Brian Burke online reaction to NHLPA's proposal

[me2]

and this stupid signing affected exactly what in the NHL ? i have not seen one NHL team affected by this signing, other than NYR of course.

it has had zero affect, and its one case. why care ?

nobody uses Holik as a comparable in negotiations. secondly, even if holik didnt get this contract, the league average salary would hardly be affected, really 9m on 1.5b is nothing.

so holiks contract means nothing.

dr

Woooshhhh that went right over your head.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Woooshhhh that went right over your head.

no it didnt, but this one did.

anyhow, you said Holik was a perfect example of what is wrong and i challenged it.

dr

 

[PecaFan]

who cares about maybe's, it wasnt.

Ah, but that's the thing. You're speculating as well. You're arguing his absence didn't affect them, but there's no way of knowing that.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Ah, but that's the thing. You're speculating as well. You're arguing his absence didn't affect them, but there's no way of knowing that.

well i dont think its neccesary to shut down hockey since we still wont ever be able to predict the future.

dr

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

ok, so, speaking for myself, will admit that agents use leverage. why dont the owners ? seems they are able to when they need to (last season and now with the CBA).

as a fan, i would have supported VAN telling Bertuzzi AND Naslund to play for 4m or not play at all, if i was given the choice (over the lockout.)

DR

im not sure how many other canuck fans would support that, at least i know i wont. given naslunds uncertain future in north america, canucks dont have many yrs to compete for the cup. if bertuzzi holds out we can kiss our chances good bye. naslund will say that the owner will not spend to win the cup, and leave after his contract is over, and us canuck fans will have to wait many more years to even challenge it again.
also, when jagr, yashin, fedorov, guerin, etc earns $9M+, can you tell naslund and bertuzzi to take $4M per or go home?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

im not sure how many other canuck fans would support that, at least i know i wont. given naslunds uncertain future in north america, canucks dont have many yrs to compete for the cup. if bertuzzi holds out we can kiss our chances good bye. naslund will say that the owner will not spend to win the cup, and leave after his contract is over, and us canuck fans will have to wait many more years to even challenge it again.
also, when jagr, yashin, fedorov, guerin, etc earns $9M+, can you tell naslund and bertuzzi to take $4M per or go home?

cant they take that 12-14m they currently have and use it find replacements ? did we not effectivly replace Pavel Bure, Trevor Linden, Jeff Brown and Alex Moginly ? did ANA not replace Kariya in the same manner this off season ?

finally, you can tell who ever you want to take it or leave it. arent the owners doing just that right now ? why cant they have that resolve at contract time and just tell the fans the fact is they dont want to pay Bertuzzi more than 4m.

how contradictory to think the fans wont support it, considering the rhetoric on the talk shows and chat boards.

dr

 

[Scheme]

He did make this offer back in September. It is precisely the same framework. Except, even though the owners did no negotiating, they put their best offer on the table. If the owners think they can say, nice start, they are in a dreamworld.

Back when he made the same offer and said lets negotiate the numbers, Bettman said they werent speaking the same language. The same language is there.

No, back when Goodenow made that laughable offer - which was worse than his previous offer (talk about negotiating in bad faith!), he kept his head in the sand and completely refused to address the issue of the league's health. Now with this crazy paycut/bribe, everyone can see the emperor has no clothes and that Goodenow is essentially admitting that there are problems. Come on, the players are willing to bribe 24% of their salary just to keep this unhealthy system. Goodenow knew where the league stood back in September, but came out with an outrageous offer then - an insult even. My problem as a fan is this - why waste the owners and our time by proposing 5% when you were willing to go to 24%?

Now how do you propose a $30mil hard cap with a 5% pay boost? Make the top 50 players play in Europe?

Like another poster pointed out, it can be grandfathered in. Plus the players won't have to take a 24% paycut but instead get a raise. That's a significant concession by the league, don't you think? The players would be "nuts not to take it". :lol It just shows that it's not about the salary, it's about the system.

A bribe to keep the current system going? Well duh!

Well, thank you for finally admitting it. :lol

 

[Potatoe1]

cant they take that 12-14m they currently have and use it find replacements ? did we not effectivly replace Pavel Bure, Trevor Linden, Jeff Brown and Alex Moginly ? did ANA not replace Kariya in the same manner this off season ?

finally, you can tell who ever you want to take it or leave it. arent the owners doing just that right now ? why cant they have that resolve at contract time and just tell the fans the fact is they dont want to pay Bertuzzi more than 4m.

how contradictory to think the fans wont support it, considering the rhetoric on the talk shows and chat boards.

dr

This is utter nonsense.

Canuck fans would stage a revolt if the canucks refused to pay Bertuzzi and Nasland more than 4 mill.

You know this, what on earth is your point here?

 

[Pepper]

Common sense? At least the "small minority" can get its facts straight.

There are an awful lot of owner apologists who seem to think that Holik can be used in arbitration and that every player gets a mandatory 110% qualifying offer.

How come the "small minority" doesn't seem to be as ignorant about simple CBA facts as the majority?

Funny you should mention ignorance after yourself and couple of the most diehard PA-yahoos here have been shown to be completely wrong about the basic facts several times.

I'm willing to go against you head-to-head in any CBA argument any time and I have absolutely no doubt about which one emerges as the more knowledgeable.

