Meeting Day Thread: 6/3

[Oilhitch]

The only people who really what is going on is the people in the room and they are not talking

They damn well better be talking.....to each other at the very least

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

And by the way, if your teams had trouble competing under the previous CBA, it is because they had poor or mediocre management, and nothing to do with the CBA. It would seem that a simpleton would blame the CBA on their team's shortcomings, rather than manager incompetence.

As a Sens fan I do not find comfort in a CBA that is trying to create an idiot proof/management immune system where the cap can limit those who manage too well, and also reward those who can't manage at all.

1) So it was the Oilers fault they had to move every decent player approaching UFA status, or someone else would offer Luke Richardson or Todd Marchant $3M? I'm not saying the team is blameless, but name me a small market team that was able to match the contract offer from a big spending on a true impact player?

2) So the proposed CBA will save the Islanders from overpaying Alexi Yashin? Or the Bruins from overpaying Martin Lapointe? Or the Habs from overpaying Czerkawski and McKay? I don't think so. As I see it, it hopefully allows all of the teams at least a chance to consistently compete. Even more so, I think it will be better for teams with smart management because it will penalize the teams that make really bad contractual mistakes (Wings w/ Krupp, Rangers with Kasparitis, etc).

 

[Ronald Pagan]

No a maroon would assume they went bankrupt solely because of the cba.

How else did they become bankrupt then?

 

[Montrealer]

No a maroon would assume they went bankrupt solely because of the cba.

Absolutely - there were a raft of factors.

However, sitting there and pretending the Senators are going to be worse off under the rumoured CBAs we're hearing about is just plain annoying to anyone with half a brain.

 

[gary69]

Yes, that's why nearly 70% of the cups during the previous CBA were won by teams with Top10 payroll.



Every single of your feeble arguments have been shot down several months ago, why do you expect anyone to believe that crap this time??

I agree that this has been argued ad infinitum, but the question still remains: which is the cause and which is the effect.

I still believe that under the old CBA the best were (eventually, and rightly so) the best paid ones. As your answer implies, that you would rather see that the worst teams to be the best paid ones, well, I simply disagree.

 

[hubofhockey]

Most of the stuff reported by these radio stations and websites about the status of the talks is mostly BS.The only people who really what is going on is the people in the room and they are not talking

And I would submit, all these months later, that even the people in the negotiating room don't know what was going on! If they did, it wouldn't be June 3, with no deal done.
History will not be kind to either side, but it will be especially harsh on labor's side, for one simple fact--in the end, they got EVERYTHING they didn't want. EVERYTHING!
Short of the PATCO employees all getting fired, and baseball umpires quitting, it's the most botched show of labor force that I can remember. And in so many ways, its roots trace back to long ago, when labor leadership actually colluded with owners. Ah, irony, so sweet

kpd/hoh

 

[Mr Sakich]

Maybe I should have limited my comments to smart fans, not fans in general. Because as has become clear throughout the lockout, the majority of fans are either naive, uninformed or misguided when the 'business of hockey' is the topic of discussion.

And by the way, if your teams had trouble competing under the previous CBA, it is because they had poor or mediocre management, and nothing to do with the CBA. It would seem that a simpleton would blame the CBA on their team's shortcomings, rather than manager incompetence.

As a Sens fan I do not find comfort in a CBA that is trying to create an idiot proof/management immune system where the cap can limit those who manage too well, and also reward those who can't manage at all.

as a sens fan, you should be gratefull that the team managed to steal a bunch of pensioner's money or else they would have been forced to move. It is rich to hear a sens fan talking down to other small market teams's fans when, the only reason your team exists is because of thier incredibly shady ownership history.

I am a tax payer and have had the priveledge to support your team. SHow me a little more respect.

edit - IMO, Senator fans should sit on the sidelines when it comes to all things related to finances and the NHL.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

1) So it was the Oilers fault they had to move every decent player approaching UFA status, or someone else would offer Luke Richardson or Todd Marchant $3M? I'm not saying the team is blameless, but name me a small market team that was able to match the contract offer from a big spending on a true impact player?

2) So the proposed CBA will save the Islanders from overpaying Alexi Yashin? Or the Bruins from overpaying Martin Lapointe? Or the Habs from overpaying Czerkawski and McKay? I don't think so. As I see it, it hopefully allows all of the teams at least a chance to consistently compete. Even more so, I think it will be better for teams with smart management because it will penalize the teams that make really bad contractual mistakes (Wings w/ Krupp, Rangers with Kasparitis, etc).

