Strachan has lost his mind

[kdb209]

No, sadly, I don't own a fantastic giant poodle. Only the most exclusive pet owners, like Dallas Stars forward Mike Modano can pass the rigorous application process involved in becoming a fabulous farrah-fawcett haired dog owner. The point is that many NHLers are totally intoxicated by this splendid pet-ownership trend, and need the money to "keep up to the Joneses" with the pampering and spoiling of their exclusive pets...

And remember that they have to increase their grooming budget by 10% per year lest their pets get unhappy and seek another owner or at least poodle arbitration.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Seems pretty standard Strachcrap jargle to me.

The day Strachan writes something useful is the day that he has lost his mind.

 

[me2]

Certainly explains why Toronto got its butt handed to it by the other owners at the recent BoG meetings. NOT.

 

[YellHockey*]

Ask yourself this question: when has Strachan has been either a) right or b) coherent?

His article on Tuesday was right on the mark.

 

[jratelle19]

LadyByngJeanRatelle,

Why do you insist on stabbing me in the heart with that image of Ratelle in a Bruins uniform?

You are indeed cruel!

 

[Puckhead]

Anything Strachan hears from anybody, he will think it's fact and write about it. His material is so garbage, that it gets strong reactions out of people...which is why he still has a job.

I don't even think he actually talks to anybody when he writes his stuff. It always sounds like its off the top of his head, and because he has the luxury of having a forum to put his verbal diarreah in print, countless thousands of people read it everyday. Its those simple minded individuals who cannot formulate an opinion on their own, who fall prey to his words and may actually think that this guy is in the know, or has his finger on the pulse of what is going on behind closed doors in the hockey circles. I can't remember one time where something he has said has come true or was worth the time spent reading it! CLOWN!

 

[dakota]

I wonder if Strachan is getting paid on the side by the NHLPA? or maybe getting some free meals,drinks, golf memberships? If this is out of line I can delete the post... I have seen him in bars before with players (mcsorley comes to mind) in Toronto a few times... is this conceivable? or does he make enough as it is? I am trying to figure out what he benefits from writing like this? Is it all about selling newspapers? Is it all about making crazy accusations? Just curious..

 

[50 Mission Cap]

I wonder if Strachan is getting paid on the side by the NHLPA? or maybe getting some free meals,drinks, golf memberships? If this is out of line I can delete the post... I have seen him in bars before with players (mcsorley comes to mind) in Toronto a few times... is this conceivable? or does he make enough as it is? I am trying to figure out what he benefits from writing like this? Is it all about selling newspapers? Is it all about making crazy accusations? Just curious..

For those who wonder why Strachan is so pro NHLPA, here's your answer.

Al doesn't own a house in downtown Toronto, he rents it. This in itself isn't enough to make him pro-NHLPA. However, its who he rents the house from that makes it interesting. The owner of the home is none other then Don Meehan. Yes the same Don Meehan who is an agent to many of the games best players.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

And remember that they have to increase their grooming budget by 10% per year lest their pets get unhappy and seek another owner or at least poodle arbitration.

Shame on you for posting such silliness..


Everyone knows giant pampered poodles require at least a 30% annual increase.

 

[Pepper]

His article on Tuesday was right on the mark.

The Alberta article?? You have to be fing kidding me??

 

[YellHockey*]

The Alberta article?? You have to be fing kidding me??

Nope.

It was proven on this very board.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Nope.

It was proven on this very board.

Well, there's proof positive. Guess we can shut down this thread now.

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

I may be in the minority on this, but I'd guess there's more truth in his article then some of you believe.

The owners are not a homogenous group of same thinking individuals any more than the players are. There are owners who could live without a cap to get the game going and there are players who could live with a cap to get back on the ice.

The NHLPA already crumbled and accepted a hard salary cap. You think the owners are just going to forget that fact and instead decide to open up the league under that sham Dec.9 proposal? Wow. Anyone who honestly believes that, and I know Strachan doesn't believe it, is living in a fantasy world. The owners cancelled an entire season only to take a deal they could have had on Dec.9??? That makes perfect sense. It's linkage or replacements. One or the other. End of story.

 

[Russian Fan]

The players have more money than the owners? They can wait longer?You sure about that? Last time I checked, the guys writing the checks have more cash than the guys cashing them. At least that's how it works in these parts.

While you are right that guys like Sundin and Domi don't care anymore, I don't believe that to be true for most of the players. Guys in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th years who don't make 4M per season certainly feel the pinch. Not only is it a money thing, but it's a career and longevity issue as well. Sundin and Domi have had their careers, they've had their day in the sun. The owners have a much much longer earning horizon than the player's do. If a NHL'er missed out on a year's salary, he has very little opportunity to make that money back, maybe 2 or 3 years. An owner, without a year of profits, has as long as he'd like to earn it back.

Lots of hockey fans in Cancun?

This is the worst argument most pro-owners said. So your telling me that the owners have so much money that they did this for nothing ? Losing 10,000,000$ for an owner is like losing 100$ for someone like you & me ? So basically they did this just for fun ?

When you want , you come here saying how much they are losing but when something different comes up, you're saying the owners are rich & have so much money that they can last forever.

Do they have MONEY ? or are they POOR ?

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Nope.

It was proven on this very board.

