Strachan: Fans just don't understand...like I do

[Jobu]

Please don't use your own assumptions about fans being misguided and uninformed to argue you case. I have seen you use your own fabricated statistics (90% +) on several occassions. Until you can somehow prove your fabricated statistics are correct, please stop using them. The percentages you quote are nothing more then pure speculation on your part.

Another assumption you make is that people are not perhaps just using the incorrect term. I have heard the use of the term "strike" used (incorrectly) by people that are fully aware that the owners locked out the players. The term "strike" is used by some people to describe any work stoppage.

If you are trying to say that the common hockey fan knows that this is a lockout and not a strike, what this means, and the host of issues involved in this lockout, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

They could have traded Gauthiers and Saprykin for anything ??? ... wouldn't have been too difficult to move them for draft pics.

Sutter made a decision that he'd rather have Langkow than Conroy, a 2nd and a 5th (approx. value of Gauthiers & Saprykin).

He was also going to use that money saved on the one Flame that organization cannot do without.

Also While Turek took a paycut, which is a whole different ball of wax, Kipper got his 3 mil. So there you go.

The Flames are just trying to put on the ice the best team they can small market or not.

 

[Jobu]

Most wouldn't correct you based on politeness, just like many here prefer to leave your BS unchallenged. To suggest that 90% don't know this is a lockout, not a strike, tells far more about your level of arrogance than the reality of the situation.

We're pretty confident in the population, aren't we? :lol

Yes, fans are so insanely jealous of the player's wealth that they side with the owners, who just happen to make the players look like paupers.

It's incredible, isn't it? Yet day after day the same refrain can be heard: "I'd play hockey for 10% of what they play. Hell, I'd play for free!"

The fans side with the owners because their solution to the NHL's problems provides the best chance for a healthy and competitive league and feel little sympathy for the players who would still be handsomely paid in a capped league.

According to whom? GBB and his lapdogs?

Rough translation--I have no evidence and am simply giving vent to my frustration and arrogance.

Go and ask 100 people who would call themselves a "hockey fan" what they think of the hockey "strike" and to name 3 issues involved in this work stoppage. Then come back to me and try not to lie about your findings.

 

[transplant99]

Are the Flames better off with Langkow & Phaneuf or Conroy, Gauthier and Saprykin ???

I don't know, and neither do you. Im not all that big on throwing 19 year olds into the NHL however, but with the Flames depth at D, they do have the ability to bring him along slowly. Granted.

Kipper is 28 years old .. under the NHL proposal he would have been an unrestricted free agent this past summer, and the Flames could have lost him for nothing.

I thought the proposal was to drop the age to 30?

At any rate....the Flames "could" have lost him for nothing, but they "could" of signed him as well....see that's what a league wide cap does....it allows all teams to compete economically for the same guy. Is there any other team out there that would of thrown X million at Kiprusoff, that needs a goalie and has the cap room? Maybe, maybe not. Again, neither of us know.

 

[CGG]

Failed to notice recently how goalies' games have dropped off the season after signing a big contract? e.g. Theodore, Nabokov, Giguere

Clearly Kiprusoff is gonna suck when the NHL comes back solely because he makes more money now. Good argument. Makes almost as much sense as the "Flames will miss the playoffs because they made it to the final" argument.

 

[transplant99]

He was also going to use that money saved on the one Flame that organization cannot do without.

Not sure I follow.

What money did "he" save?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I thought the proposal was to drop the age to 30?

If you read the fine print, the NHL would have quickly abolished arbitration, which would have dropped the UFA age from 30 to 28.

At any rate....the Flames "could" have lost him for nothing, but they "could" of signed him as well....see that's what a league wide cap does....it allows all teams to compete economically for the same guy. Is there any other team out there that would of thrown X million at Kiprusoff, that needs a goalie and has the cap room? Maybe, maybe not. Again, neither of us know.

Hmmmm teams that might have been interested in Kipper: Rangers, Coyotes, Leafs, Blackhawks, Canucks, Kings, Canes, Senators, Blues and Oilers.

