hubofhockey
Registered User
- Aug 14, 2003
- 4,938
- 0
Scugs said:I dont care... Ill be optimistic when we have a CBA done. I've learned now that being optimistic just gets you depressed faster.
Agreed!!!!Scugs said:I dont care... Ill be optimistic when we have a CBA done. I've learned now that being optimistic just gets you depressed faster.
hubofhockey said:Fair 'nuf. Don't blame you. Imagine how you'd feel if you were in the select group that kissed away $1.5 b.
kpd
Scugs said:They did it to themselves... So I cant feel sorry for them.
Levitate said:even if the NHL gets a deal done, I'm afraid they're gonna screw up the game trying to "fix" it. we'll end up with orange lines, "sleek form fitting jerseys" bowed out nets...what a joke.
this is what ticks me off...the NHL spent all this time talking about how it'll survive a lockout because NHL fans are so great and hardcore...then they basically turn around and spit on those fans in favor of trying to attract "new fans" by screwing up the game.
The comments be Jacques Lemaire were just outrageous when you stop and think about it. he said the rule changes to the AHL weren't working, and that guys just started clutching and grabbing even more so the NHL was going to have to do something drastic now. Ignoring the irony of Lemaire complaining about clutching and grabbing for a minute...tell me WHY their solution to clutching and grabbing is to make drastic changes like net sizes, etc?
here's a clue...call the penalties like they should be. this is a damn dead horse by this point but it makes no sense to complain that the new rules just caused more clutching and grabbing so we're going to have to make MORE drastic changes...if clutching and grabbing is the problem, penalize players who do it and it'll go away. cure the damn problem, don't attempt to cover it up with garbage. sure it'll be a parade to the penalty box for awhile but if the NHL actually stays on it then it'll go away. I'd rather put up with 20 games filled with penalties than do something stupid like they're proposing with the nets.
I won't even watch the NHL if they go through with these net ideas...what a joke.
and yeah that got off topic a bit...my point mainly being i'm not even optimistic about a deal getting done if they're just gonna screw up the league afterwards.
Completely agreed. Call the game as it is supposed to be called and try that first. Let the GM's, owners, coaches and players whine all they want eventually they will learn pretty darn quick if they are killing 45 minutes worth of penalties every night. IN the past when on offensive player breaks into the zone you saw the D-man use his body and positioning to force the guy wide. The first thing you see now is a hand to the chest and a jersey grab. If your hand leaves the stick and it even touches an opponent call the damn penalty. If there is a hook you don't let it go just because the guy wasn't waterskiing you call the penalty. If it isn't stick on stick or torso on torso it's probably a penalty so call it!
The only things I do are:
1) call the penalties
2) bring back touch up offside...I think the reward for the fast skating hard forechecking team was removed because this rule was taken out. No touch up was just another rule that encouraged teams to sit back in the neutral zone and wait for the play to come to them instead of taking the play to their opponents.
3) bring back goaltending equipment to what it used to be. Was it 26% less space to shoot at that was the difference between an 80's goaltender and Luongo because of equipment that SI came up with a few years ago? Make the pads skinnier, the blocker skinnier, get rid of the cheater, the extra 2 inches from the shoulder pads, the extra large jersey that functions as netting etc etc etc. And get rid of the composite sticks and take away the protection excuse from the goaltenders.
Try these things first and see what happens. Point 1 and 3 are the main things. IF the league does those you'll have free flowing higher scoring hockey where the stars can be stars and talent shines through at all positions.
"A bit of reality may finally be entering the process -- I don't want to be too optimistic here, but I am guardedly optimistic."
Although he would not be specific, Jacobs said the players, following a caucus that lasted more than three hours, returned to the owners with a variety of informal proposals on a salary cap system. The various salary ranges suggested by the players, said Jacobs, were dollar amounts -- minimum and maximum -- based on the league's projected gross revenues.
If that sounds like linkage -- a concept tying salaries to revenues that thus far has been rejected by the Players Association -- it also sounded that way to Jacobs at first, too.
"I said to Gary, "Well, that's linkage,' " said Jacobs, relating the conversation he had with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. "But the truth is it was not -- because in a true linkage system, the players' side would have to establish an escrow system, and that would mean giving money back if gross revenues dropped. They're not interested in that."
cleduc said:
Digger12 said:Interesting...so Jacobs is alluding to the players possibly accepting a variant of linkage to gross revenues, but without an escrow system? How would that work?
Does this not sound like something they can absolutley negotiate now? If what was informally proposed was that palatable to even a hawk like Jacobs, and they're basically haggling over the range of the cap (and even on this issue, Jacobs didn't sound insulted by the levels being suggested), isn't there some hope here?Jacobs, noting the informal nature of the players' proposals and the sensitivity of the talks, would not divulge the exact figures bandied about Monday. In all cases, he said, the dollar spread from the low (or floor) figure to the high (or ceiling) figure remained the same. The higher projected gross revenues, the higher the floor and ceiling figures. The lower the gross revenues, the lower the floor and ceiling.
"My sense, overall, was that kind of system could work," said Jacobs. "The trick is getting that high figure in line, making it a much tighter spread between the minimum each team would pay, to the maximum each team would pay. We wanted that spread to be cut in half."
ColoradoHockeyFan said:Here's kind of the key piece of the Globe article as far as what Jacobs said.
Does this not sound like something they can absolutley negotiate now? If what was informally proposed was that palatable to even a hawk like Jacobs, and they're basically haggling over the range of the cap (and even on this issue, Jacobs didn't sound insulted by the levels being suggested), isn't there some hope here?
Digger12 said:Interesting...so Jacobs is alluding to the players possibly accepting a variant of linkage to gross revenues, but without an escrow system? How would that work?