean, fine. But to that I would say I doubt Gartner knows much in those areas. His only credentials are a hall of fame level playing career and the fact that he interviews well on TV.