Meeting Complete - Goodenow/bettman Joining Talks Tomorrow
- Thread starter Scoogs
- Start date
- Status
wazee said:
I don't care if the players choose to cave on the key issue. (I do care about the other issues, most particularly the age of free agency. If the players decide to accept linkage, they are the ones getting screwed. If part of the deal is early free agency, it will be the fans in small markets who get screwed.)
It's up to them. I don't think they will, not now or not this time next year. They will decertify first. If the owners don't cave now, I would not expect them to cave this time next year either. I expect we will see exactly what we do see until basically everybody forgets the league ever existed. Chris Chelios and Steve Yzerman could be voting "No" to a cap in five years.
Tom
They should have more labor experts and business reporters writing about this lockout and fewer hockey reporters who have no clue about labor negotiations. This is much more about business than it is about sports.
Jag68Sid87
Sullivan gots to go!
X-Sharkie,
actually yes the season should be lost because THAT issue is the only issue that matters. IF they could agree on the salary cap issue, this deal could get done within 2-3 hours, max. But they're at the same point they've been since September, so yeah the season should be lost. This is a philosophical issue that will lead to casualties. That's just the way it is.
Whatever the future, the NHL as we remember it will be no more. In some cases, that's a very good thing. However, not in all cases and that's the great unknown right now.
Personally, I think that perhaps this new wordage being thrown out there, LINKAGE, may be the key to the whole process. If players are REALLY opposed to this even more than a hard cap, then perhaps that's the strategy the league is going to use...try to push for linkage, knowing that the second-best option is really what they wanted all along...a hard salary cap.
Pure speculation on my part.
actually yes the season should be lost because THAT issue is the only issue that matters. IF they could agree on the salary cap issue, this deal could get done within 2-3 hours, max. But they're at the same point they've been since September, so yeah the season should be lost. This is a philosophical issue that will lead to casualties. That's just the way it is.
Whatever the future, the NHL as we remember it will be no more. In some cases, that's a very good thing. However, not in all cases and that's the great unknown right now.
Personally, I think that perhaps this new wordage being thrown out there, LINKAGE, may be the key to the whole process. If players are REALLY opposed to this even more than a hard cap, then perhaps that's the strategy the league is going to use...try to push for linkage, knowing that the second-best option is really what they wanted all along...a hard salary cap.
Pure speculation on my part.
Jag68Sid87
Sullivan gots to go!
Tom_Benjamin said:
See, I disagree with this notion. I think the NHL should completely eliminate Restricted Free Agency and all that comes with it (holdouts, salary arbitration), and I don't think that would hurt small markets at all. So what if a small market club is incapable of keeping player X? Wherever player X goes, the small market club's fans will know that the team that signs him cannot load up with great players from everywhere under a hard cap system. Also, it creates an opening on the small market club for another player to come in. Perhaps even a player that fits the style of play of that small market club even better than player X.
I really don't think the small markets would be hurt at all if after a player's entry-level contract, they'd be all free. Yes, initially there probably would be greater roster turnover. However, over time I think the GM's would learn how to lock up their core players earlier and also make quicker decisions on some of the periphery players. It's an education for the GM's as much as for anybody else.
Let's use Edmonton as an example. Under a hard cap, perhaps the Oilers would have lost Mike Comrie during the off-season last year if he were a total free agent. But they would have been able to lose his salary and replace it with another relatively comparable player (and obviously someone who would want to play in Edmonton far more than Comrie).
Instead, under the last CBA, there was a trade holdout, followed by a forced trade, followed by a search for a comparable replacement which turned out to be Adam Oates. Whenever you have to replace a RFA/holdout situation with a remaining UFA, chances are you're not getting an equal player...and the Oilers didn't...through no fault of Oates (one of my favorite players of all time, but he just didn't have anything left, and even if he did it wouldn't have come out with a fast-skating, hard-checking team like the Oil).
So, in my opinion, the owners shouldn't worry about salary arbitration or restricted free agency qualifying offers et al. If they can get a hard cap, they should drop all those other headaches...which would be a very good thing for the league. Holdouts are real momentum killers for franchises, because the players holding out are usually all-star caliber.
