Larry Brooks 6/26

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The mantra amongst our gang of fans: They're all temporary.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I guess im one of those new age fans that think OUTSIDE the box, liking a team, but also liking players, OMG who would have ever thought of doing that? I am still a Senators fan and guess what? I still hope former Senators players do well. I loved Ron Tugnutt while in Ottawa (and the people of Ottawa still love Tugnutt even though he doesnt play for them anymore) and I wanted to see him do well in OTHER cities where he played as well. But I guess Tugnutt is one of those evil 700 NHLPA members with a soul corrupted by greed. I don't see how saying nasty things about Sidorkiewicz has any point to what you were trying to prove either. Sidorkiewicz is an NHL-Allstar, are you?

 

[Epsilon]

What's funny is that the same usual suspects post over and over again about how the players are temporary/don't mean anything, but then these very same people sure really do seem to care about "big-name stars" playing for "big-market teams".

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I guess im one of those new age fans that think OUTSIDE the box, liking a team, but also liking players, OMG who would have ever thought of doing that? I am still a Senators fan and guess what? I still hope former Senators players do well. I loved Ron Tugnutt while in Ottawa (and the people of Ottawa still love Tugnutt even though he doesnt play for them anymore) and I wanted to see him do well in OTHER cities where he played as well. But I guess Tugnutt is one of those evil 700 NHLPA members with a soul corrupted by greed. I don't see how saying nasty things about Sidorkiewicz has any point to what you were trying to prove either. Sidorkiewicz is an NHL-Allstar, are you?

Look, all fans like certain players as well as liking a team. But some of us know the reality that players will go as often as not. It is a nice change for some of us that when we see what was at the time by consensus considered to be the best player in the league go (like Jagr in our case) we also see comparable coming in at times as well . . . not having to constantly have things like Kris Beech and a couple a meat heads come back. It gets old constantly being sellers, never buyers . . . very quickly old. And forgive me after going through trade after trade like this to feel some personal satisfaction and a smirk at seeing some who have never gone through this have to now to get under a cap.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Look, all fans like certain players as well as liking a team. But some of us know the reality that players will go as often as not. It is a nice change for some of us that when we see what was at the time by consensus considered to be the best player in the league go (like Jagr in our case) we also see comparable coming in at times as well . . . not having to constantly have things like Kris Beech and a couple a meat heads come back.

I do know players come and go, all I was trying to say is there is nothing wrong with liking players who play on your team, but some people on here make it out to be such a huge crime for some reason, and I really don't understand it.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

What's funny is that the same usual suspects post over and over again about how the players are temporary/don't mean anything, but then these very same people sure really do seem to care about "big-name stars" playing for "big-market teams".

Well, I used the "temporary" line, and I've never said the players don't mean anything, and my team is certainly anything but big-market.

I love our players dearly. I don't want any of our core to go anywhere. But I'm also realistic -- very few players last their entire career with one team. Therefore, team first, players second. Marty St. Louis remains unsigned -- if we lose him, what should I do? Become of fan of his new team, or remain a fan of the Lightning? It's a no-brainer for me.

(And while I hope my favorite ex-Bolts do well with their new teams, I hope they do squat when they play the Bolts.)

 

[transplant99]

I do know players come and go, all I was trying to say is there is nothing wrong with liking players who play on your team, but some people on here make it out to be such a huge crime for some reason, and I really don't understand it.

Have an affair with them if you so desire, no one is saying you cant adore the players.

That doesn't change the fact that they were FLAT OUT wrong in their stance the last 3 years.


Try seperating the two things.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Have an affair with them if you so desire, no one is saying you cant adore the players.

That doesn't change the fact that they were FLAT OUT wrong in their stance the last 3 years.


Try seperating the two things.

Actually theres no such thing as a right or wrong stance on this issue. They lost their stance, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong. Each side had their justifications for what they did, then one side ended coming out on top, the owners. It doesn't make them right, nor does it make them wrong. They had their stance and they got it.

Theres also a difference between liking players and adoring them.

