Firing Goodenow

[hubofhockey]

two thoughts

First thought: As the smoke clears, do you believe anyone on ownership side -- be he/her an owner or a person in the corp. office -- could have done a better job of getting the labor side to the table and negotiating something better than Bettman and Co. will have negotiated? If not, then it makes no sense to fire Bettman. If so.....

Second thouht: Do you believe anyone on the player side could have done better, and sooner? If so -- and I believe we have seen just that in the last weeks via the moderates, including Gartner--then would that not deliver the answer about Goodenow?

Discuss.

- hub

 

[DKH]

First thought: As the smoke clears, do you believe anyone on ownership side -- be he/her an owner or a person in the corp. office -- could have done a better job of getting the labor side to the table and negotiating something better than Bettman and Co. will have negotiated? If not, then it makes no sense to fire Bettman. If so.....

Second thouht: Do you believe anyone on the player side could have done better, and sooner? If so -- and I believe we have seen just that in the last weeks via the moderates, including Gartner--then would that not deliver the answer about Goodenow?

Discuss.

- hub

Dupes, I have heard that sometime in February when the Kansas City Scouts come to town, Jacobs is going to darken whatever they are calling it by then (I wish I owned Viagra because the Viagra Dome is catchy) and Gary Bettman is going to have have a blow up doll likeness hoisted to the rafters. Bettman will be the envy of all four league poo-boars. Goodenow overplayed his hand. Had he understood the anger and resolve (and rainy lockout day money) he could have likely negotiated a phased in type of deal over three years that kept the game going and kept JR and Guerin making $8 and $9 mil as the ceiling and floor took shape.

He screwed up big time. Instead of razing the house and building a new one to the owners liking, Goodenow could have done different sections at a time. He led them to more cheese than they could ever eat, but in the end he led them off the pier.

 

[Street Hawk]

Outspoken Members...

What would be the advantage to firing Goodenow? Better to keep him on, IMHO. His advice about the lockout may not have been the best way to proceed but ultimately the responsibility lies with the players. His contract will be up before the new CBA expires. The PA has to pay him one way or the other, might as well make him work for it. He may fall on his sword anyway and resign.

Given the increasing number of players who have come out and said that the Feb deal was better, Bob, is going to have an interesting 3 years trying to smooth over the "process" with his boys.

If there was an attempt by the likes of Roenick, Iggy, Pronger, Esche, etc. to get a deal done behind Goodenow's back, that issue will have to be addressed at a PA meeting at some point in time.

Goodenow will have to answer to the PA on how he handled the entire process. Things like:

1) Why say "No Cap", then at the 11th hour offer a cap?
2) Why didn't the PA ever go through the NHL' books when they were offered a couple of years ago?
3) If team reps like Iggy and Esche were shot down when they tried to get a deal done, what is the structure of the PA membership? Why weren't the team reps listened to?

The PA may not dismiss Goodenow before his contract expires. Not too sure what the point would be, other than to bring in someone who can bring in a new perspective and look to forge a cooperative relationship with the owners, to bring trust to both sides, rather than a confrontational approach.

That said, I don't think Goodenow would have his contract renewed once it expires. There are probably too many players who are ticked off that they had to lose a year and wind up with a salary cap, a rollback, and linkage.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Thats because Bettman knew he screwed up on the last one and wanted to get things changed. Bettman has been a screw up since he came from the NBA.

Your post shows a lack of appreciation of the true facts and a lack of judgment of negotiation skills.

Bettman did not screw up in '94. He was submarined by the owners. He was instructed to extend the deal due to the need by the owners to get more expansion dollars, so the promise to the new teams was made to not have a lockout early in their life.

A screw-up who increased NHL revenues hugely. Who got them a big ticket TV deal (which the NHL frittered away with its turn to defensive hockey). Who increased sponsorship dollars through the roof. Who was able to keep owners form completely destroying themselves by at least surreptitiously controlling teams who wanted to sign RFA's like they all wanted to. Who devised a way for the owners to keep from turning on themselves in this lockout to their own detriment. Who played Goodenow for a complete stooge and the rank amateur that he is. Who secured the biggest givebacks in sports bargaining history. Who maintained control over 30 fractious owners and kept a lid on leaks. Who masterfully maneuvred things so that Goodenow not only was played for a complete amateur, but was SHOWN to be a complete amateur in front of his own constituency so as to ensure that the NHL next time will have a different bargaining partner than boob goodenow.

