Modano and Goodenow comments

[Icey]

Wasn't Modano one of the ones who we were all telling to screw off because he thought that the system was fine the way it was or never accept a cap?



Now he's saying there's in-fighting. I think 99% of us are going to take Modano's word in this over Goodenow.



Goodenow is done with the union anyways when this is over.

What Modano has said in the past the he personally does not support a cap and given the choice he would rather play without one, but if the union decides that is the best thing for them and the sport of hockey then he would play under a cap.

He is one of the few players who have said "I LOST $9M. I will NEVER make that money back, so in the end they had better be sure this was worth it." I agree with him. If your going to lose that kind of money, you better be sure the fight is worth it.

You can say a lot of things about Modano, but one thing you can't deny is his love for this game. I think a lot of his problems last season actually stemmed from the Modano vs. Guerin situation, even though they both deny it. Modano is a lot more realistic. Guerin just lives in fantasy land.

 

[SENSible1*]

I am not much for sticking up for Goodenow, all in all I saw the worst negotiating that I have ever seen from anyone displayed by him this lockout. This guy went to Harvard and is a Lawyer? But that said, on this point I will defend him. If he had come to the players in August and tried to sell them on a Cap, they would never have gone for it, they would have revolted. They believed, why I have no clue, but deeply believed that the Owners would cave and had to be convinced otherwise. Well, the Owners have them convinced now. Had them thinking about it strongly I think a couple of weeks before the cancellation. That was when to sell them on a Cap and go negotiate hard. There was Goodenows biggest failure actually, not back August, but a few weeks back.

I disagree.

If Goodenow and Saskin had laid out the situation for them and suggested that the best deal possible included a cap, then the players would have followed along due to the trust he had built up over the past decade.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I disagree.

If Goodenow and Saskin had laid out the situation for them and suggested that the best deal possible included a cap, then the players would have followed along due to the trust he had built up over the past decade.

I just see it a lot in law, many many deals get done during the pre-trial hearing or even during jury selection. Some people just need to go through the process. Maybe you are right in this case, but judging from prior player comments, admittedly perhaps caused by Goodenow's stance, perhaps not, I am not so sure though that he could have sold them on a cap in August.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I just see it a lot in law, many many deals get done during the pre-trial hearing or even during jury selection. Some people just need to go through the process. Maybe you are right in this case, but judging from prior player comments, admittedly perhaps caused by Goodenow's stance, perhaps not, I am not so sure though that he could have sold them on a cap in August.

The question Jaded is did Goodenow let the players know they might have to accept a cap at sometime. We dont really know, but from all reports is the players never expected that to happen. Usually you would give the people you represent the best case ans worst case scenario ahead of time.

 

[copperandblue]

... I am not so sure though that he could have sold them on a cap in August.

August could have been unlikely BUT the talk of a cap started long before August.

If he starts working through the scenario with the players .5, 1 or 2 years prior to the expiration of the CBA then the players could very well have been on board.

I think the vast majority of players for the most part just want to be lead, wether it's in the dressing room or in the board room. That's why we have heard the same parrotting from different guys for the last 5 months.

 

[mooseOAK*]

The question Jaded is did Goodenow let the players know they might have to accept a cap at sometime. We dont really know, but from all reports is the players never expected that to happen. Usually you would give the people you represent the best case and worst case scenario ahead of time.

Unless your huge ego stops that from even being considered.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

You can say a lot of things about Modano, but one thing you can't deny is his love for this game.

The only thing I can't deny is his love for his dog.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

There's been some speculation that you or Gary would have to be removed for a deal to be possibly done. Do you see that in the future?

I have, over the last 15 years, had a good relationship with the players, but at any point in time, I'd be glad to answer any questions that any of them have at any point in time. But at any point in the future, if circumstances change, and they feel there's a better way to do things, I'll be glad to do that for them or they can make any steps. But right now I can tell you I've not had anybody say anything like that to me at all.

http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3428

Goodenow did say it and he is definelty in trouble with the players by giving into a cap system.

After this entire mess, the dumbest thing the PA can do is ditch Goodenow.

Doing so is going to signal the PA is broken and the owners/league are going to have a field day. Can you say 30m cap, no g contracts, 1-way arbitration ? Don't like it ? Oh, okay, say goodbye to 2006-2007.

They just need to tell Goodenow to crawl over to Gary's, kiss his feet and beg for the 42.5 offer.

 

[KeyserSoze]

They just need to tell Goodenow to crawl over to Gary's, kiss his feet and beg for the 42.5 offer.

If this is what will get a new CBA, then it will never happen. BG's ego is too huge to ever do that. In fact, that ego is probably getting in the way of the current NHL offer being accepted by the players...

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

You can say a lot of things about Modano, but one thing you can't deny is his love for this game.

There's a story about Modano from his North Star days.

It was about early 90's or so, the GM came down to talk to the team in a meeting room. I think it was near the end of the season.