 

[kenabnrmal]

Have an affair with them if you so desire, no one is saying you cant adore the players.

That doesn't change the fact that they were FLAT OUT wrong in their stance the last 3 years.


Try seperating the two things.

That wasn't what you and Icon were saying though. I never agreed with the players' stance, however I certainly am a fan of the players, as well as the teams, and even the game. So I clearly am able to separate the two entities. Those are the three levels...and theres nothing wrong with being a fan of all three. Being a fan of just the teams and the game definitely is nothing to be arrogant about.

"Players come and go.....i dont get all fuzzy,warm, girl school attachments to them. You would be well advised to seek the same course me thinks."

You do what you want, let others do what they want. There is nothing wrong or weak about appreciating the individual players, just as there is nothing righteous about giving them the cold shoulder.


" Or are you telling me that you worshipped a piece of garbage like Peter Sidorkiewicz his whole career and aren't really an Ottawa fan, but a fan of what ever third rate beer league Sidorkiewicz finds himself in now? I mean, there's no reason to cheer for the Senators any more, you're hero is long gone!"

Do you really need to be such a jerk towards anyone who displays any affinity for any individual player whatsoever? You're a quality poster and seem like a decent guy, but this crap destroys any enjoyment that may have come from this debate. There is no right or wrong in this debate at all, so its senseless to act so definitive about it.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Actually theres no such thing as a right or wrong stance on this issue. They lost their stance, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong.

Sure there is a right and wrong, and sure their position was wrong. On a strategic and tactical basis, the players got it wrong. Horribly wrong. A colossal, dismissal-level blunder unequalled in sports collective bargaining history. EVen the worst blunders by the MLB owners cannot rival it. Horrific judgment that even non-professionals could see.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Sure there is a right and wrong, and sure their position was wrong. On a strategic and tactical basis, the players got it wrong. Horribly wrong. A colossal, dismissal-level blunder unequalled in sports collective bargaining history. EVen the worst blunders by the MLB owners cannot rival it. Horrific judgment that even non-professionals could see.

Sorry I think I didn't give enough detail on my opinion here. On the strategic and tactical basis yeah I definitely think the NHLPA did get it wrong. I was just saying in simpler terms of the argument of cap vs. no cap there is no right or wrong answer. That is my opinion anyway. Both arguments have valid point and its a debate just like any other. The way the NHLPA handled things I definitely think was wrong, but the whole issue itself I really don't believe has a right or wrong answer.

 

[NYIsles1*]

You can tell Brooks is running out of things to write about when he asks the same questions he asks to the general public

Mr Brooks works in the largest baseball market in the US and has to write articles on the Yankees and Mets as part of his job these days.

 

[jpsharkfan]

Haha, I know....also remember his article in Feb stating a deal in principle had been agreed apawn?...oh wait that was you...nm.

Your right that was Eklund....it was also Espn, Tsn, Sportsnet, etc etc etc and speaking of "pawns" why dont you ask Gretzky and Lemieux what they were told that got them to New York?

 

[Trizent]

Your right that was Eklund....it was also Espn, Tsn, Sportsnet, etc etc etc and speaking of "pawns" why dont you ask Gretzky and Lemieux what they were told that got them to New York?

Hockey News broke the story first.

 

[leafaholix*]

Any thoughts on Eklund's real name?

Initials being DKK... Philadelphia area... ?

 

[RangerBoy]

Like this one?

Or this one

Or even this one

He's a PA and Rangers' schill in this lockout nothing more.

THe 24% rollback has been bandied about for months. The buyout rumor also predates his column. And none of this is proven yet.

The 24% rollback was assumed to be off the table when the NHL cancelled the season back in February.Many people thought Bob Goodenow including former MLBPA head Marvin Miller thought Goodenow was off his rocker and would never allow the 24% rollback to be part of any CBA

The buyout rumor predates his June 19 column.Really?Only Ken Campbell of the Toronto Star mentioned anything about buyouts not being counted against the cap but Campbell said it would be limited to two buyouts in compromise for honoring the 2004-05 contracts

Brooks is a Rangers shill?Nine out of ten Ranger mentions by Brooks is negative.Is that a shill by your definition

 

[RangerBoy]

Mr Brooks works in the largest baseball market in the US and has to write articles on the Yankees and Mets as part of his job these days.