Now not all would have had room, but certainly quite a few would have had room, or made room under a proposed cap.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Clearly Kiprusoff is gonna suck when the NHL comes back solely because he makes more money now. Good argument. Makes almost as much sense as the "Flames will miss the playoffs because they made it to the final" argument.

All it means is that one good season is one good season. There is no evidence yet that Kipprusoff can do it consistently.

 

[SENSible1*]

We're pretty confident in the population, aren't we? :lol

Obviously moreso than you, but then again I'm not an egomaniac who proclaims my superiority to the unwashed masses in numerous posts.

It's incredible, isn't it?

Just incredible enough for a person of intelligence to question the underlying assumption of the "jealousy motivation".

Go and ask 100 people who would call themselves a "hockey fan" what they think of the hockey "strike" and to name 3 issues involved in this work stoppage.

Umm...I'm not the one making a ridiculous claim. You want to back up your claim, you run along and do your little survey.

I'm sure the unwashed masses on these board can survive one day without the shining beacon of light and unbiased insight you provide here.

Then come back to me and try not to lie about your findings.

Me lie? I'm not the one with a vested interest in how this turns out. Can you honestly claim you have no financial interest in the outcome?

 

[Pepper]

Also just because the New Jersey Devils now have one of the biggest payrolls in the NHL, doesn't mean they were a big money team when they were winning 3 Stanley Cups.

Define "big money team", they were 8th, 10th and 15th in salaries when they won their cups.

Let me quote myself from an older thread:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/9-7cba.htm

Payroll Rank of Stanley Cup Winners

Year Team Payroll Rank
2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30
2002 Detroit $64.4 million 1st out of 30
2001 Colorado $50.5 million 3rd out of 30
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28
1999 Dallas $39.8 million 2nd out of 27
1998 Detroit $28.4 million 9th out of 26
1997 Detroit $28.9 million 4th out of 26
1996 Colorado $20.6 million 11th out of 26
1995 New Jersey $16.5 million 10th out of 26
1994 NY Rangers $17.6 million 2nd out of 26
1993 Montreal $13.2 million 4th out of 24
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22

Also this is especially mindblowing:


From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. SEVEN OF THOSE CUPS, YES, CLOSE TO 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams.

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

If you are trying to say that the common hockey fan knows that this is a lockout and not a strike, what this means, and the host of issues involved in this lockout, I feel sorry for you.

Your reply speaks volumes and is typical of someone who can not defend their own argument.

 

[Jobu]

Obviously moreso than you, but then again I'm not an egomaniac who proclaims my superiority to the unwashed masses in numerous posts.

I'd hope not.

Just incredible enough for a person of intelligence to question the underlying assumption of the "jealousy motivation".

It goes to show just how incongruent and ridiculous arguments are from people who think it's at all relevant how much hockey players make in the abstract. Which includes a vast percentage of people based on message board comments on phone call-ins.

Umm...I'm not the one making a ridiculous claim. You want to back up your claim, you run along and do your little survey.

Your claim is that the majority, if not great majority, of hockey fans know the difference between a strike and lockout, that this is a lockout not a strike, and are aware of most of the issues involved in this work sroppage. Is this correct? If so, it's pretty apparent to me that you are the one making a ridiculous claim.

Me lie? I'm not the one with a vested interest in how this turns out. Can you honestly claim you have no financial interest in the outcome?

What financial interest would I have in this outcome?

 

[Luc Labelle]

I think it's a fair comment. After all, the IOC President doesn't know any better, and neither do dozens of posters on this board. It's not a leap to suggest that the laymen and those who don't even frequent this board are even more ignorant.

The IOC President is not a fan of the NHL and on top of that English isn't his first language. "Dozens" of posters on this board refer to the lockout as a strike. So let me do the math on that one, I will give you 8 dozen. At 90% you claim; that means there are only approximately 106 posters on this board. To tell you the truth have I have barely come across a dozen posters calling the lockout a strike. So with your math... there are actually only about 14 posters in total on this board.

