Lanny MacDonald*
Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:The mantra amongst our gang of fans: They're all temporary.
Boltsfan2029 said:The mantra amongst our gang of fans: They're all temporary.
PeterSidorkiewicz said:I guess im one of those new age fans that think OUTSIDE the box, liking a team, but also liking players, OMG who would have ever thought of doing that? I am still a Senators fan and guess what? I still hope former Senators players do well. I loved Ron Tugnutt while in Ottawa (and the people of Ottawa still love Tugnutt even though he doesnt play for them anymore) and I wanted to see him do well in OTHER cities where he played as well. But I guess Tugnutt is one of those evil 700 NHLPA members with a soul corrupted by greed. I don't see how saying nasty things about Sidorkiewicz has any point to what you were trying to prove either. Sidorkiewicz is an NHL-Allstar, are you?
Jaded-Fan said:Look, all fans like certain players as well as liking a team. But some of us know the reality that players will go as often as not. It is a nice change for some of us that when we see what was at the time by consensus considered to be the best player in the league go (like Jagr in our case) we also see comparable coming in at times as well . . . not having to constantly have things like Kris Beech and a couple a meat heads come back.
Epsilon said:What's funny is that the same usual suspects post over and over again about how the players are temporary/don't mean anything, but then these very same people sure really do seem to care about "big-name stars" playing for "big-market teams".
PeterSidorkiewicz said:I do know players come and go, all I was trying to say is there is nothing wrong with liking players who play on your team, but some people on here make it out to be such a huge crime for some reason, and I really don't understand it.
transplant99 said:Have an affair with them if you so desire, no one is saying you cant adore the players.
That doesn't change the fact that they were FLAT OUT wrong in their stance the last 3 years.
Try seperating the two things.
transplant99 said:Have an affair with them if you so desire, no one is saying you cant adore the players.
That doesn't change the fact that they were FLAT OUT wrong in their stance the last 3 years.
Try seperating the two things.
PeterSidorkiewicz said:Actually theres no such thing as a right or wrong stance on this issue. They lost their stance, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong.
gscarpenter2002 said:Sure there is a right and wrong, and sure their position was wrong. On a strategic and tactical basis, the players got it wrong. Horribly wrong. A colossal, dismissal-level blunder unequalled in sports collective bargaining history. EVen the worst blunders by the MLB owners cannot rival it. Horrific judgment that even non-professionals could see.
Mr Brooks works in the largest baseball market in the US and has to write articles on the Yankees and Mets as part of his job these days.go kim johnsson said:You can tell Brooks is running out of things to write about when he asks the same questions he asks to the general public
FLYLine4LIFE said:Haha, I know....also remember his article in Feb stating a deal in principle had been agreed apawn?...oh wait that was you...nm.
jpsharkfan said:Your right that was Eklund....it was also Espn, Tsn, Sportsnet, etc etc etc and speaking of "pawns" why dont you ask Gretzky and Lemieux what they were told that got them to New York?
Hasbro said:Like this one?
Or this one
Or even this one
He's a PA and Rangers' schill in this lockout nothing more.
THe 24% rollback has been bandied about for months. The buyout rumor also predates his column. And none of this is proven yet.
NYIsles1 said:Mr Brooks works in the largest baseball market in the US and has to write articles on the Yankees and Mets as part of his job these days.
transplant99 said:My favorite Larry Brooks "inside" information quote of the lockout...
"There's not a chance the union is going to cave; not a chance. "... Larry Brooks Oct.31, 2004
Eklund said:best post of the day!
Hasbro said:I'm not sure RangerBoy is in his right mind, but he did.
transplant99 said:Nope. I will be more than pleased to know ownership across the league are now invested in a business model that will allow all teams to survive as long as they make smart decisions. Sort of what hockey was ALL about for a century before the buffoonery that entered the league in the early 90's.
Not you, but calling out Larry's dubious credibility is hardly a revolutionary or inapropriate stance.RangerBoy said:Do you have a problem with me?His information regarding the lockout is usually right on.Your problem is that you hate Brooks because he wrote the Rangers were going to sign Joe Sakic and Rob Blake four years ago.I'm sure Glen Sather consulted with Uncle Larry about his plans
They couldn't, the NHLPA controlled the price of the product.leafs4thecup said:Did the owners have to sign the players to those expensive contracts? The business model they are all invested in is to put a cap on their own spending because they obviously can't control it themselves.
leafs4thecup said:The business model they are all invested in is to put a cap on their own spending because they obviously can't control it themselves.
Jaded-Fan said:Why take that attitude? The Owners and players had strong reasons to take the positions that they did. That conflict of reasons created the lockout and ensured that it would live as long as it did. Those who back one side or another have their own strong reasons for doing so, for most it is because you are either used to having your way in the league because your team has financial clout and hate seeing that end, or you are sick of seeing your best players leave and back strongly a sytem that promises to end that.
So in the end I understand totally why this occured as it did. But 'EVERY SINGLE meaningful concession throughout this lockout'? That is an almost meaningless rant. This never was about settling on small differences, like the NBA CBA was about for instance. It was about the future of the entire sport and whether they would make a fundemental change or basically remain the same as before with a bit of tinkering around the edges. It always had to be almost completely an all or nothing thing, so to say that the players gave and gave and gave is ridiculous. They had to give on the fundemental system or the owners had to. The 'giving' that the players did, in the grande scheme of that struggle, was fairly meaningless, wasn't it?