ILUVTHISGAME said:Shouldn't the Commissioner have some control over the owners' spending habits?
SwisshockeyAcademy said:Rhetoric comes out of both sides. You are not looking at the big picture of what a level playing field really is. You can have many things go right in a small market and still miss the playoffs. You can on occasion have the stars align just right and have a couple of playoff runs at best. Over time, clubs with less resources run out of luck and it can put them in a five year rut. A salary cap will not cure the entire game, that seems to be beyond Bettman's reach. I hope he stays long enough to bring some sense to the financial side.
FLYLine4LIFE said:Quote Saskin:
When asked in a television interview if he thought commissioner Gary Bettman was the right man to run the NHL, Ted Saskin said: ''Not from what I've seen so far.''
Saskin was also asked if the players respected Bettman, to which he responded ''Certainly not now.''
Quote Bettman:
''We're finally getting to the stage where the union is resorting to personal attacks, a very common practice in collective bargaining when a union isn't getting what it wants,'' said Bettman. ''It sounds to me like the union's rhetoric is getting desperate. If that brings us closer to a deal then it will be constructive. I don't mind being the whipping boy as long as we get to the right result.''
thinkwild said:A 5 year rut like the Rangers? The big picture is that we already have competitive parity that rivals any of the major leagues. Teams take a while to build so of course they arent equal each year, but they have equal opportunity to become great. Like America. Everyone isnt equal, but has equal opportunity to become great. The big picture is that the teams that become the Colorado and Detroit of the next decade will be different. If Colorado loses Forsberg, Sakic and Blake, and are just another team like Edmonton, they wont be able to spend like they used. Not with the same effect anyway,. Because you cant buy a cup. Thats the big picture.
Calgary wasnt in a rut because they couldnt spend. They were in a rut because they couldnt draft and develop. It is hard. Not every team can do it at the same time. Its not a sign the system is unfair. Hampering great teams to "fix" this would be unfair.
Calgary beat Detroit. We dont need financial parity. The last decades great teams managed to stay together. Deroit and Colorado are only large markets in hockey - because they developed a team to have success.
cw7 said:Apparently, the process of "negotiations" is getting lost in these parts.
Cliches, rhetoric, ambivalent statements, etc.; this is par for the course. Especially when the media is involved in the process. Why would you take these statements at face value? They could be completely true, or they could be completely false, or they could lie anywhere in between. How in the hell are we to know the true intentions behind them?
We certainly don't know all of the relevant info in this debate (to believe that we do is akin to believing in Santa Claus). We know bits and pieces, that's about it. I can't help but think of a snake-oil salesman at this point (both sides fit the description). Negotiations on this level are not the prettiest or most honest picture.
But as usual, a stance that isn't distinctly on one side or the other won't draw much interest (or ire, depending on certain moods). Certainly hasn't recently at least. Please continue with your regularly scheduled programming.
gary69 said:It usually doesn't do any good in any negotiations if one party gets extremely pissed at on the other especially on the personal level, whatever is being negotiated or regardless of who's being right or who's being more reasonable.
In this regard Bettman's comments are really unfortunate, I would have thought him to understand better, that if the NHL eventually hopes to resume playing with these players, there has to be at least somewhat working relationship, however guarded. Maybe stress was getting better of Bettman, but he should have handled this one more astutely in public.
txpd said:Boy, I think you miss the big money boat all together. in the last 10 seasons, 9 of the 10 cups were won by teams in the leagues top 10 in payroll. the 10th team, Tampa Bay is only a signed contract with Martin St Louis(04 scoring champ and mvp) from being a $50m + payroll and top 10 payroll team themselves
txpd said:I'll ask this again. as long as the nhl insists on a salary cap and the nhlpa insists on NO salary cap, what is there to negotiate??? where is there a middle ground between salary cap and no cap ever?
FLYLine4LIFE said:yes because ALL of canadian media that i can see here in the States is PRO-OWNER...so they are feeding you all and pro-ownership details...favoring the owners...Rightfully so I GUESS because of the small salary teams up there would favor this HARD CAP..but i guess they dont think you can make a decision for yourself...so they pretty much do it for you. This is way the majority of canada is pro owners. Go check out TSN, or Sportsnet Both are HIGHLY pro-ownership. Its amussing really.
Im not sure how news is run up there but here in the States its unbiased.
FLYLine4LIFE said:And what about Bettmans hard cap..you dont find that laughable at best? I find both offers laughable BUT that has to be the starting ground...you work from there...but Bettman will not move. Someone needs to give him a swift kick in the rear.
FLYLine4LIFE said:WHAT AN IDIOT!! Where are the "PERSONAL ATTACKS" Does ANYBODY see them?? Because i sure dont..just ANOTHER attempt by Bettman to TRY To make the Union look bad. This guy is a joke.
EDit- Oops forgot to give the link http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=106594&hubName=nhl
go kim johnsson said:Hate to tell you, but the players are hardly looking bad. Bettman has resorted to lying to the public such as saying that Oilers and Flames fans are not able to expect their teams to make the playoffs when the Flames were a no-goal away from winning it.
That is exactly what i expected, a Rangers led post. I'm not saying you will win by spending money. You can have it and make error after error in every department. I am saying that without money you are hard pressed to be consistently competitive. The Flames would probably not missed the playoffs for as long as they did if they were able to spend a few more free agent dollars to be somewhat competitive. A small market team that mishandles the draft and development is in for a really rough ride. The Daniel Tkachuks are too much to overcome.thinkwild said:A 5 year rut like the Rangers? The big picture is that we already have competitive parity that rivals any of the major leagues. Teams take a while to build so of course they arent equal each year, but they have equal opportunity to become great. Like America. Everyone isnt equal, but has equal opportunity to become great. The big picture is that the teams that become the Colorado and Detroit of the next decade will be different. If Colorado loses Forsberg, Sakic and Blake, and are just another team like Edmonton, they wont be able to spend like they used. Not with the same effect anyway,. Because you cant buy a cup. Thats the big picture.
Calgary wasnt in a rut because they couldnt spend. They were in a rut because they couldnt draft and develop. It is hard. Not every team can do it at the same time. Its not a sign the system is unfair. Hampering great teams to "fix" this would be unfair.
Calgary beat Detroit. We dont need financial parity. The last decades great teams managed to stay together. Deroit and Colorado are only large markets in hockey - because they developed a team to have success.
txpd said:"Yes, actually. It makes your big a$$ look bigger.",
chara said:Personal attacks aren't going to solve this thing.
If Ted Saskin wants to be constructive, he should be drawing up a proposal.
SwisshockeyAcademy said:That is exactly what i expected, a Rangers led post. I'm not saying you will win by spending money. You can have it and make error after error in every department. I am saying that without money you are hard pressed to be consistently competitive.
The Flames would probably not missed the playoffs for as long as they did if they were able to spend a few more free agent dollars to be somewhat competitive.
A small market team that mishandles the draft and development is in for a really rough ride. The Daniel Tkachuks are too much to overcome.
" We don't need financial parity", you say.That is ridiculous, yes we do -there has to be a way to protect owners from themselves. That is what we are doing. I am no great fan of ownership i am a fan of the overall health of the game and we need as level a playing field as we can get to get us moving in the right direction.