If you want to give more credit to Joe Fan than me, fine, but go ask 100 people about the "NHL strike" and I bet less than 10 will correct you or even perceive the difference.

Now you say go ask 100 people... what happened to the fans you were talking about. I would agree with your statement if you had said 90%+ of people don't know the difference. The percentage of NHL fans that don't know it is a lockout is probably a whole lot closer to 10% than 90%. Out of the hundreds of NHL fans I know, I have yet to hear one call the lockout a strike.

The extent of most fans' knowledge is that the owners want a salary cap/linkage and the players don't. And because many of these people are jealous of hockey players because they play a "game" and are way more successful financially, they blindly side with owners.

"Jealous of hockey players". Good grief! More like disgusted by the blatant greed. When Keith Tkachuk used to play for the Jets he would hold out. During negotiations the Jets would be a couple hundred thousand below his request. He was insulted by the Jets offer, even though it was 95% of what he felt he was worth.

I am also disgusted and not jealous of my friend who makes the same wage I do. Yet the company for which he has worked 20 consecutive years just ratified a new deal guaranteeing a couple of more years of uninterrupted wages. He said he was upset his union ratified the deal. He figured they should have gone on strike to put the squeeze on the owners. At that moment I said to him:

You disgust me just as much as the NHL players!

...and no Jobu I am not jealous of my friend or the NHL players. I just think avarice is one of the more disgusting sins on the books.

 

[Jobu]

Your reply speaks volumes and is typical of someone who can not defend their own argument.

What argument is it that I have to defend? All I stated was that the vast majority of hockey fans have less than a satisfactory understanding of this work stoppage. Listen to Jacques Rogge and people who commend what he says, listen to talk shows, peruse the Web's message boards. The ignorance is obvious, and these are the people who apparently care enough to comment.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Go and ask 100 people who would call themselves a "hockey fan" what they think of the hockey "strike" and to name 3 issues involved in this work stoppage. Then come back to me and try not to lie about your findings.

I know what you are saying, but I also think that is unfair. Most fans see millionaires complaining about playing a game where they can still make millions.

I see that point. I think that is valid.

Personally if you asked me what the three main issues:

1. Large market teams setting the market value for the entire league when each market is different
2. owners wanting to link revenue to salaries when the players know full well that there will not be the revenue stream when this is done
3. Yes it is a lockoout, but the players have also said they will wait years if they have to if they won't "get their way"

Those are 3 of many I could point out, and I think there are more fans than you know.

I also think if everyone supported the owners, that the media would then back them instead.

 

[CGG]

From 92 to 03, *EVERY* Stanley Cup was won by a top15 budget team. SEVEN OF THOSE CUPS, YES, CLOSE TO 60% (for you mathematically challenged) were won by TOP5 budget teams.

Same old chicken / egg argument. Are those teams good because they're expensive or expensive because they're good? I vote for expensive because they're good. I find it odd that you go back to the early 90's, before the current CBA and before any of the problems started to happen.

Pittsburgh and Montreal were high in payroll because they were good teams with some of the best players in the league (i.e. Lemieux, Roy). They didn't buy their teams, they drafted and traded. Like any good team should do.

Same can be said about just about every team on your list of winners. Crap teams like the current Penguins should not have a 1 in 30 chance of winning every year.

 

[Jobu]

The IOC President is not a fan of the NHL and on top of that English isn't his first language. "Dozens" of posters on this board refer to the lockout as a strike. So let me do the math on that one, I will give you 8 dozen. At 90% you claim; that means there are only approximately 106 posters on this board. To tell you the truth have I have barely come across a dozen posters calling the lockout a strike. So with your math... there are actually only about 14 posters in total on this board.

I believe that I suggested the common fan is greatly misinformed. Presumably people who spend their time posting here are more informed. Yet there are still a great many who don't know the difference. Mind-boggling.

As for Rogge, nothing what he said was of any relevance, yet immediately after a few threads sprung up here commending him and every major publication in the world (EDIT - ok, maybe Canada) made note of it.