1. How is a lowered UFA age, coming no doubt with the new CBA, going to help the Oilers? They'll lose players even earlier under the new CBA. You consider Luke Richardson and Todd Marchant impact players?
Just incase you're still misguided:

-UFA players are not who you should build your team around. There should be a select few on a championship team. Most of the good lpayers on winning teams are between the ages of 22-30. The Oilers had full control over who they kept and who they didn't between these ages (well 18 - 30 really)

2. Teams shouldn't have a schedule where they all compete within a certain time period. There should be very few (5-6) elite teams in the league. All the rest are either

a) Rebuilding
b) Declining
c) Stuck in mediocrity

The 24 or so teams that are not elite should strive to become elite by rebuilding, making good trades of blowing up an aging core and starting over again.

I fail to see how forcing a team to spend a minimum, reducing the UFA age and putting a relatively low max on improving teams/rebuilding teams/elite teams helps them.

For a rebuilding team, spending a minimum amount above what they wuold naturally spend in a less restrictive CBA like the 94-04 one will lead them to make poor decisions personnel wise, sign veterans to fill spots to meet the minimum instead of playing a young player, or signing a younger player to an inflated contract to meet the minimum.

For improving teams they will have most of their players in the 22-30 age range, which will mean that they will become more expensive as their team ages. Having a lower cap means it will be a lot harder for improving teams like Vancouver, San Jose, Ottawa and tampa Bay to stay together.

For elite teams, (if they even exist) they will have to gut their team of a star player or two every season to stay under the cap, against their will, or try and convince their players to take below market value, cap or not, to stay with the team. The first part is not fair to the team and the 2nd part is not fair to the players.

Management will still make mistakes, that is to be certain, but the amount of impact those mistakes have on the bottom line will be minimized, and thus the incentive to improve (or the NEED to improve) will be far lower than the previous CBA, since the teams will say 'shucks, we'd like to re-sign this guy but we don't have the cap room'.

 

[hubofhockey]

As a fan of a team that went bankrupt during the old CBA?

What a maroon!

Is a maroon anything like a merlot, or more like a cabbaghead savignon?

kpd/hoh

 

[Larionov]

Is a maroon anything like a merlot, or more like a cabbaghead savignon?

kpd/hoh

Tsk, tsk -- someone doesn't know their Bugs Bunny lingo!

 

[RangerBoy]

And I would submit, all these months later, that even the people in the negotiating room don't know what was going on! If they did, it wouldn't be June 3, with no deal done.
History will not be kind to either side, but it will be especially harsh on labor's side, for one simple fact--in the end, they got EVERYTHING they didn't want. EVERYTHING!
Short of the PATCO employees all getting fired, and baseball umpires quitting, it's the most botched show of labor force that I can remember. And in so many ways, its roots trace back to long ago, when labor leadership actually colluded with owners. Ah, irony, so sweet

kpd/hoh

Have Trevor Linden and Mike Gartner pushed Bob Goodenow to the side?That is what everyone says

 

[Timmy]

Have Trevor Linden and Mike Gartner pushed Bob Goodenow to the side?That is what everyone says

Why would they do that?

Within a month of a new CBA, the pro-PA folks will be crowing at how the players won the CBA negotiations.

Sure, it cost a years' earnings, and yeah, they had to accept linkage and hard caps, in addition to a 24% rollback on all existing salaries, but the PA was willing all along to accept those things, and the lockout was all about the floor on spending.

Right?

Quite frankly, I'm perfectly happy to hear the PA crowd say they've "won" 24 hours after posting that the PA has "made every concession so far," as long as salary levels are reduced to the point where the league remains healthy within the niche market where it belongs.

 

[Montrealer]

Tsk, tsk -- someone doesn't know their Bugs Bunny lingo!

I've always had a soft spot for that Wascally Wabbit.

 

[hubofhockey]

Have Trevor Linden and Mike Gartner pushed Bob Goodenow to the side?That is what everyone says

Sorry, I don't have that answer, and lacking one, I won't attempt to make one up.
But as for my gut read: unless he has been fired--and that would be announced, wouldn't it?--then he remains the one in charge, and he remains labor's voice. If labor doesn't like that, then it should have the nerve, will and determination to move on without him--but that can't be done unless he name is removed from the masthead, so to speak. That's just how collective bargaining works. For a deal to get done, ultimately, one voice has to talk for each side. Frankly, I find absurd the notion that one or two players have shoved him into a corner, tied him to a rickety wooden chair, and they are now running the show.
Lots of talking, by many on both sides, but ultimately one voice at deal-cuttin' time. Which is why I can't shake the suspicion here that there will be at least one last brick tossed thru the window. Incoming!!!!!

kpd/hoh

 

[Timmy]

Frankly, I find absurd the notion that one or two players have shoved him into a corner, tied him to a rickety wooden chair, and they are now running the show.

kpd/hoh

What About Bob? The Sequel

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

as a sens fan, you should be gratefull that the team managed to steal a bunch of pensioner's money or else they would have been forced to move. It is rich to hear a sens fan talking down to other small market teams's fans when, the only reason your team exists is because of thier incredibly shady ownership history.