Said something to the effect of: "I like all of you guys, but unfortunately we don't have the space in our budget to resign all of you. So I'd just like to say if any of you won't be coming back, its not because of your performance on the ice."

I think Modano was just resigned recently to a fat contract, everybody in the room turned and looked at Mike and he crossed his arms and said "Sorry guys, guess some of you have to go".

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

This is right from the NHLPA website !!! Maybe someone could tell me what the hell is this a***ole said in his response....!!!Holy cripes 3 years of no cap and then he says this load of BS..Good Luck NHLPA !!! Bob you may want to get the resume tuned up !!!!! :lol

QUESTION: Some players were really surprised to wake up Tuesday and realize what happened, and some player reps were very surprised. What was the process like in maybe trying to keep players involved in your thought process at the time and maybe why weren't some people in on it.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I guess the best way to describe it is let's go back a few months to December 9th. When we announced our proposal of the 24 percent roll back, you can imagine the level of surprise that that triggered amongst a number of players, and this committee here and myself were entrusted to negotiate on behalf of all 700 players, and just from a practical point of view, not all issues and matters are, you know, able to be share in their entirety as they're developed and rejected or developed and proposed. That's part of the work and the responsibility of the committee and ourselves. And so, you know, I think that the -- when something changes a bit, you know, not everyone's involved in that process. Not surprisingly be a surprise to those that aren't involved until they've heard about it, and they've had a chance to think about it.

 

[Greschner4]

This is right from the NHLPA website !!! Maybe someone could tell me what the hell is this a***ole said in his response....!!!Holy cripes 3 years of no cap and then he says this load of BS..Good Luck NHLPA !!! Bob you may want to get the resume tuned up !!!!! :lol

QUESTION: Some players were really surprised to wake up Tuesday and realize what happened, and some player reps were very surprised. What was the process like in maybe trying to keep players involved in your thought process at the time and maybe why weren't some people in on it.

MR. GOODENOW: Well, I guess the best way to describe it is let's go back a few months to December 9th. When we announced our proposal of the 24 percent roll back, you can imagine the level of surprise that that triggered amongst a number of players, and this committee here and myself were entrusted to negotiate on behalf of all 700 players, and just from a practical point of view, not all issues and matters are, you know, able to be share in their entirety as they're developed and rejected or developed and proposed. That's part of the work and the responsibility of the committee and ourselves. And so, you know, I think that the -- when something changes a bit, you know, not everyone's involved in that process. Not surprisingly be a surprise to those that aren't involved until they've heard about it, and they've had a chance to think about it.

What he says is true but only to a point. Minor tweaks to numbers that conform with agreed-upon strategies and philosophies don't need to be shared with everybody. Move the tax rate up 5% while lowering the UFA age by a year, yeah.

However, the idea that the Committee can and should itself decide to abandon to the no-cap philosophy 24 hours before the deadline is preposterous beyond words.

Fire him, NOW!!!

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

After this entire mess, the dumbest thing the PA can do is ditch Goodenow.

Doing so is going to signal the PA is broken and the owners/league are going to have a field day. Can you say 30m cap, no g contracts, 1-way arbitration ? Don't like it ? Oh, okay, say goodbye to 2006-2007.

They just need to tell Goodenow to crawl over to Gary's, kiss his feet and beg for the 42.5 offer.

Let me say this if I was told for 3 F'n years that "no cap" was our first statement and all thru the lockout I've lost 5, 6, 7. 8, 9 ,10 million (ie Pronger) that I will NEVER see because of this stance and then at the last minute without my approval this SOB takes a cap. He better have a good bunch of bodyguards around him because I'm going down to his office to strangle the F***er !!!

The smartest thing they could do is fire him !!! Nobody would question this decision because he has cost them 1.2 billion !!! and guess what that figure gets increased as they go into next year !!

 

[Steve L*]

Kinda makes any payoff they have to give him look like a good deal.

 

[Egil]

The most rediculous part of this is that at the start of the year, Bob could probably have gotten 57% of revenue in a linkage deal, which would have been phased in (so no need for the 24% rollback), and gotten the players MORE money than even the players last offer would have given them. And it is this realization that will make the players very angry at Bob. The NHL was never going to try to extract a 24% rollback from the players, the only way that got on the table was from the PA's own stupidity.

 

[Ol' Dirty Chinaman*]

Let me say this if I was told for 3 F'n years that "no cap" was our first statement and all thru the lockout I've lost 5, 6, 7. 8, 9 ,10 million (ie Pronger) that I will NEVER see because of this stance and then at the last minute without my approval this SOB takes a cap. He better have a good bunch of bodyguards around him because I'm going down to his office to strangle the F***er !!!

The smartest thing they could do is fire him !!! Nobody would question this decision because he has cost them 1.2 billion !!! and guess what that figure gets increased as they go into next year !!

Yeah, I'm not saying I would'nt be pissed. But strategically in a negotation which I'm assuming they still are engaged in, getting rid of Goodenow would be too big a sign of weakness.