Now you say go ask 100 people... what happened to the fans you were talking about. I would agree with your statement if you had said 90%+ of people don't know the difference. The percentage of NHL fans that don't know it is a lockout is probably a whole lot closer to 10% than 90%. Out of the hundreds of NHL fans I know, I have yet to hear one call the lockout a strike.

"Jealous of hockey players". Good grief! More like disgusted by the blatant greed. When Keith Tkachuk used to play for the Jets he would hold out. During negotiations the Jets would be a couple hundred thousand below his request. He was insulted by the Jets offer, even though it was 95% of what he felt he was worth.

How is it greedy to be locked out and to have made significant concessions only to continue to be locked out? This is the root of the misunderstanding: you think teh players are being greedy when it's actually the owners motiviated by greed. It's the players who have to and are making concessions, not the owners.

Tkachuk held out because he felt he wasn't being offered market value. So what? The owners still own his rights for 10+ years. If they're so confident of his value, set him free to the highest bidder.

 

[Jobu]

I know what you are saying, but I also think that is unfair. Most fans see millionaires complaining about playing a game where they can still make millions.

I see that point. I think that is valid.

What are the players complaining about again? A linkage between revenues and salaries. They aren't asking to be paid more, and, in fact, agreed to give back 1/4 of their freely and legally negotiated wages. You and most see millionaires playing a game, I agree. But you don't see billionaires trying to lay the squeeze on these players to help them dig out of a mess that they created.

I also think if everyone supported the owners, that the media would then back them instead.

The media by and large does support the owners. But regardless, how is this relevant? The media should be presenting fact and information, and when offering opinions, I am glad there are more than one.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

What are the players complaining about again?

Don't forget before the linkage issue the players were dead set against a Cap as they felt it robbed them of fair market value.

In fact the PA has been adament from day one that it should be an open market mentality... so basically go to the highest bidder.

And please don't deny this fact.

 

[mooseOAK*]

What argument is it that I have to defend? All I stated was that the vast majority of hockey fans have less than a satisfactory understanding of this work stoppage.

You keep saying that so, what is it exactly that we don't know about it that you do?

 

[SENSible1*]

Your claim is that the majority, if not great majority, of hockey fans know the difference between a strike and lockout, that this is a lockout not a strike, and are aware of most of the issues involved in this work sroppage. Is this correct? If so, it's pretty apparent to me that you are the one making a ridiculous claim.

Please quote me making this claim.

The majority of fans know that this is a lockout, not a strike. Ask them point blank if it is a strike or a lockout and I'm confident that a vast majority would pick the right answer.

Do they understand the issues?
Whose issues???

What financial interest would I have in this outcome?

An agent will stand to make more money over the next CBA if the agreement doesn't contain linkage. Call it an educated guess as to your vocation.

 

[hockeyfan33]

So no one should write something that leans toward the NHLPA because it's propaganda & everything that is written on the owners side is pure truth & genius ?

Basicaly, that's how most fans see it, escpecially fans of small markets.

 

[Jobu]

Don't forget before the linkage issue the players were dead set against a Cap as they felt it robbed them of fair market value.

In fact the PA has been adament from day one that it should be an open market mentality... so basically go to the highest bidder.

And please don't deny this fact.

Sure. But again, the players have made concessions all along in respect of the recongition that the market needs to be re-set. They aren't askign to be paid more or demanding x% of revenues.

 

[Greschner4]

Please quote me making this claim.

The majority of fans know that this is a lockout, not a strike. Ask them point blank if it is a strike or a lockout and I'm confident that a vast majority would pick the right answer.

Do they understand the issues?
Whose issues???



An agent will stand to make more money over the next CBA if the agreement doesn't contain linkage. Call it an educated guess as to your vocation.

Jobu, you're vastly overestimating the extent to which the fans' support of the owners is based on their belief that the players are striking.

 

[SENSible1*]

Sure. But again, the players have made concessions all along in respect of the recongition that the market needs to be re-set. They aren't askign to be paid more or demanding x% of revenues.

No, they are asking for the continuation of an inflationary system to ensure they get a higher % of revenues.