Rock Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 ESPN.com: NHL Friday, January 28, 2005 Blame owners for placing season on the brink http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1977778&type=story -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Terry Frei Special to ESPN.com For months, my stand during the lockout has been a resounding "pox on both houses," primarily because of the galling absence of negotiations both before, and especially after, the locks clicked shut at 12:01 on Sept. 16. For nearly three months, the mutual intransigence and ongoing game of "chicken" was inexcusable and insulting to those rooting for the return of the league. But now? One faction deserves more scorn and blame. The owners. They're big boys, men of affluence and influence. In the past six weeks, after the players' stunning offer of 24 percent salary rollbacks, there was a golden opportunity for serious negotiation that could have salvaged the season long before the league arrived at the edge of the cliff. But not enough of them stepped out of the shadows to say, both privately and especially publicly: Enough of this crap. Let's get this done. That wouldn't have been undercutting the league position or stabbing the less reasonable owners in the back. That would have been the right thing to do, both economically and otherwise. After the NHLPA's Dec. 9 offer, some sort of reasonable compromise -- whether a heavily punitive luxury tax combined with some sort of modified salary cap system, or anything else -- could have been nailed down through serious negotiations. We'll even grant the NHL its right to brinksmanship, by responding to the union's rollback offer with a package five days later that essentially mocked the NHLPA. But since then, the owners have blown it. That is a collective condemnation and comes with the accompanying acknowledgment that the 30 ownerships aren't even close to being as single-minded as the NHL front office has portrayed them to be. Plus, as few as eight owners could scuttle any settlement, which is something Gary Bettman and Bill Daly had to keep in mind at all times. There are fissures in the owners' ranks, as there are in the union membership. We all know that, right? Detroit's Mike Ilitch is not of like mind with Edmonton's Cal Nichols, who conveniently picked out this week to say that if the next collective bargaining agreement doesn't include "cost containment" measures, the franchise will he shut down. (How many think Nichols wasn't prompted to speak up, just as the small-group sessions got going again?) Bettman and Daly have obviously heard from some owners who want to play this season and are pressuring the league to reach a deal. And there are players out there at least letting it be known that they believe the union should be reaching for the pen. Yesterday. The point is, though, that the owners have never been 30 men being led around on leashes by Bettman -- or if they are on leashes, they're pulling in different directions. It's na Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Is Brooks moonlighting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Yeah sure, the owners should cave and as a present the players will ask for less ridiculous salaries. No one here is blameless; for me, the worst thing the owners did was let things get like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 maybe this is terry frei's way of hitting on Larry Brooks ?? it takes two sides to nuke a season I really need to stop answering threads on these dumb articles that have no clue anymore..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I am absolutely astonished that Terry Frei can operate a keyboard. And I have serious doubts as to his ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Though this may be a stupid question.... what "power" is he talking about?!?! "The owners are at fault because they are the ones with the power." What's he referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 "The owners are at fault because they are the ones with the power." The power of voodoo maybe? "You remind me of a man. What man? The man with the power? What power? The power of voodoo. Voodoo? You do. Do what? Remind me of a man. . ." That's some silly riddle my mom told me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 The power to SIGN the checks.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Huh? I said it in the present tense, so who would they be signing the cheques to? Or do I presume this means "they have the power to cave and pay the big $$$". I don't think that is what he meant, so I'll ask again... what power is he referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 the owners are at fault because it's there lockout. They have the power to actually negotiate and move away from there original cap offer. the owners who want hockey have the ability to isolate Bettman and his gang of 8 or whatever it is. The philly, toronto's, and detroit owners have to put more pressure on scumbags like Karmanos to either play or get your silly country bumpkin trap hockey out of our league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 the owners are at fault because it's there lockout. They have the power to actually negotiate and move away from there original cap offer.the owners who want hockey have the ability to isolate Bettman and his gang of 8 or whatever it is. The philly, toronto's, and detroit owners have to put more pressure on scumbags like Karmanos to either play or get your silly country bumpkin trap hockey out of our league. I don't think the Philly's, Toronto's and Detroits outnumber the Edmontons, Calgarys, Pittsburghs, Ottawas..... but you are correct. If you want a 5 team league, the owners have the "power" to capitulated, throw up the white flag and let the Edmontons declare bankruptcy. The Oilers have been the Montreal Expos of the league for about a decade now. The owners are saying "no more" and I'm happy for it. I'm still not getting how "ability to surrender" = "power". As for not moving from the original cap offer, the initial offer was $31M hard cap on every team. Then they said $32 to $38M soft cap. Last I heard was $40M hard cap. But I'll ignore all that and take you at your word that we're still at $31M hard cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Edmonton won't be declaring bankruptcy or folding. Call there bluff, that team made a profit last year for a first time in a long time, under the current system. This is nothing but sabre rattling from them and the other supposed "have nots" who really have more than they let on. sacrificing this season as well as part of next may put many of the have nots and mid level teams (vancouver, nj, kings) on the verge of collapse as well. regardless of the agreement that's reached at the end, 1 1/2 years without hockey and we'd lose teams that don't deserve to be in the league, plus those that do! the oilers have not been the montreal expos because they actually make the playoffs and have people show up to there games. of course bettman hasn't made it any easier on the oilers and flames with all the expansion since it drives up the cost of players, drives down the quality of play, and drives up the cost of tickets to pay for these contracts. so now he's supposed to be the savior for these teams when he really put them in this position to begin with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 The Oilers made a profit for the first time in years, and missed the playoffs for the first time in years. That isn't a coincidence. Should the Oilers have to be like the Milwaukee Brewers and lose just to make a profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) Edmonton probably did not make much more than a few million dollars profit. Players like Eric Brewer and Ryan Smyth are eligible for large raises. The Oilers have been forced to deal Anson Carter, Bill Guerin, Tom Poti, Mike Comrie, Doug Weight, Roman Hamrlik, Mike Grier and Janne Niinamaa. In return, they have received Radek Dvorak, Raffi Torres, Brad Isbister, Marty Reasoner, Eric Brewer, Mike York, and Jeff Woywitka and some draft picks. They are not 'bluffing'. Their franchise relies completely on their gate. Their franchise has been unprofitable for years. And you expect them to want to continue on with this CBA? It has been proven that LA lost money last year as well. Expansion has not driven up the price of players. Most teams lost second and third rate players to expansion drafts. Most of the players drafted high by expansion teams have not yet become stars, not to mention that entry level contracts are laden with bonuses that make them 2 million dollar a year players once they step on NHL ice. This is yet another fallacy that you continue to support. Most of the expansion teams have stayed out of free agency. Edited January 31, 2005 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 edmontons losses have been overstated. grier, poti, and carter weren't really that good anyway. Something is wrong with Edmonton proclaiming they will go under with no instant hard cap. if things were truly this bad, they would've gone under already. somebody is not being honest here. and if these are 2nd and 3rd rate players. Why are we expanding? you basically just said that talent is diluted. and you're right. what I see them as are depth players. when you lose depth scorers and depth defensman, then your remaining scorers are that much more important, and will demand higher salaries as the mid level players get shifted to expansion teams. it has nothing to do with these teams going into the free agent market, though Anaheim signed Kariya to an insane contract and poor, struggling Karmanos suddenly found millions to give to Ron Francis, Phoenix found millions to give to Roenick just because they relocated? how? I know these weren't expansion teams, but they are part of the NBA guys southern cabal, and it just goes to show that they didn't need to be moved. See how trustworthy these owners are, yet most people on this board eat up every word they say. NHL teams are no longer top line scorers, 2nd tier scorers, and checkers. They're just scorers and checkers. It's Elias/Gomez with the occasional offense from Nieds and Rafalski. The rest is just filler. Look at Washington for all those years, Bondra scoring 55, nobody else cracking 20. Iginla leads Calgary with 40 goals and 70 points, nobody else scoring 18 goals and even 50 points. The goal itself can't be valued anymore. is 20 goals worth 5 million dollars? should it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Edmonton's losses have been overstated? Did you see the players I mentioned, and the players they got back? Not to mention losing Marchant and Joseph to free agency. Okay, fine, Edmonton hasn't gone under, but Pittsburgh and Buffalo have filed for bankruptcy. Edmonton is not on solid ground financially and won't be until there is cost-certainty. Otherwise, all they are doing is losing money and developing talent for other franchises. I didn't say the talent is diluted. Tell me where I said something like that. In fact, what I said is that talent is not diluted. There is enough to go around. The drafts keep getting stronger and stronger. The expansion draft took off mostly depth players, not depth scorers. These players may have gotten inflated contracts from expansion teams, but both club and player usually knew what was what. Almost no real scorers have ever been taken in an expansion