I am a tax payer and have had the priveledge to support your team. SHow me a little more respect.

edit - IMO, Senator fans should sit on the sidelines when it comes to all things related to finances and the NHL.

I don't care what anyone says, the reason the Senators were able to compete with anyone is because of their excellent management because they had no finances. If it wasn't for great team management they wouldnt have grown at all, because of their financial situation. We'll never get to see them work under a billionaire owner because of the cap now, but they've been capped their entire franchise, not only them but other teams as well. I think the Sens ran their team to perfection before Melnyk and you couldn't ask much more of them as a franchise to field the teams they have.

And IMO, We ALL should sit on the sidelines when it comes to finances and the NHL, because as I know of right now you and me both know crap about the NHL's true finances, unless of course you work for the NHL and have a say in its finances, do you? Or are other fans more knowledgeable when it comes to finances? Your opinion makes no sense.

 

[oildrop]

I don't care what anyone says, the reason the Senators were able to compete with anyone is because of their excellent management because they had no finances. If it wasn't for great team management they wouldnt have grown at all, because of their financial situation. We'll never get to see them work under a billionaire owner because of the cap now, but they've been capped their entire franchise, not only them but other teams as well. I think the Sens ran their team to perfection before Melnyk and you couldn't ask much more of them as a franchise to field the teams they have.

And IMO, We ALL should sit on the sidelines when it comes to finances and the NHL, because as I know of right now you and me both know crap about the NHL's true finances, unless of course you work for the NHL and have a say in its finances, do you? Or are other fans more knowledgeable when it comes to finances? Your opinion makes no sense.

Well said and I agree with pretty much all of your post. The Sens do indeed ice a solid team year after year with limited funds. It'll be really interesting to see teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, etc... when the new CBA is in order. Management will be more important than ever.

 

[blitzkriegs]

I don't care what anyone says, the reason the Senators were able to compete with anyone is because of their excellent management because they had no finances. If it wasn't for great team management they wouldnt have grown at all, because of their financial situation. We'll never get to see them work under a billionaire owner because of the cap now, but they've been capped their entire franchise, not only them but other teams as well. I think the Sens ran their team to perfection before Melnyk and you couldn't ask much more of them as a franchise to field the teams they have.

And IMO, We ALL should sit on the sidelines when it comes to finances and the NHL, because as I know of right now you and me both know crap about the NHL's true finances, unless of course you work for the NHL and have a say in its finances, do you? Or are other fans more knowledgeable when it comes to finances? Your opinion makes no sense.

FYI - about 80% of Sens player have zero leverage because of their age and most of the acquired players had existing contracts from other teams.

Obviously, due to the Sens consistent financial woes they were forced to retain players w/zero leverage and not spend in the UFA market or trade for high priced FA's. B/c the Sens never had extra money they were never enticed to overspend like a lot of other teams.

Good management? Yes. Forced Circumstances? Yes.

 

[handtrick]

I can't shake the suspicion here that there will be at least one last brick tossed thru the window.

kpd/hoh

I could see Bob throwing that brick at the last minute, out of the blue, a potential deal breaker.....'take it or I will walk away'.....where he tries to get the owners to swallow something that he can trumpet to the players that he did salvage them a deal better than what they would have gotten otherwise, just to save his ass.

With this, he forces the owners to throw in a big bone, or forces the NHLPA to remove his name from the masthead to sign a deal that he refuses to sign, and he wipes his hands of the consequences......

 

[topshelf331]

I just got emailed this from the blues. Am i reading into the date too much? Just damage control? OR is it indicating something good?

Registrations Now being Accepted For First-Ever Hockey Fest At Savvis Center!

The St. Louis Blues today announced that the club will host the first-ever Hockey Fest at Savvis Center from June 22-25. During the event, Savvis Center will open its doors to all full-season ticket holders, suite holders and several sponsors for free skates on the official NHL ice. In addition, local ice hockey players of all ages will be given the chance to learn from some of the best minds in the game. The event will include three days of low-cost instructional clinics conducted by St. Louis Blues Head Coach Mike Kitchen, other members of the Blues coaching staff, and former Blues players such as Bob Plager and Kelly Chase.

