Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

[habitual_hab]

Goodenow is just as foolishly persistent as Taraq Aziz, in a losing cause.

The NHL needs the NHLPA more than the players need the NHLPA.

 

[Licentia]

The NHL needs the NHLPA more than the players need the NHLPA.

The NHL did just fine without an NHLPA long before I was even born.

 

[habitual_hab]

The NHL did just fine without an NHLPA long before I was even born.

Sorry but no union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one. No NHLPA means the owners cannot impose a salary cap on players'.

Interesting thread (that you were part of) that deals with the legalities of the NHLPA and the CBA:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103310&page=1&pp=15

 

[Licentia]

Sorry but no union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one. No NHLPA means the owners cannot impose a salary cap on players'.

Interesting thread (that you were part of) that deals with the legalities of the NHLPA and the CBA:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103310&page=1&pp=15

Okay, so what if the NHL needs the NHLPA? I don't understand the argument. The NHL can have the NHLPA under "cost certainty." Did the WHA need a players association to draft players? Of course not! I don't feel like reading that thread, nor do I understand why the NHL needs the NHLPA.

 

[Puckhead]

Bob Mckenzie needs to lose some weight, he always reports and trade and then the player always ends up on a different team. Sportsnet has there own Bob Mckenzie mini me in Gordon Stelleick.

Theres nothing like wasting everyones time reading someones sweeping generalization, and obvious personal feelings towards one of the best in the business. What exactly does his weight have to do with his job? He is almost always right on the money with his trade rumours, and he is very well respected in the hockey community. He deals in fact, unlike many others in the field..........
......AL STRACHAN. He should have carved out a career in writing fiction novels, would have definitely been more lucrative.

 

[Mizral]

I believe Bobby was looking through this thread last night, so perhaps you folks might get a response out of him yet. I'm not sure if more insults or praise will work in drawing him out. Perhaps a mixture of both?

Actually, the best way is to say he spelled something wrong in a 1997 column about Dino Ciccarelli's retirement. Something very obscure.

(Ah, Bob, you know we (well, most of us anyhow) love ya.)

PS: What are you going to be doing during the lockout? TSN got you on some special CBA assignments? Or did they get you on as the analyst for one of those lumberjack competitions?

(I almost said lumberjack-offs there...)

 

[joechip]

And like I've said, the owners don't have the games interests at heart.

Capitalism is all about winners and losers.

As a capitalist I would take a bit of umbrage with that statement. The essence of real capitalism is that there are always two winners in any one transaction. One side may regret the decision later, but that is something else entirely; information to be used in the next transaction one makes, hopefully to better effect.

In reality, the converse is true, socialism is truly about winners and losers. Because for socialism to exist there must be a ruling class to make the decisions vis a vis allocation of resources... and they're the winners, while everyone else must suffer equally.

Ta,

 

[habitual_hab]

As a capitalist I would take a bit of umbrage with that statement. The essence of real capitalism is that there are always two winners in any one transaction. One side may regret the decision later, but that is something else entirely; information to be used in the next transaction one makes, hopefully to better effect.

In reality, the converse is true, socialism is truly about winners and losers. Because for socialism to exist there must be a ruling class to make the decisions vis a vis allocation of resources... and they're the winners, while everyone else must suffer equally.

Ta,

Interesting. How about that socialist/anarcho-syndicalist "experiment" that is the Mondragon association of some two hundred cooperative enterprises in Spain?
It's a model for worker-ownership in the industrial sector where factories manufacturing durable goods, intermediate goods, capital equipment, and electronic and high technology products, schools, and farms are "owned" and managed by over 20,000 owner-workers.

 

[hockeytown9321]

As a capitalist I would take a bit of umbrage with that statement. The essence of real capitalism is that there are always two winners in any one transaction. One side may regret the decision later, but that is something else entirely; information to be used in the next transaction one makes, hopefully to better effect.

In reality, the converse is true, socialism is truly about winners and losers. Because for socialism to exist there must be a ruling class to make the decisions vis a vis allocation of resources... and they're the winners, while everyone else must suffer equally.

Ta,

In the end, the person not happy with the transaction is the loser.

I'm not the one being confused over communisim and captialism. I simply pointed out that the owners are using this lockout for purely capitalistic purposes, and I agree there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that the players are bashed for the same reason. On top of that, the capitalistic owners want to install a communistic system. Its a double standard. If its OK by the cap supporters for the owners to operate under capitalism in one aspect, why is it worng to operate thier entire business under the same model? In capitalism, if you don't have enough capital to compete, you go out of business. So if the Canadian teams don't have enough money to compete, tough. If Detroit doesn't, tough. Thats the way it goes.

