KOVALEV10*
Guest
Look if there isn't hockey this October then that means that the players are full of ****, greedy ass holes. Sorry for swaring but that's what they are.
Beukeboom Fan said:Call me crazy, but don't the rollback and buy-out's benefit the majority of players? If the 04-05 contracts aren't going to be honored, there is something like 20% of the league under contract. The rollback and the buy-out's maximize the dollars available to pay the 80% of the players that don't currently have contracts.
Travelin Man said:OK, I am in Los Angeles and am I the only one to notice this serious flaw in this article!
Arn't they currently in Toronto? So let's make up some more BS and print it shall we!
Actually, "second consecutive" is not redundant. You can meet for on Tuesday and Friday, and the sentence in the story would say "The two sides met on Friday for the second day this week." But if they met Thursday and Friday, then "second consecutive" comes into place.Thresher said:"The two sides in the NHL negotiations, which met in New York for a second consecutive day Tuesday, have agreed to a framework for a salary cap linked to league revenue, believed to be 54%, with a 24% rollback on current salaries."
(I also believe 'second consecutive' is redundant as consecutive already means 'one after the other' - ie: at least two days...therefore, it should read 'for a consecutive day...' - then on to 'third consecutive day - etc.' - - - just as there's no such thing as 'first annual' ........bad editors! BAD.)
Carry on
Crazy_Ike said:Aaah, Strachan is back... all is right in the world again.
THIS world, not Strachan's.
KOVALEV10 said:Look if there isn't hockey this October then that means that the players are full of ****, greedy ass holes. Sorry for swaring but that's what they are.
Thresher said:(I also believe 'second consecutive' is redundant as consecutive already means 'one after the other' - ie: at least two days...therefore, it should read 'for a consecutive day...' - then on to 'third consecutive day - etc.' - - - just as there's no such thing as 'first annual' ........bad editors! BAD.)
Larionov said:...yes, and he is STILL yammering on about the Dec. 9 offer. That was almost seven months ago, yet Al clings to it like a life preserver in the middle of the Atlantic. It's actually quite telling, because as a 'PA cheerleader/insider, that was the offer his side was certain would split the owners and get this thing settled on largely status quo terms. So strong was the 'PA's own internal spin on this offer that Al is clearly still in shock and denial over its outright rejection.
Now, like pro-PA blogger Tom Benjamin, Al is reduced to name-calling and personal invective when it comes to referencing management. Hey Al, bitter much?
NYR469 said:buyouts will lower player salaries thru simple supply and demand...the more players that get bought out, the more ufas available. and the more players teams have to choose from the less they have to offer.
for example if jarome iginla is the only top forward available and 10 teams are looking for a top free agent, they will bid against each other to get him and someone will overpay. but if iginla, thornton, hedjuk, naslund, forsberg, st. louis, etc are all free agents then teams don't have to outbid each other because if you miss out on iginla there is still another superstar available.
as for the rollback, yes it frees up $$ but it would take a gm with the IQ of a mildly Pejorative Slured cucumber to offer contracts based on the old market. when a player goes into negotiations he doesn't simply say "I want $5 mil" he says "i'm better than players A & B and want to be paid accordingly" if those players make $5 mil that means that the player is asking for $5 mil. but after the rollback, players A & B are making $3.8 mil. so the market value for that player has been reduced by 24%. if that team is stupid enough to pay based on the old market then they are morons and deserve to get killed by the luxury tax and cap.
and most of the teams that throw around $$ don't have a ton of cap room to free up, it isn't like a team with a $50 mil payroll can say "we saved $12 mil on the rollback so we can sign $12 mil worth of additional players" because that rollback would leave them at $38 mil which is out or above the cap without adding anyone.
Kritter471 said:Actually, "second consecutive" is not redundant. You can meet for on Tuesday and Friday, and the sentence in the story would say "The two sides met on Friday for the second day this week." But if they met Thursday and Friday, then "second consecutive" comes into place.
Thresher said:And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.
I'm a journalism major as well, so I know my stuff. And the 2003 AP stylebook has nothing on the word "consecutive," but this is how it's taught in Dallas.Thresher said:Consecutive is defined as *two* days - side-by-side, one after the other
actually, 'second consecutive' would make more sense if referring to meetings that took place on Mon/Tues and theeen say on Thurs/Fri....So to say 'met for a consecutive time on Tuesday' - we already know Monday is *implied*.
And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.
I'm a journalism student - these technical trivialities get pounded into our brains...such as - 'more than' should be used w/ numbers - not 'over' - - - but no one ever follows that rule.
All in all - I suppose it's like obeying all the rules of the road when you first get your license to drive...and then eventually you ease up on making complete stops, slowing down for yellow lights or watching the speed limit.
Jack Canuck said:Are you sure you cannot say first annual even if there is clear intention to make it an annual event?Originally Posted by Thresher
And believe me - there is no such thing as 'first annual' - as annual means 'occurring every year' - If an event is being held for the *first* time, it's not annual until a year has passed and the event is held for a second time.
Usage manuals choose not to address this usage, but it is a question asked as often as any other. The logic (if we can call it that) is that something cannot be called "annual" until a year has passed between its inaugural happening and its second manifestation. Therefore, the first event cannot be referred to as the "first annual." In fact, some people argue that the second event in a series is actually the "first annual" (because it's the first time that something has happened on an annual basis), which really confuses people. Whether this is foolishness or not, it seems that enough people belong to this faith that it's probably a good idea to call a first event (even one that is guaranteed to occur every year thereafter) the inaugural or first occasion. On the other hand, virtually everyone knows that the First Annual Fund-Raising Event refers to an event that is happening this year for the first time and that someone is planning and hoping that this event will happen on an annual basis. Our advice then: go ahead and use first annual to describe such an event but know that someone is going to ask what you mean by it.