Bettman Named Fifth Worst Manager of 2004

[MmmBacon]

The ironic thing about that article is that it doesn't even address Bettman's most obvious flaw. He's "led" the NHL during an era when the quality of its product has declined dramatically. You'd find few people who think the game is as entertaining as it was a decade ago.

If you're reluctant to bash Bettman for the current financial mess, you've got to admit the on-ice product has suffered greatly during his tenure.

 

[SuperUnknown]

The ironic thing about that article is that it doesn't even address Bettman's most obvious flaw. He's "led" the NHL during an era when the quality of its product has declined dramatically. You'd find few people who think the game is as entertaining as it was a decade ago.

If you're reluctant to bash Bettman for the current financial mess, you've got to admit the on-ice product has suffered greatly during his tenure.

The game has evolved... I remember about 10 years ago, the Florida Panthers made it to the finals with a team that would probably qualify as the best ever at using obstruction and hooking and other stuff fans rant about even these days.

The game is more defensive due to coaches being better at strategy than before, due to goaltenders greatly improving from year to year, to overall better players that skate and read the play better than 10 years ago. However, despite what some people say, hockey today is faster than it has ever been.

 

[CarlRacki]

The game has evolved... I remember about 10 years ago, the Florida Panthers made it to the finals with a team that would probably qualify as the best ever at using obstruction and hooking and other stuff fans rant about even these days.

The game is more defensive due to coaches being better at strategy than before, due to goaltenders greatly improving from year to year, to overall better players that skate and read the play better than 10 years ago. However, despite what some people say, hockey today is faster than it has ever been.

Exactly. It's amazing that people continue to blast Bettman for the clutching, grabbing, obstruction, etc., but give a complete pass on the players who are doing it, the coaches who are instructing them to do it and the officials who aren't calling it. Bettman shares some of the blame for the last part, but to lay it entirely are his feet isn't entirely fair or accurate. It's akin to blaming David Stern for the lack of fundamentals in the NBA.

 

[tantalum]

Bettman does deserve to be raked over the coals for weak management. His failure to persuade or unite the owners until the situation reached a crisis is a profound management failure. That he allowed himself to be bullied into accepting a poor CBA and he knowingly went along with it shows he lacks the backbone to be a manager at a high level. A great manager will engage in dirty infighting, twist arms, call in favors, and do whatever it takes to impose his will. A great manager will resign rather than go along with something he knows is wrong. In the past decade Bettman has shown he's more concerned with the job title, and security, than he is in doing what's in the best interest of the NHL. I can't imagine events transpiring the way they have if the NHL had a commissioner with leadership qualities who loved and cared about the game. The NFL was lucky to have one in Pete Rozelle. The NHL has a messenger boy.

But the problem is that Bettman was not really a manager in charge of his managers at that time. He was a negotiator hammering out a deal for the managers that hired him and control him. Those managers backed down, or atleast enough of them, so Bettman did what was in his job description....do what his managers wanted. He did that all the while warning them they should be pushing for a cap but he was hired to negotiate the deal his managers wanted and in the end he did that. Perhaps it was a mistake for Bettman not to try for that control the first time around but given the supposed seriousness of the owners at that time it may not have been necessary. Really he ended up being a lame duck negotiator in '94 when the managers refused to give him the power they should have. It would have happened to any negotiator hired at the time because the owners were not willing to give up that control in the negotiations. This time around it is pretty eveident that Bettman wanted no part of the same shananigans and essentially gave the ultimatem of "let me handle it or find someone else" hence the whole veto thing and basically being in complete control of the new CBA.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Even to this day Bettman doesn't have the owners united, sure they are all on board for a salary cap, but not for total revenue sharing. Do you really think the owners would accept a salary cap if it included revenue sharing like the NFL (sub all local TV and Radio deals for the NFL National TV deal)??

 

[SENSible1*]

Even to this day Bettman doesn't have the owners united, sure they are all on board for a salary cap, but not for total revenue sharing. Do you really think the owners would accept a salary cap if it included revenue sharing like the NFL (sub all local TV and Radio deals for the NFL National TV deal)??

Umm...Why do you think that revenue sharing wasn't a big part of the proposal?
To keep the owners united. Different groups of owners support the leagues proposal for different reasons, but they are united.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Umm...Why do you think that revenue sharing wasn't a big part of the proposal?
To keep the owners united. Different groups of owners support the leagues proposal for different reasons, but they are united.

I'm just using Bettmans own words in the leaked memo, Revenue sharing will be a portion of playoff revenue. You have no proof they a plan to have any more than that.

 

[tantalum]

Even to this day Bettman doesn't have the owners united, sure they are all on board for a salary cap, but not for total revenue sharing. Do you really think the owners would accept a salary cap if it included revenue sharing like the NFL (sub all local TV and Radio deals for the NFL National TV deal)??