Yep. What a screwup.

 

[Digger12]

Just on a totally unrelated side note...can anyone pinpoint the last time Bob Goodenow issued forth any sort of press release or made a public appearance?

I honestly can't remember when.

 

[handtrick]

Just on a totally unrelated side note...can anyone pinpoint the last time Bob Goodenow issued forth any sort of press release or made a public appearance?

I honestly can't remember when.

One of my 'sources' said the last thing they heard Bob say was, "Gary, I thought you were going to give me a turn on top"........

 

[Steve L*]

Just on a totally unrelated side note...can anyone pinpoint the last time Bob Goodenow issued forth any sort of press release or made a public appearance?

I honestly can't remember when.

Wasnt it when he made a fool of himself just after the season was cancelled?

 

[chiavsfan]

Wasnt it when he made a fool of himself just after the season was cancelled?

You mean...

BG: "Why don't you ask them, THEY cancelled the season...IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT!!! IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT!!!!!"

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Your post shows a lack of appreciation of the true facts and a lack of judgment of negotiation skills.

Bettman did not screw up in '94. He was submarined by the owners. He was instructed to extend the deal due to the need by the owners to get more expansion dollars, so the promise to the new teams was made to not have a lockout early in their life.

If Bettman didn't "screw up" in 1994, then he gets no credit for the "win" in 2005. As much as he's going to get credit for this negotation, he should receive an equal amount of blame for the 94 deal and the subsequent re-signings of that deal.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Didn't the owners go around him to sign the last CBA against his wishes? I can see why he should be fired because his bosses (the owners) decide to not take his advice and it turned out badly for them...

Point his here that both sides are to blame, but if push comes to shove and I had to make a choice, I'd can Gary first.

 

[Brewleaguer]

I wouldnt put him on the block with some owners claiming to have lost less money by not having a season.

They might have lost less money, but you need a revenue stream to move forward, which they had little of.

 

[Slats432]

Anyone catch Andrew Ference's comments on Sportsnet?

He was asked if Bettman and Goodenow were the reason they were in this mess.

He stated "They are what is wrong with the business side of the game."

No endorsement for Bob there.

 

[GKJ]

Bettman did not screw up in '94. He was submarined by the owners. He was instructed to extend the deal due to the need by the owners to get more expansion dollars, so the promise to the new teams was made to not have a lockout early in their life.

The Minnesota Wild and Columbus Blue Jackets would have been 5 years old this past season. That's not early?

 

[GKJ]

Anyone catch Andrew Ference's comments on Sportsnet?

He was asked if Bettman and Goodenow were the reason they were in this mess.

He stated "They are what is wrong with the business side of the game."

No endorsement for Bob there.

Andrew Ference has made waves before in the media not giving an endorsement to Bob, and this was before the season was canceled.

 

[superstar436]

Bettman's just doing what he's told to do by the owners. They said go out and get us cost certainty. He did that. I can't see why he would be fired for that.

he will be fired because owners realized that they are in this big mess because of his incompetency. When he came in the league 11 years ago he promised them to become the n#2 league behind NFL. Today, hockey is so behind that some dog racing event has more tv ratings than the Stanley cup final.

he screwed up the gae in all aspects whether it is the show or the finacial aspect.
Not only that but I guess that owners no will cocentrate about the game more than financial because people are sick and tired of it. And everybody knows that Bettman still does not know an offside from an icing.

 

[GSC2k2*]

If Bettman didn't "screw up" in 1994, then he gets no credit for the "win" in 2005. As much as he's going to get credit for this negotation, he should receive an equal amount of blame for the 94 deal and the subsequent re-signings of that deal.

That logic only applies if the facts are the same. They are not.

Bettman signed against his better judgment in '94. He is getting his way this time.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

That logic only applies if the facts are the same. They are not.

Bettman signed against his better judgment in '94. He is getting his way this time.

The facts are identical. He was the leader, and failed to push his agenda across in 1994, and in 2005 he succeeded.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well, it isn't cutting it both ways, but I can see you have thought the issue through (!?) and have convinced yourself.