"We are very excited to announce Hockey Fest 2005 this summer at Savvis Center. Our primary goal is to extend a sincere 'thank-you' to many of our loyal fans and business partners," said Blues President & CEO Mark Sauer.

Instructional clinics will be held beginning Wednesday, June 22 at
11 a.m. and will conclude Friday, June 24 at 10 p.m. The registration fee for youth clinics is $35 per player, while adult seminars vary between $50 and $75. For more information about registering, please contact the Blues Youth and Amateur Hockey Hotline .

 

[NYRangers]

That means nothing. Ranger fans had a Q&A session with Maloney and Renney and time to skate at MSG during the lockout too.

 

[WVP]

That means nothing. Ranger fans had a Q&A session with Maloney and Renney and time to skate at MSG during the lockout too.

Yeah, I'd say it's about saving face and trying to make sure there's still gonna be season ticket holders come fall.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Negotiators get deals, not years off of work.

If either of these "leaders" were good negotiators we wouldn't be talking about this right now, it would have been over before the 2004-05 season.

I have maintained that with some creativity, this could have been solved.

One thing I learned early in business is that you never let your emotions or personalities influence business. Deadline negotiators need out strategies. Goodenow had none. I knew from day one that Bettman was serious. I knew that he would cancel a season to get a workable deal. I knew that ultimately a system would have been in place that provided...cost certainty.

Rather than negotiate, Bettman chose to invest in PR to gain public support. Bettman chose to ram a hard cap down the throats of people who are not likely to back down from a fight. Bettman chose totalitarianism over partnership. Bettman chose to look at his opponent to BEAT him and his strategy which was two years in the making has made his constituency's sport a small blip on the radar.

By not making a deal before last season, they both hurt the sport.

Good negotiators get deals done, bad negotiators don't.

Great post. That pretty much describes why I don't support either side.

 

[Pepper]

I agree that this has been argued ad infinitum, but the question still remains: which is the cause and which is the effect.

Not true, small markets were always going to be handicapped no matter how well they were run. Fact is that on average large market teams always did better than small market teams and no matter how well your team is run, your market remains about the same size. Rangers were a poorly run ship for the last 6 years of the previous CBA, yet they still got enough money to have the highest payroll of the league. San Jose which was ran by excellent GM (Lombardi) still couldn't manage to have a above-average budget.

So the cause & effect theory works very marginally here.

 

[Gary]

Someone asked on yesterday's MDT whether I would be concerned about a guy like Crosby not playing in the NHL for a rookie cap of 500K. Here's my answer:

I would be concerned about Crosby not playing in the NHL...if the rookie cap were 500K, but I have reason to believe this figure isn't accurate.

Lots of figures being passed around right now as to what's in the deal. Some of them may even be correct but I'll wager much of the stuff being floated right now is perhaps only partially true. No sense getting all worked up about a 500K rookie cap if it doesn't exist.

Remember something else about collective bargaining. When we say it's not done until it's all done, take that literally. Hypothetical example, let's say the NHL and the PA agree today on precise numbers on linkage, floor, ceiling, range etc. They both agree today on what that is going to be. Word leaks out and everybody starts reporting it. Whatever. Then tomorrow they start in on all the other issues. After they finish arb, ELS, QO's, FA etc. etc., the PA looks at it and says, you know, we didn't get as much as we thought we would on those systemic issues, so let's go back to that linkage figure, let's change the percentage number, let's move around the range.

Collective bargaining is not a checklist thing, where you tick off one item and move to another. They're all related. And it's a good thing, too, because the leverage both sides have is that they can re-open or re-visit covered ground at any time. Both sides know that so it drives them closer together on the small issues, realizing if they're not fair with each other, one side will go back and blow up the big issue.

So while the tidbits being floated around as to what's in the deal are interesting, forgive me if I just wait to see what's actually in there when it's really done.

There, if I post another 100 plus times today and KPD is too busy to post, I'll have a shot at equaling his impressive output.

Thanks for taking the time to answer Bob. Answer is yes, if it were $500K there may be reason to get worried...But negotiations are'nt over until they're over. I too was concerned. Some spoke of 'Endorsements' keeping him in the NHL but you can bet the bank he'd get plenty of sponsership coin abroad too, so that makes that point moot. You do a great job but I can't stand Healey for the life of me. Let's just put it this way...As far as guys who have influence in Canada for hockey. I agree with about 90% of what Cherry says, 80% of your interpretation of the sport, 64.4% Ron Maclean , and Healey just don't make that much sense to me. I'm a village idiot and I think I could do a better job analysing games then he can