Hey William,how many papers in the U.S. have a weekly column on the NHL?Even during the lockout?

 

[RangerBoy]

My favorite Larry Brooks "inside" information quote of the lockout...

"There's not a chance the union is going to cave; not a chance. "... Larry Brooks Oct.31, 2004

That is an opinion

 

[RangerBoy]

best post of the day!

Hey Eklund or DDK or DKK or whatever your real name is,what happened to your franchise player NFL type system which according to your sources,the NHL was going to adopt?

Your sources are the voices inside your head

 

[RangerBoy]

I'm not sure RangerBoy is in his right mind, but he did.

Do you have a problem with me?His information regarding the lockout is usually right on.Your problem is that you hate Brooks because he wrote the Rangers were going to sign Joe Sakic and Rob Blake four years ago.I'm sure Glen Sather consulted with Uncle Larry about his plans

 

[The Legend]

Nope. I will be more than pleased to know ownership across the league are now invested in a business model that will allow all teams to survive as long as they make smart decisions. Sort of what hockey was ALL about for a century before the buffoonery that entered the league in the early 90's.

Did the owners have to sign the players to those expensive contracts? The business model they are all invested in is to put a cap on their own spending because they obviously can't control it themselves.

 

[Hasbro]

Do you have a problem with me?His information regarding the lockout is usually right on.Your problem is that you hate Brooks because he wrote the Rangers were going to sign Joe Sakic and Rob Blake four years ago.I'm sure Glen Sather consulted with Uncle Larry about his plans

Not you, but calling out Larry's dubious credibility is hardly a revolutionary or inapropriate stance.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Did the owners have to sign the players to those expensive contracts? The business model they are all invested in is to put a cap on their own spending because they obviously can't control it themselves.

They couldn't, the NHLPA controlled the price of the product.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

The business model they are all invested in is to put a cap on their own spending because they obviously can't control it themselves.

That's a gross and inaccurate description.

But suppose your fantasy world was 100% true. My question would be: Is what the owners are trying to accomplish a bad thing?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Why take that attitude? The Owners and players had strong reasons to take the positions that they did. That conflict of reasons created the lockout and ensured that it would live as long as it did. Those who back one side or another have their own strong reasons for doing so, for most it is because you are either used to having your way in the league because your team has financial clout and hate seeing that end, or you are sick of seeing your best players leave and back strongly a sytem that promises to end that.

So in the end I understand totally why this occured as it did. But 'EVERY SINGLE meaningful concession throughout this lockout'? That is an almost meaningless rant. This never was about settling on small differences, like the NBA CBA was about for instance. It was about the future of the entire sport and whether they would make a fundemental change or basically remain the same as before with a bit of tinkering around the edges. It always had to be almost completely an all or nothing thing, so to say that the players gave and gave and gave is ridiculous. They had to give on the fundemental system or the owners had to. The 'giving' that the players did, in the grande scheme of that struggle, was fairly meaningless, wasn't it?

Whatever.
They gave. And they gave.

It didn't HAVE to be an "all or nothing" negotiation.
That's just what it turned into.

A game of chicken.

Why? Because the owners refused to negotiate.
It was, as bettman said, take it or leave it.

Now maybe there are some people out there actually stupid enough to believe that a salary cap was the only way to bring the league to good health.

I'm assuming that you know the difference between wanting and needing.
The owners didn't need a cap.

But they were prepared to fight for it.
And they won the battle of public opinion rather easily, because people are rather quick to lash out against the million dollar contracts they see in the sports page every day.

So don't come off saying that it had to be "all or nothing" and then call me ridiculous for suggesting otherwise.

Over the course of the lockout, I've seen several proposals that could have worked for the league.