I will accept that persuading the owners is a key (primary? I dunno) duty. However, in that regard I would point out to you another key factual difference. In '94 Bettman had been on the job a few years. In 05 he has been around longer than many owners. He proved himself through some tough sledding with bankruptcies, etc. He had the cachet now that he did not have as a "new boy" then.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Well, it isn't cutting it both ways, but I can see you have thought the issue through (!?) and have convinced yourself.

I will accept that persuading the owners is a key (primary? I dunno) duty. However, in that regard I would point out to you another key factual difference. In '94 Bettman had been on the job a few years. In 05 he has been around longer than many owners. He proved himself through some tough sledding with bankruptcies, etc. He had the cachet now that he did not have as a "new boy" then.

You're making excuses for him in 1994. Bettman was brought in because he caem from Basketball, and he failed to deliver the first time. Wsa it 100% his fault? Certainly not, but as much credit as he gets for this deal he deserves an equal amount of blame for the last decade.

It would be like giving Lou Lamarillo all the credit for the Devils great draft record, but then when they pick a stiff blaming it all on David Conte or their other scouts.

 

[GSC2k2*]

You're making excuses for him in 1994. Bettman was brought in because he caem from Basketball, and he failed to deliver the first time. Wsa it 100% his fault? Certainly not, but as much credit as he gets for this deal he deserves an equal amount of blame for the last decade.

It would be like giving Lou Lamarillo all the credit for the Devils great draft record, but then when they pick a stiff blaming it all on David Conte or their other scouts.

In an attempt to find common ground, I will say this. In '94, Bettman failed to anticipate that his owners would prove to be too fractured to hold together. He failed to recognize that they were not as united as NBA owners. I don't really consider that a failing, since he clearly had a limited amount of sway at that point even though he was commissioner, but to each his own.

THe fact remians that the facts were different in the two scenarios. Bettman performed as well as could be hoped in those two different fact situations.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Bettman performed as well as could be hoped in those two different fact situations.

 

[GSC2k2*]

And thus endeth another enlightening exchange ...

 

[Slats432]

Sorry John, I agree with gs...

Bettman had million dollar fines, only 7 GMs needed to kill any deal. The truth is that owners made Bettman cave in 1994, because he didn't have enough control. Now with total control, he was able to deliver the deal they wanted.

(Although I wouldn't give him tons of credit because of his crappy negotiating style.)

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Sorry John, I agree with gs...

Bettman had million dollar fines, only 7 GMs needed to kill any deal. The truth is that owners made Bettman cave in 1994, because he didn't have enough control. Now with total control, he was able to deliver the deal they wanted.

(Although I wouldn't give him tons of credit because of his crappy negotiating style.)

I agree that he had much more control over this negotation, but part of being a leader is getting your message across, and in 1994, he failed to do so.

His job in 1994 was much harder and Goodenow whipped his ass. His job in 2005 was far easier and Gary hammered Bob.

All in all Gary gets way to much credit/blame for whatever happens.

 

[Malefic74]

My impression is that Bettman has accepted some blame for 94 already. He has spoken before on the subject and came across (to me anyway) as a man who recognized a past mistake. It was probably a very large motivating factor in this round of negociations.

Bettman doesn't always do the right thing, but at least he does something. He tries to make changes for the better on and off the ice. The expansion cities he brought into the fold have been successful. Ottawa has been a perrenial contender for several seasons now. The Sharks draw good crowds. The Jackets and Wild draw huge crowds, more than a fair number of established franchises. The Panthers had a run to the Finals and seem stocked for the future, as are the Thrashers. The Ducks had a Finals run and look to improve under Burke. The Lightning won the Cup.
Only Nashville has struggled in their market, and even then their series with Detroit was entertaining and seemed to draw in casual fans.

Compare that to someone like Selig who has been a walking punchline for years. The Devil Rays and Rockies are jokes, big market owners do their own thing regardless of consequence to the league as a whole, and one team has been owned by the league for 3 seasons now and STILL doesn't have a permanent home.

Unfortunately Bettman may not be Paul Taglibue, but thank the gods he's not Bud Selig.