But this time around it doesn't really matter if all the owners are on board. All he needs is a handful which is why he essentially agreed to do this negotiation. Note as well that the vote to give Bettman the power this time around to negotiate what he thinks is the best and correct deal was by all reports UNANIMOUS. Some owners may have different ideas than others but the end result was that they WILLINGLY gave the power to Bettman this time around so those differences don't complicate matters.

As well, while the owners have said playoff revenues will be shared this is a topic that need not be negotiated. They appear willing to negotiate as they have said all along that increased revenue sharing will be in the next CBA. They've put it on the table to negotiate as a concession to get the cost certainty and/or linkage they want. The Playoff revenue is the starting position. As the players proposal of nearly complete revenue sharing was their starting point. The solution lies somewhere in between. What I find amazing is that the NHLPA camp on these boards seem to claim the players proposal was there for tweaking but there would be no such tweaking with the owners proposal (and vice versa in some cases). Neither one was a take it or leave it offer. Both were offers where the two sides essentially put down what their actual starting positions were. It happens they came in two different frameworks. Each proposal could have been used as a jumping off point. Both sides reject the others framework right now. The players don't want drastic change the owners say they need drastic change as most observers do. When one side makes the jump to the other sides position the numbers in either of those deals can then be tweaked.

 

[MmmBacon]

Exactly. It's amazing that people continue to blast Bettman for the clutching, grabbing, obstruction, etc., but give a complete pass on the players who are doing it, the coaches who are instructing them to do it and the officials who aren't calling it. Bettman shares some of the blame for the last part, but to lay it entirely are his feet isn't entirely fair or accurate. It's akin to blaming David Stern for the lack of fundamentals in the NBA.

I disagree. The players and the coaches will do whatever they can do to win, and justifiably so. It's up to the people in charge to make sure there's a framework in place that doesn't turn that rule-bending into an unwatchable product.

Take Bettman's semi-annual crackdown on obstruction. If one of those many attempts had been enforced for more than 20 games, the game might have a different look today.

 

[Buffaloed]

The ironic thing about that article is that it doesn't even address Bettman's most obvious flaw. He's "led" the NHL during an era when the quality of its product has declined dramatically. You'd find few people who think the game is as entertaining as it was a decade ago.

If you're reluctant to bash Bettman for the current financial mess, you've got to admit the on-ice product has suffered greatly during his tenure.

That begs the question: is the on-ice product is a consequence of the financial situation? Clutch and grab is an effective way for low payroll teams to neutralize high paid talent. The trap is the only way for many low payroll teams to be competitive. When they knock off a few of the big boys, they adopt the style too. Making the playoffs is usually the difference between making or losing money. Would teams be so eager to adopt a boring, but winning style if their financial health didn't depend on it to such a great extent?

 

[MmmBacon]

That begs the question: is the on-ice product is a consequence of the financial situation? Clutch and grab is an effective way for low payroll teams to neutralize high paid talent. The trap is the only way for many low payroll teams to be competitive. When they knock off a few of the big boys, they adopt the style too. Making the playoffs is usually the difference between making or losing money. Would teams be so eager to adopt a boring, but winning style if their financial health didn't depend on it to such a great extent?

That's possible. It could also be due to expansion, or lousy oversight of officiating.

Directly or indirectly, those all sound like Bettman's responsibility.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

That begs the question: is the on-ice product is a consequence of the financial situation? Clutch and grab is an effective way for low payroll teams to neutralize high paid talent. The trap is the only way for many low payroll teams to be competitive. When they knock off a few of the big boys, they adopt the style too. Making the playoffs is usually the difference between making or losing money. Would teams be so eager to adopt a boring, but winning style if their financial health didn't depend on it to such a great extent?

To a point, but the Wings with all that high priced talent used the left wing lock which is a form of the trap. The reason they used was to help them win games and get into the playoffs and make money. So it's not as much as low payroll teams vs high revenue teams but they do it cause it works. It's like the West Coast offence in the NFL, everyone and their brother is now using it because it worked in the past. Back the the NHL, the Wings picked up a trap system after the Devils owned them in the 1995 finals. Hey it works for them, it could work for us. And so it started. I think someone finds a way to beat the trap you'll see other teams copy that system too

 

[SENSible1*]

I'm just using Bettmans own words in the leaked memo, Revenue sharing will be a portion of playoff revenue. You have no proof they a plan to have any more than that.

Sorry my post wasn't clearer. I was making no reference to any future revenue sharing but pointing out that the NHL had used the LACK of revenue sharing as a tool to keep the big spenders unified with the league who's small markets are willing to forgoe more extensive spending to get competitive balance.