What some people here who support a cap belevie is that a cap will equalize everything, but that's simply not true. Now, under true communisim, everything is 100% equal. A loaf of bread and a ton of steel are equal in value. I supply you with bread because you supply me with steel. There is no "fetishism of commodities". In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness. So under this utopian cap, Dany Heatly is equal to Boyd Deveraux. Otherwise, everything can't be 100% equal, thus some teams will continue to have an advantage. That advantage is then taken away because a cap limits how many players any one team can keep. Those teams which have the advantages are always going to be rebuilding, which is the cap supporter's beef with the current system. Its all a big cycle.

A cap does not gaurantee you success. All it does is gaurantee any success you may have is short lived.

 

[Legolas]

Okay, so what if the NHL needs the NHLPA? I don't understand the argument. The NHL can have the NHLPA under "cost certainty." Did the WHA need a players association to draft players? Of course not! I don't feel like reading that thread, nor do I understand why the NHL needs the NHLPA.

Unions exist, and more importantly, it's a constitutional right in both Canada and the United States that workers are allowed to unionize, so even if the NHL could break the NHLPA, which I think is their actual goal, the whole process would start all over again anyway. Eventually, the players, who the NHL needs in order to give their league any kind of credibility whatsoever, would unionize. The NHL is just trying to turn themselves into the NFL or at worst the NBA where the current CBA's are heavily slanted in the owners' favour. I think they may just do it this time.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Unions exist, and more importantly, it's a constitutional right in both Canada and the United States that workers are allowed to unionize, so even if the NHL could break the NHLPA, which I think is their actual goal, the whole process would start all over again anyway. Eventually, the players, who the NHL needs in order to give their league any kind of credibility whatsoever, would unionize. The NHL is just trying to turn themselves into the NFL or at worst the NBA where the current CBA's are heavily slanted in the owners' favour. I think they may just do it this time.

The problem is they don't want the CBA slanted in their favor, they want the whole thing to be dictated by them. If they nogotiated off of the PA's luxury tax proposals, they would still end up with a deal highly slanted in thier favor.

 

[hockeytown9321]

In the end, the person not happy with the transaction is the loser.

I'm not the one being confused over communisim and captialism. I simply pointed out that the owners are using this lockout for purely capitalistic purposes, and I agree there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that the players are bashed for the same reason. On top of that, the capitalistic owners want to install a communistic system. Its a double standard. If its OK by the cap supporters for the owners to operate under capitalism in one aspect, why is it worng to operate thier entire business under the same model? In capitalism, if you don't have enough capital to compete, you go out of business. So if the Canadian teams don't have enough money to compete, tough. If Detroit doesn't, tough. Thats the way it goes.

What some people here who support a cap belevie is that a cap will equalize everything, but that's simply not true. Now, under true communisim, everything is 100% equal. A loaf of bread and a ton of steel are equal in value. I supply you with bread because you supply me with steel. There is no "fetishism of commodities". In capitalism, we assign values arbitralily. They are not based on an item's usefulness. So under this utopian cap, Dany Heatly is equal to Boyd Deveraux. Otherwise, everything can't be 100% equal, thus some teams will continue to have an advantage. That advantage is then taken away because a cap limits how many players any one team can keep. Those teams which have the advantages are always going to be rebuilding, which is the cap supporter's beef with the current system. Its all a big cycle.

A cap does not gaurantee you success. All it does is gaurantee any success you may have is short lived.

And the other contriiction I need to point out is that if the cap people really wanted things equalized under a communistic system, wouldn't it be the players who rose up and overthrew the owners? They would run the league themselves, the owners are the evil bourgeios.

 

[Licentia]

The problem is they don't want the CBA slanted in their favor, they want the whole thing to be dictated by them. If they nogotiated off of the PA's luxury tax proposals, they would still end up with a deal highly slanted in thier favor.

If they are to meet in the middle, both have a LONG way to go to get to the middle.

NHL_____________________________Middle____________________________NHLPA

 

[Seachd]

Eventually, the players, who the NHL needs in order to give their league any kind of credibility whatsoever, would unionize.

Except maybe they would unionize into something willing to give the NHL and the fans a fighting chance, at the least.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If they are to meet in the middle, both have a LONG way to go to get to the middle.

NHL_____________________________Middle____________________________NHLPA

They do have to get to the middle. But if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize the players have moved a lot farther off their ideal solution than the owners have.

 

[Legolas]

The problem is they don't want the CBA slanted in their favor, they want the whole thing to be dictated by them. If they nogotiated off of the PA's luxury tax proposals, they would still end up with a deal highly slanted in thier favor.