The more I read your, Demented Realitys, SacredSensFans and Thinkwild's posts here the more I think that the most hardcore pro-PA crowd is nothing but snotty teenagers thinking they know it all. As a long-time hockey fan with special interest in pro sports economics & master's degree in international business & marketing, I can tell that in most cases you're so out of touch with reality that it's not even funny.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

cant they take that 12-14m they currently have and use it find replacements ? did we not effectivly replace Pavel Bure, Trevor Linden, Jeff Brown and Alex Moginly ? did ANA not replace Kariya in the same manner this off season ?
dr

are you seriously suggesting the canucks take that money (IMO, a tiny amount compare to what other teams have) and goto the UFA market and try to outbid the big market teams for a couple star players (naslund and bertuzzi calibre)?
the way anaheim replace kariya is not the way canucks replace bure, linden, brown and mogilny.

 

[me2]

no it didnt

Yes it did.

anyhow, you said Holik was a perfect example of what is wrong and i challenged it.

dr

How? You raised a completely seperate argument about the effects of UFA salary. That isn't what I was talking about (but of course you supposedly knew that. :lol ).

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

are you seriously suggesting the canucks take that money (IMO, a tiny amount compare to what other teams have) and goto the UFA market and try to outbid the big market teams for a couple star players (naslund and bertuzzi calibre)?
the way anaheim replace kariya is not the way canucks replace bure, linden, brown and mogilny.

actually, i wouldnt suggest that, but 15 million should be able to buy you some good talent, whether its aquired in trade or by signing.

dr

 

[YellHockey*]

Funny you should mention ignorance after yourself and couple of the most diehard PA-yahoos here have been shown to be completely wrong about the basic facts several times.

Name those times.

Prove you're not a liar and tell me what basic facts I've gotten wrong.

 

[Pepper]

Name those times.

Prove you're not a liar and tell me what basic facts I've gotten wrong.

I fully know what your intention is and where you're trying to take this discussion and I'm not gonna lower myself to some yes-no-yes-no argument with you about what facts you haven't understood.

Your lack of logic is well documented in several threads here and despite the obvious tactic of you wanting to get last word by claiming some win because I didn't show your lack of logic, I'm not gonna start searching those posts here.

Those who have been paying attention will know what I'm talking about.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

it should take you less than 3 mins to find some posts that he did that didnt make sense. almost the same amount of time it took you to respond to his post.

someone should take away your computer, since you clearly can't articulate any logical thoughts.

 

[YellHockey*]

I fully know what your intention is and where you're trying to take this discussion and I'm not gonna lower myself to some yes-no-yes-no argument with you about what facts you haven't understood..

You are a liar and you just proved it.

If you aren't man enough to back up your words, you really should be elsewhere.

You can't find one single example to back up your words so you're just trying to weasel out of it by making up excuses.

It's a black and white issue. Maybe I should give you the definitions of a fact.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

 

[SENSible1*]

You are a liar and you just proved it.

If you aren't man enough to back up your words, you really should be elsewhere.

You can't find one single example to back up your words so you're just trying to weasel out of it by making up excuses.

It's a black and white issue. Maybe I should give you the definitions of a fact.

No BRG, he's just seen your pitiful routine in action and couldn't be bothered. Smart decision Pepper.

 

[fifty_in39]

I think that the most hardcore pro-PA crowd is nothing but snotty teenagers thinking they know it all. As a long-time hockey fan with special interest in pro sports economics & master's degree in international business & marketing, I can tell that in most cases you're so out of touch with reality that it's not even funny.

Now we are trying to sound impressive with alleged credentials, but yet bowing to name calling. At what school did you attain such esteemed training?

 

[PecaFan]

Name those times.

Ooh ooh ooh, me me Mr. Kotter!

CH blatantly incorrect about rising salaries:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=2224335#post2224335

But to be fair, most PA type arguments are entirely opinion based with no facts to back them up, so this kind of thing can be rare.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

actually, i wouldnt suggest that, but 15 million should be able to buy you some good talent, whether its aquired in trade or by signing.

dr

trading requires the canucks to give up some assets to acquire assets. if all trades are hockey decisions (therefore, fair trades), then the canucks dont really improve at all, they just fill up 2 holes by creating holes elsewhere.
signing (since you are not suggesting UFA signings) means you either sign unsign players (those not good enough to have a contract to begin with) or other teams RFA (if they are the calibre of naslund/bertuzzi, most likely cost just as much as well as 5 first round picks). not really helping the team in the long run either.

 

[rt]

If it was soooooooooo terrible, then why did Bettman and Daly not say as much?

Get real. There is enough here to work with. All you have to do is look at Bettman and Daly's reaction.
They haven't been afraid to simply rip up past NHLPA negotiations within minutes.

So why did they act like there was something to work with this time?

Because there is.


Either that or Bettman's support among owners is cracking, and he's starting to feel the need to get something done.
Who knows? It ain't the deal he's looking for, but he could turn around and say "What other commissioner ever won 24 percent from a PA in negotiations?"

We'd all know it's not as great as he portends it to be. But when you're trying to save face, your're trying to save face.

He didn't dismiss it outright for PR reasons. Think about it.

 

[rt]

Rollback is stupid. The players got their contracts fair and square, they should get their money. 100% tax over $35M.

 

[quat]

No BRG, he's just seen your pitiful routine in action and couldn't be bothered. Smart decision Pepper.

Exactly.