Get rid of Bobbo after the deal's been signed, but not before.

 

[SENSible1*]

The most rediculous part of this is that at the start of the year, Bob could probably have gotten 57% of revenue in a linkage deal, which would have been phased in (so no need for the 24% rollback), and gotten the players MORE money than even the players last offer would have given them. And it is this realization that will make the players very angry at Bob. The NHL was never going to try to extract a 24% rollback from the players, the only way that got on the table was from the PA's own stupidity.

Too bad you can't post this on the PA's message board.

It really puts the whole thing in perspective and demonstrates clearly how poorly Goodenow has represented his constituents.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

The only thing I can't deny is his love for his dog.

That's for certain. I suspect he'll speak in the favor of anyone who will loan him 20 bucks to feed the adorable pooch. But then, if you had a poodle half as pooch-tastic as Anastasia-Priscilla, you'd get confused, too!

 

[CarlRacki]

The most rediculous part of this is that at the start of the year, Bob could probably have gotten 57% of revenue in a linkage deal, which would have been phased in (so no need for the 24% rollback), and gotten the players MORE money than even the players last offer would have given them. And it is this realization that will make the players very angry at Bob. The NHL was never going to try to extract a 24% rollback from the players, the only way that got on the table was from the PA's own stupidity.

That's a great point.
I don't seem to recall the owners seeking a substantial rollback until the players offered one. It seems the players misjudged the owners' resolve for a long-term change in the system and figured they could break that resolve by offering temporary relief.
I don't doubt my position on thos whole mess shades my view, but I can't see how even the most ardent PA would argue that Goodenow didn't botch this negotiation badly.

 

[Chili]

His whole position seemed to be based on the owners eventually caving in. And based on past negotiations in hockey and other sports (i.e. baseball) that has worked. But these guys weren't bluffing, they really would rather not play this year than get into another long, bad deal. He should have been able to size up their resolve much sooner. He did get them to drop linkage, but he had to go back on his long stated "no cap" position.

If I was a player my biggest beef would be him not giving me the chance to vote on the final offer the owners offered when he had seemingly squeezed the last nickel they were willing to offer.

 

[Chaos]

That's for certain. I suspect he'll speak in the favor of anyone who will loan him 20 bucks to feed the adorable pooch. But then, if you had a poodle half as pooch-tastic as Anastasia-Priscilla, you'd get confused, too!

Give

It

Up

 

[Levitate]

actually i think this shows how completely out of touch the players have been with these whole proceedings and that they should really wake the hell up and pay attention to this kind of crap. all the majority of them do is say "ok we have a head of our union so we don't have to do anything, he'll take care of it all and all we have to do is repeat a few lines about supporting the union cuz we have no idea what's going on"

i'm willing to bet 90% of the players had no intimate involvement with this whole thing, they just left it up to a few players and goodenow to handle and then act shocked when something happens. here's a clue...when it comes to something as important to your job and future as a CBA is when you're an athlete...learn about it, learn the situation, form some opinions and be involved with what's going on. don't sit back and wallow in ignorance while crap is going on.

i'm also willing to bet if goodenow had stepped off of the cap stance a lot earlier, the league would have just taken it and pushed for even more, like they have with everything else. "you'll take a cap? great! $30 mill cap and linkage to 50% revenues with no arbitration and no right to sit out, and we'll get the deal done!"

 

[likea]

His whole position seemed to be based on the owners eventually caving in. And based on past negotiations in hockey and other sports (i.e. baseball) that has worked. But these guys weren't bluffing, they really would rather not play this year than get into another long, bad deal. He should have been able to size up their resolve much sooner. He did get them to drop linkage, but he had to go back on his long stated "no cap" position.

If I was a player my biggest beef would be him not giving me the chance to vote on the final offer the owners offered when he had seemingly squeezed the last nickel they were willing to offer.

hey Chili

I don't think linkage was ever the end game for bettman and crew. I really feel the put linkage up so they can back off it and make it look like a salary cap is a good offer.

and if I was a player, i would be very pissed we took a cap stance at the very end. I think the players could have gotten 45-47 million dollar cap hard at the beginning of the season

and now it looks like (if the rumors are true) they will get the same deal they could have gotten before the season started.

that is what would piss me off if I was a player

 

[bling]

But he has a $3 million a year contract through 2008.

Kind of ironic that the players are stuck with Goodenow in the same way that some NHL teams are stuck paying a lot of money for guys they now want to get rid of.

Just to note that Bob is not paid during the lockout, unlike the man who called for the lockout and cancelled the season, Gary Bettman.

 

[Levitate]

speculating on what kind of deal they could have gotten at the beginning of the season is just that...speculation

during the summer and at the beginning of the season, all we heard from bettman and co. was $31 mill hard cap. if the players had offered to play under a hard cap and it was put in around $45-$47 mill, people around here would have FREAKED out and lamented about how the owners absolutely caved.

no, things would have still drug on because the league would have tried to negotiate it down as much as they could