I agree. Both sides are obviously being very stubborn. I just think that as long as the owners are strong enough to wait it out, the players will cave eventually. I really hope that the owners aren't using another league as a model because it just will not work. The circumstances are so different, as has already been discussed, to continue to hold out hoping for an NFL or NBA model is only going to drag this thing on way longer than necessary.

 

[Legolas]

Except maybe they would unionize into something willing to give the NHL and the fans a fighting chance, at the least.

Yeah, they would have limited power at first, but that could change in a big hurry. If I remember correctly, the NHLPA was pretty weak during the cronyism of Alan Eagleson and John Ziegler, but once Goodenow came in during the 90's during the expansion days, the NHLPA's leverage and power blew up. Even if you break the union, they can create the same difficulties pretty fast, unless you're the NFL.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I agree. Both sides are obviously being very stubborn. I just think that as long as the owners are strong enough to wait it out, the players will cave eventually. I really hope that the owners aren't using another league as a model because it just will not work. The circumstances are so different, as has already been discussed, to continue to hold out hoping for an NFL or NBA model is only going to drag this thing on way longer than necessary.

That's what negotiation is all about. Who cracks first?

 

[Seachd]

They do have to get to the middle. But if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize the players have moved a lot farther off their ideal solution than the owners have.

And if you think that's either true or relevent, you're kidding yourself. The ideal solution for the NHL would be to cut all salaries by 80% and keep them there for life. Well, they're not really proposing that, are they? And when the NHLPA offers a "substantial" proposal (ie. joke), it shows they're not even serious.

- NHL, why don't you accept the NHLPA's luxury tax proposal?
- Because it doesn't do a thing to help the league.

- NHLPA, why don't you accept any of the NHL's offers, which still provide players with extremely generous salaries.
- Because we don't want to.

I see quite a difference.

 

[hockeytown9321]

And if you think that's either true or relevent, you're kidding yourself. The ideal solution for the NHL would be to cut all salaries by 80% and keep them there for life. Well, they're not really proposing that, are they? And when the NHLPA offers a "substantial" proposal (ie. joke), it shows they're not even serious.

- NHL, why don't you accept the NHLPA's luxury tax proposal?
- Because it doesn't do a thing to help the league.

- NHLPA, why don't you accept any of the NHL's offers, which still provide players with extremely generous salaries.
- Because we don't want to.

I see quite a difference.

If the NHL's ideal solution to this was to cut salries by 80% why haven't they gone for that? And if that was their ideal solution, why? Why wouldn't they go for 99.9999999999%? That would be truly ideal.

I'm sure a cap would provide the players with more than generous salaries. I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment.

NHLPA: "why don't you want to negotiate a fair luxury tax?"
NHL: "we don't want to"

it works both ways here, people.

 

[Seachd]

If the NHL's ideal solution to this was to cut salries by 80% why haven't they gone for that? And if that was their ideal solution, why? Why wouldn't they go for 99.9999999999%? That would be truly ideal.

I'm sure a cap would provide the players with more than generous salaries. I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment.

NHLPA: "why don't you want to negotiate a fair luxury tax?"
NHL: "we don't want to"

it works both ways here, people.

No it doesn't. The difference is that if the league gets its way, it has a decent chance to survive.

The players won't go broke with a salary cap.

 

[hockeytown9321]

No it doesn't. The difference is that if the league gets its way, it has a decent chance to survive.

The players won't go broke with a salary cap.

and the league won't go broke with a luxury tax. if the league gets a cap, that means the entire season will have been lost. At that point, its going to take alot more than a cap to survive. Its not worth it.

 

[Seachd]

and the league won't go broke with a luxury tax. if the league gets a cap, that means the entire season will have been lost. At that point, its going to take alot more than a cap to survive. Its not worth it.

Okay, let's put it this way. Not one player will go broke with a salary cap. Teams have said they will not survive with the current system or the one proposed by the union. And they're obviously willing to sit it out, as tough as it will be. They know if they don't, they're screwed anyway.

 

[Digger12]

I'm sure a cap would provide the players with more than generous salaries. I've never argued against the cap because I thought the players would get screwed. I argue against it because my team will be screwed, thus I will have less enjoyment.

Mr. Illitch? Is that you?

So what if there's only six teams left in the league by the time the smoke clears, as long as your team's one of the six, right?

And you accuse the owners of not caring about the 'good of the game'...

 

[hockeytown9321]

Mr. Illitch? Is that you?

So what if there's only six teams left in the league by the time the smoke clears, as long as your team's one of the six, right?

And you accuse the owners of not caring about the 'good of the game'...

The league ran pretty well when there were only six teams. So yeah, I have no problem with that.

Becuase I don't care if Edmonton lives or dies doesn't mean the owners do. Edmonton's owners care if Edmonton lives or dies, no one else does.