IcemanTBI
Registered User
My 2 cents
To those who say that because Bob and Gary are joining tomorrow's meeting means that a deal is inevitable, why on earth didn't Saskin or Daly come out and say to the media "Deal is imminent. Very close. Gary and Bob will seal the deal. Players have been told to get back to NA and report to training camp"? What would be the purpose of today saying "no deal, still big differences" and then tomorrow "deal signed. Season starts in 2 weeks"? If a deal was nearly a sure thing that only required Bob and Gary's signatures, either side would have said something. What would be the point of BS'ing the media? Plus, the players would have a few hours extra (at this stage, every hour counts) to pack and get on over here.
My guess is that they are going to talk about incidentals, such as what they will do to the 2005 Entry Draft, etc... And possibly even cancelling the season.
Sorry, I just don't see a deal forthcoming. IMHO this season is toast.
To those who say that because Bob and Gary are joining tomorrow's meeting means that a deal is inevitable, why on earth didn't Saskin or Daly come out and say to the media "Deal is imminent. Very close. Gary and Bob will seal the deal. Players have been told to get back to NA and report to training camp"? What would be the purpose of today saying "no deal, still big differences" and then tomorrow "deal signed. Season starts in 2 weeks"? If a deal was nearly a sure thing that only required Bob and Gary's signatures, either side would have said something. What would be the point of BS'ing the media? Plus, the players would have a few hours extra (at this stage, every hour counts) to pack and get on over here.
My guess is that they are going to talk about incidentals, such as what they will do to the 2005 Entry Draft, etc... And possibly even cancelling the season.
Sorry, I just don't see a deal forthcoming. IMHO this season is toast.
Gary doesn't need Bob to cancel the season. Bob would not be wasting his time flying to meet Gary if he thought there was no hope.
This season won't be cancelled until Gary calls a BOG meeting, he doesn't need to, but he will so he doesn't look like the bad guy.
Do I think this season will be saved? No, but not because I think the two are meeting just to call the season off.
This season won't be cancelled until Gary calls a BOG meeting, he doesn't need to, but he will so he doesn't look like the bad guy.
Do I think this season will be saved? No, but not because I think the two are meeting just to call the season off.
Scoogs
Registered User
They are going to give it one more shot, trying to get a deal done between both of them so that they look like THEY made the deal. If a deal was struck before with those small groups where they werent present, then they would not be the heroes.
This time, its either they are the heroes or the *******s who lost an NHL season.
This time, its either they are the heroes or the *******s who lost an NHL season.
CarlRacki
Registered User
- Feb 9, 2004
- 1,442
- 2
Tom_Benjamin said:
Under a cap, this is not true. A cap eliminates the one major advantage large-market teams hold over those in smaller markets - deeper pockets. Other advantages will remain (i.e. guys will always want to play in some places), but they'll be minimized.
txomisc
Registered User
Jester
Registered User
IcemanTBI said:My 2 cents
To those who say that because Bob and Gary are joining tomorrow's meeting means that a deal is inevitable, why on earth didn't Saskin or Daly come out and say to the media "Deal is imminent. Very close. Gary and Bob will seal the deal. Players have been told to get back to NA and report to training camp"? What would be the purpose of today saying "no deal, still big differences" and then tomorrow "deal signed. Season starts in 2 weeks"? If a deal was nearly a sure thing that only required Bob and Gary's signatures, either side would have said something. What would be the point of BS'ing the media? Plus, the players would have a few hours extra (at this stage, every hour counts) to pack and get on over here.
My guess is that they are going to talk about incidentals, such as what they will do to the 2005 Entry Draft, etc... And possibly even cancelling the season.
Sorry, I just don't see a deal forthcoming. IMHO this season is toast.
well... they are still negotiating.
Saskin:
would be out of his mind to come out of ANY meeting prior to going in there to get a deal done and say, "hey, this looks pretty good." even if the NHLPA is willing to accept the current deal, but operating under the assumption that they have until this weekend to finalize a deal they are going to say, "we don't like this and this."
why?
cuz they want to get the NHL to move off of those positions in a favorable sway for them. you cannot get caught up paying attention to what people are saying in the PR campaign, which is EVERY press release, player quote (outside of the ones that are then taken back due to the fact that they are undermining the NHLPA's position), etc... are all aimed at getting you to listen to their side of the story, or to place some pressure on the owners to move.
so until a deal is actually struck -- assuming the NHLPA is the group that is on the run (safe assumption i think) -- they aren't going to say anything good about anything until the last possible second... aka, when they sign the deal.
furthermore, as i noted earlier, the NHLPA is going to be nowhere near a discussion to cancel the season. their PR campaign in the event that the season is cancelled will be, "the owners did it." therefore, they don't want to be sitting in a room discussing the cancelling of the season and the details involved. do you really think the NHLPA cares about how teams operate the draft? not one bit.
they are NOT going there to discuss the cancellation of the season.
