Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by firstroundbust, Feb 1, 2005.
a nice read, a bit venom laced tho...
I got this far before feeling nauseous:
What a goof. Just another big market loudmouth who yaps on and on about spending someone else's money. It takes two to tango and the players have been willing partners in this 110%. Why should the owners give? Hasn't the past decade of over-spending been enough? There's a new economic reality in the NHL. He better get used to it.
Far too idealistic and fundamentally flawed to be taken as serious journalism.
ESPN should either hire more informed hockey writers or just leave it to the Canadian press.
Sorry...couldn't read what you said. I'm still wiping chunks of vomit off of my screen because of the same sentance. How does these guys get paid for this crap......
Better yet, ESPN should just AVOID hockey altogether seeing that they are as about as in-the-dark as you can get on the subject. ESPN are clueless when it comes to Hockey.
I've read worse.
he is the avalanche/hockey writer for the denverpost and is on FSN all the time ....I cannot even stand him. I read every article he posts on the denverpost and one week he says one thing and then another week he says another. He is just a small fish flopping on the dock. I cannot stand him .......
espn sucks for all sports , they hype and over generalize everything ...
I wish they would just cancel the season or get a deal done ..... this is making me hate the players and owners just as equal but I could never hate hockey so this is putting me in a difficult position
Me, too. But then Terry Frei has been writing for the local fishwrap for years. And for all those years, he has been highly critical of management...no matter which sport he is writing about. He really delikes Pierre Lacroix because Lacroix basically ignores the media. The Avs owner, Stan Kroenke, also likes to keep a low profile. He is the type that would welcome Bettman's gag order and gladly use it as an excuse not to talk to reporters. Besides, from the time he bought the team, he has been in favor of 'cost certainty'. Kroenke also owns the Nugget and a minority share in a NHL team...both of which have caps.
Funny, I just drove by ESPNs studios in Bristol, Ct today and was thinking about how lame thier knowledge on hockey is overall.
Agreed with you guys who say ESPN should either put some effort into the coverage (including writers and on-air personalities) or just let the Canadian press cover it.
That said, I'd still rather see NHL hockey on any tv station right about now...even if its ESPN with Bill Clements flapping his jaw about the Flyers, etc.
"a stunning 24% rollback"??? LOL. a one time rollback. a rollback for a partial season only. a rollback that only effects players currently with NHL contracts, which currently about 50% of the players in the league last season.
i think what is stunning is that anyone short of a player with a long term contract could think that was stunning.
personally i think it's stupid when US fans complain about ESPN so much and how they hate watching hockey on ESPN. we should be wishing for more exposure and more games and coverage on ESPN. the more interest ESPN shows in the NHL, the better their coverage will get for one, and it will be an indicator as to the popularity (and therefor marketability and financial health) of the league.
yeah ESPN's coverage does blow at times, and gary thorne should not be allowed near a microphone ever again...but the reason ESPN doesn't pay much attention to hockey (it's not overlly popular with most of the US) is one of the big reasons the league is in such poor financial shape and we're dealing with this lockout now
when ESPN has hockey games on i usually try to watch them if for no other reason than the idealistic one that it might make the viewship ratings look a little better and therefor garner more attention
Good point. I generally like Clement, but Bobby Clarke can do no wrong for that guy.
the rollback was on all player salaries for the length of the contracts, not just for this year
I concur, i stopped following ESPN about when the lockout started because they have NO idea what they are talking about. Coupled with the cancellation of NHL2Night meaning they lost all credible sources on hockey (Melrose)
clement coupled with thorne is a good tv duo when it comes to games tho...
Unless the Wings or Avs are playing then Thorne becomes unbearable.
are you kidding? clement isn't bad but thorne is a terrible terrible play by play guy
half the time he doesn't know who the hell is one the ice and calls players the wrong names all the time
other times he flips out and gets all excited for no reason whatsoever
he calls his games like he's been boozing
Well most of you have saved me a lot of typing. So I now have an extra 10-15 minutes to go hurl in a proper place...think I'll go grab some porcelain.
It did not address players without contracts. It did not address salary escalation after the current contracts expired, etc. One could make the argument that the rollback would influence the future, but not only is that highly speculative, but it ends up brining everyone back to the same situation in three years. Add to that the fact that people like Terry Frei conveniently ignore the fact that the owners did not reject the rollback, but offered a counter-proposal, and you start to see where my frustration comes in.
this argument is useless however. no one ever pretended that it would fix salary escalation and all of that. that's what the rest of the players proposal was for (with the luxery taxes and all of that). yes the rest of their proposal needed to be toughened up, i won't argue that, but i just hate it when people say say "oh the 24% wouldn't fix the next wave of contracts" because it was never meant to.
it was a "ok we'll cut almost 1/4 of your costs RIGHT NOW and then we'll give you a framework to keep those costs down in the future" type of thing.
and as for the players without contracts, of course it doesn't affect them but considering all those players would have to sign contracts once play began, i think you'd see all of them sign contracts that were in line with the new economic climate introduced with the 24% rollback.
yes it'd be the years down the road when contracts expired, etc, that you'd have to worry about, but again, that's what the rest of the proposal was about
Ok, but the crux of my argument was that the owners get labeled with roundly rejecting the rollback when that is most definitely NOT what happened.
And how is this any different from columnists who write opinion pieces supporting the NHL owners?????
Did the poster say it was?????
Exactly. They loved the idea of ther 24% rollback. They took that idea and slapped a a salary cap on top of it.