draft; just guys who were mostly offense, no defense types who don't belong on a good team anyway. Maybe Winnipeg/Phoenix, Hartford/Carolina got that money when they relocated because they got a great deal on the arena? Nashville was going to throw money at the Devils to relocate, I'm sure the Coyotes and Hurricanes got similar deals. The reason why there are only scorers and checkers is because there aren't fluky guys throwing in 30 goals who have zero talent anymore. The league has improved to the point where the best scorers succeed and the guys who didn't have as much talent aren't potting hat tricks on Darren Pang and Allan Bester. Your assumption is that because goal scoring is down, the scoring is diluted. Hardly. Defensemen don't get beat by 1 on 1 moves anymore. Goalies don't get beaten on long slapshots anymore. It's an increase in talent - for the other side of the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 didn't edmonton basically get lucky and benefit from the US dollar weakening and that's why they were able to AFFORD a playoff-type run ??? I could be wrong here.. but I'd hate for my multi-million dollar investment to be on THAT shallow a ground.. but hey that's just me ... it's also kinda funny how they say "well the owners don't have to sign the player to that kinda money but if they don't by golly they're colluding and WE'LL SUE !!! *raises quality fist of anger and waves*"...sounds like wanting it both ways to me ... why do I bother in these threads ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Yeah, Vancouver and Edmonton's profit (and Calgary broke even) were because of the high Canadian dollar. Hrm, how do I put this here.... Uhm economists have predicted for the Canadian dollar to continue to rise for the next 4 years, perhaps going as high as .86. So I don't think it that tenuous. But their payroll was about $30M, and this is what $30M gets you in today's NHL: Salo, Tommy $ 3,900,000 G Smyth, Ryan $ 3,450,000 LW Brewer, Eric $ 2,500,000 D Smith, Jason $ 2,300,000 D York, Mike $ 2,000,000 LW Dvorak, Radek $ 2,000,000 RW Oates, Adam $ 1,950,000 C Isbister, Brad $ 1,925,000 LW Moreau, Ethan $ 1,500,000 LW Laraque, Georges $ 1,275,000 RW Hemsky, Ales $ 1,130,000 RW Staios, Steve $ 1,100,000 D Cross, Cory $ 1,050,000 D Conklin, Ty $ 860,000 G Reasoner, Marty $ 850,000 C Horcoff, Shawn $ 800,000 C Torres, Raffi $ 800,000 LW Semenov, Alexei $ 700,000 D Stoll, Jarrett $ 625,000 C Ulanov, Igor $ 600,000 D Pisani, Fernando $ 600,000 C Ferguson, Scott $ 550,000 D Chimera, Jason $ 500,000 LW Bergeron, Marc-Andre $ 410,000 D If you have a $30M line-up in the 2003/2004 NHL and want to make the playoffs, you better learn the trap pretty quick. Cause that team ain't gonna score too many pretty goals. Which, I guess, is what 7 would like to see Edmonton do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 well that's what you implied tri, 2nd and 3rd rate players are not fit for expansion. it's not like we had potential 100 point scorers being stifled on the 3rd line. that's a surplus of talent that would've warranted expansion. drafts are hit or miss like always. 1999 and 2001 look like duds, 02 is too early to tell but the early results are not promising. we've been over the goalie issue a million times. they haven't gotten better, just bigger. you have no proof that these goalies would be just as good if they played with normal pads in a game with significantly less obstruction. don't believe the hype tri, investigate it for yourselfs. the buffalo situation fell apart because the owners went to jail. Pittsburgh was never a great hockey city anyway and got lucky in scoring maybe the best player of all time in Lemieux and then Jagr. Maybe hockey can't survive there. Winnipeg has inquired and though Pitt said no, a sun belt owner did express interest. What does it say for Nashville and Atlanta if Pittsburgh can barely hang on? Isn't rule 1 of expansion that you first have to have all remaining franchises on stable ground? Pittsburgh has been having problems since the mid 90's, even before that. don that lineup isn't bad in such a diluted league. look at what calgary iced this year and made it to the finals. Iginla an lots of filler, nobody else even cracked 18 goals or 50 points. It's like that in most of the league, top tier scoring and crud. All the depth scoring on these teams have been dispersed. I bet the Rangers would've loved to have Zamuner back, I bet Winnipeg, Philly, Toronto and Minnesota would've wanted to keep Mellanby, Barnes, Bradley and Chambers. These were not useless crap players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 (edited) Goalies have unquestionably gotten better. They watch more video and work more on fundamentals than goalies did even 10 years ago. Even if you reduced their pads, they would do better than goalies of the past. Pittsburgh was top of the league in spending in the early 90s, and as I believe the owners just didn't have that kind of cash. Pittsburgh could support hockey but not playing in the Civic Arena. Calgary iced a solid squad that top to bottom had no holes. Even without Reinprecht and McAmmond, they made it to the Finals. Top two lines of Gelinas-Conroy-Iginla , Nilson-Reinprecht-Donovan would not be that bad. Plus, defense wins in every sport, and will always win. That's what Calgary had. And they came within a goal of beating Tampa, who did ice two scoring lines. Barnes, Mellanby, Bradley, and Chambers were journeymen before they were chosen for expansion. I think Chambers was traded to Tampa for Joe Reekie, but I could be wrong about that. Expansion selects guys who weren't getting ice time on their old club. Edited January 31, 2005 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.