Daly:
why would he come out of the meeting and say, "we GOT our deal?" i mean for starters, they don't have a deal yet. even if they are really close, and the deal that is out there is very much closer to the owners view... that would be sorta showing them up, which is the last thing he'd want to do prior to the deal actually getting signed (especially when you are including a clause that allows the NHLPA to re-open this thing on their own decision basis).
in any event, the reason i'm getting more optimistic is specifically because of the stuff you are talking about. more meetings, suddenly a flury of players saying, "i don't see a deal to be made blah blah." the ownes in edmonton saying, "we will die without a cap blah blah." it's all the PR of a deal being close and both sides pressuring the other through outside sources to sweeten up their offers and willingness to move.
doesn't mean a deal is going to get done... but them spouting off to the media that the season is done, at face value means very little.
And I am sure the young guys that Yzerman, Chelios, Pronger, etc. claim to be doing this for will be writing them thank you notes....as they ride buses and play for thousands instead of millions...Tom_Benjamin said:
PecaFan
Registered User
Tom_Benjamin said:
Hey Tom, got a movie here for ya. Fits your personal philosophy:
http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/
A CBA with certainty will take MONTHS! to negotiate!!!
Can the league be SAVED!?!
A cap will DEVASTATE small market teams!!!
The stoplight will NEVER turn green again!!!
Have you ever met a small issue in your life?
That said, I don't believe the players are going to back down from their ludicrous "no cap" stance. Bob is going to New York with the expectation that the owners will cave, and will present his modified offer from December. Gary will look at him and tell him to get stuffed.
Then on Sunday, while the world is busy with the Super Bowl, the NHL will cancel the season. Half the world won't even notice it was cancelled, since it'll be on page 108 of the sports sections.
Cawz
Registered User
They said the PA must concede, or all GM cars will explode.Bruwinz37 said:
I would be too, except for the fact that the content contained nothing new (as per the last couple months). Sadly, the cars shed as much light on the discussions as the participants did. "Your door is ajar..." "We have philisophical differences..."Bruwinz37 said:
I just thought it was funny (ironic funny not ha ha funny) since someone mentioned GM labour disbutes in this thread.
IcemanTBI said:My 2 cents
To those who say that because Bob and Gary are joining tomorrow's meeting means that a deal is inevitable, why on earth didn't Saskin or Daly come out and say to the media "Deal is imminent. Very close. Gary and Bob will seal the deal. Players have been told to get back to NA and report to training camp"? What would be the purpose of today saying "no deal, still big differences" and then tomorrow "deal signed. Season starts in 2 weeks"? If a deal was nearly a sure thing that only required Bob and Gary's signatures, either side would have said something. What would be the point of BS'ing the media? Plus, the players would have a few hours extra (at this stage, every hour counts) to pack and get on over here.
My guess is that they are going to talk about incidentals, such as what they will do to the 2005 Entry Draft, etc... And possibly even cancelling the season.
Sorry, I just don't see a deal forthcoming. IMHO this season is toast.
Because then Dumb and Dumber get the credit and the glory for "hammering out the tough issues and making the agreement." Not their underlings.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Accepting something they don't like is hardly "getting screwed". What exactly do you see happening to salaries if they accept the link... I mean compared to the 24% rollback the PA offered? Since the salaries are pretty much the same, why is linkage so horrible? And I mean in dollars, not some moral statement.
Icey said:
Sure he would. Bob wants to be there so he can say "I was there as a representative of the players ready and willing to discuss a reasoned resolution to this dispute, when the NHL became the first league in North American sports history to cancel an entire season."
i think the fact that Goodenow and Bettman are joining today's meeting could mean a growing importance of the talks. a deal could be near; or even a cancelled season ...
hossy316
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: 2023-24 season game 82 LA Kings vs Chicago Blackhawks @7:30pm 4/18/24- Latest: Little Psycho
-
-