Proved what exactly?

according to the Globe and Mail, we ain't one of the bottom feeders

 

[se7en*]

What was proven?

That when brg gets owned silly time and time again with criteria that is actually revelant, he'll bring up the Oilers drafting Steve Kelly?

Myabe I missed something.

 

[Pepper]

Nope.

It was proven on this very board.

BRG, you should do stand up comedy, that was brilliant.

Proven my ass :lol

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Don't you first have to have a mind to lose it?

 

[Kestrel]

This is the worst argument most pro-owners said. So your telling me that the owners have so much money that they did this for nothing ? Losing 10,000,000$ for an owner is like losing 100$ for someone like you & me ? So basically they did this just for fun ?

When you want , you come here saying how much they are losing but when something different comes up, you're saying the owners are rich & have so much money that they can last forever.

Do they have MONEY ? or are they POOR ?

You're not thinking about this one deeply enough. It's possible to be losing money, but have enough money that you can afford to lose MORE money to make sure that in the future you start MAKING money again.

For an overly simplistic example, I have $1 000 000. I lose $5 a day. Do I take a deal right now that'll mean I only lose $3 a day? Or is it better for me to decide to lose $10 a day for a whole month if it means I can change my finances so that I start making $10 a day? Because3 I have $1 000 000, I'm in no danger for going bankrupt, but that doesn't mean I LIKE losing money. But I've got enough money that I can afford to lose money to make money. An incredibly simplistic analogy for a much more complex problem, I know, but at least you can wrap your mind around it.

 

[shakes]

Certainly explains why Toronto got its butt handed to it by the other owners at the recent BoG meetings. NOT.

You were at those meetings because everything I heard about that was conjecture and speculation... much like this.

 

[arnie]

Why even read his articles? He has a burr up his butt because Bettman put him in his place.

Wrong. He hates Bettman because he is American and because he is not a "hockey
guy." For 10 years, he has gone on rants about the game being ruined by "New York lawyers." Some people also suspect that anti-semitism is at the root of Strachan's hatred.

His hatred has turned up a few notches during the lockout because he knows that the Leafs will be successful under any system and he hates the idea that the games are not being played to get a system that keeps the Nashvilles and Florida's alive. Again, the root is that he hates American influence in hockey.

 

[jaws]

I'm not a big fan of Strachan, as I don't think he's creditable at all. Case in point, he once started a rumour that would see the Rangers trade Lindros to the Bruins for Lapointe cause they needed help on their powerplay.

Saying all that, I think he's trying to show fans a side that owners don't want people to see: there is division between them. Of course some owners would have accepted the players proposal. If they've been cool with spending $60 million+ over the last few years, they'd basically had no problem with the old CBA, so any cuts the players want to place on themselves would be an added bonus.

The reason why the proposal wasn't accepted is because Bettman only needs 8 owners to make a decision. In other words, 8 owners run the show, so if they don't like it, too bad for the 22 who might.

Also, don't forget Bettman's bonus, something I've heard is anywhere from $1-25 million if he gets a cap and if its under $31 million.

 

[wazee]

I'm not a big fan of Strachan, as I don't think he's creditable at all. Case in point, he once started a rumour that would see the Rangers trade Lindros to the Bruins for Lapointe cause they needed help on their powerplay.

Saying all that, I think he's trying to show fans a side that owners don't want people to see: there is division between them. Of course some owners would have accepted the players proposal. If they've been cool with spending $60 million+ over the last few years, they'd basically had no problem with the old CBA, so any cuts the players want to place on themselves would be an added bonus.

The reason why the proposal wasn't accepted is because Bettman only needs 8 owners to make a decision. In other words, 8 owners run the show, so if they don't like it, too bad for the 22 who might.

Also, don't forget Bettman's bonus, something I've heard is anywhere from $1-25 million if he gets a cap and if its under $31 million.

The impression I got from all I read coming out of the last owner's meeting, the group supporting Bettman was more like 20 than 8. And about 6 of the 8 who would settle for the player's 49M cap are content to wait and see how this plays out. I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that Bettman has had to call on his super-majority powers to keep the owners from accepting a bad deal. It looks to me that the owner's are still pretty united...something that drives Strachen and Brooks crazy. at this time, it is a myth that 8 owners are holding the other 22 hostage.

As for Bettman's bonus...I have heard that he will get one if he gets a cap. I have also heard that denied by an owner. I have not seen the numbers you point to...so if you have a source that Bettman is to get a 25M bonus if he gets a cap under 31M, please share it.

 

[CMUMike]

This is the worst argument most pro-owners said. So your telling me that the owners have so much money that they did this for nothing ? Losing 10,000,000$ for an owner is like losing 100$ for someone like you & me ? So basically they did this just for fun ?

When you want , you come here saying how much they are losing but when something different comes up, you're saying the owners are rich & have so much money that they can last forever.

Do they have MONEY ? or are they POOR ?

Owners have money and are, for the most part, incredibly wealthy. Teams, on the other hand, have been losing money hand over fist. There is a difference between the individual and the firm. Clear it up?

 

[PecaFan]

Also, don't forget Bettman's bonus, something I've heard is anywhere from $1-25 million if he gets a cap and if its under $31 million.

Round round we go....

There is no bonus. It was totally false, and disproven immediately. But somehow it persists.