The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

(Quote courtesy of the Montreal Gazette)

This is why we are staring into the face of a winter without NHL hockey. Because Bettman, a pint-sized Grinch with a pea-sized heart, has no passion for the game. He does not like or respect the players, he has no use for the journalists who cover the game, he doesn't care a fig for the thousands or tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced because of the Bettman lockout.

Above all, Gary Bettman has nothing but contempt for the millions of fans who provide the financial engine that drives the game. Bettman talks about "our wonderful fans" but what he means is "the suckers who keep buying tickets, no matter how badly they are treated."

That pretty much sums it up. Bettman has to go for the sport to survive, period. 3 lockouts (work stoppages, etc.) under his tenure is ridiculous. Why does he work harder to get the NBC TV contract but not the product that the NBC network is supposed to show? (last year multi-Billion contract with the NHL and NBC Universal)

I like hockey but I hate the NHL. >:(

There has already been discussion of the owners allowing "replacement players" into the NHL so they can get back to their money making (I mean rip-off ticket and concession sales) ways.

(From the Ottawa Sun)

Open the doors to people who will truly appreciate the job, guys who won't mind fixing the problems your mismanagement will inevitably create.

They'll work for less, so you can charge a lot less for tickets.

The truth about fans is most cheer for the logo. I'm sorry, but many of them wouldn't know good hockey from a notch or two below. That's not a terrible thing. They go to games to support the local team and have some fun. That won't change.

Charge less for beer, too. That will make the new on-ice product more enjoyable."

Um.... no it won't. Didn't we already have this problem with the "replacement ref's" of the NFL?  ::)

In short, I don't see the NHL coming back this year and its sad because I like the sport, but I am not going to waste my time and money pining for the time when I can sit back and watch the overpriced NHL games when I can currently pay attention to the AHL (NHL minors), KHL (Russian pro league) and college games and have more enjoyment watching them play even if I have no clue who 90% of the people are. A good game is just that. I don't need to watch a game because of a team logo, rivalries or anything like that.

If it comes back, good for them, I'm not paying attention.

He told NBC to not show the charity game that the players just put on in Atlantic City for Hurricane Sandy victims. It's hard to call him anything other than a douchebag.

Heard some radio show hosts talking to a former player and they both agreed that this is the worst strike in their history and the players are fools for not agreeing to the offer. They said the deal is more than fair and the players are the real losers as they can never get the year back.

They said the tv networks were pissed because they just signed a record deal and the sport was gaining popularity. This could be devastating to the sport and they said the fans may never forgive this one, unlike 1994.

Personally, I lived in Central FL and bought several tickets every year to the spring training games of the Astros in Kissimmee. When the players went on strike, I got a refund on my tickets and have never been to a game since.

F THEM!

Two work stoppages in eight years.  Dang!!

Fins4ever,

This is not a strike.  It is a lockout.

A lockout is the OPPOSITE of a strike.

Spider ~ it is vastly different.  However, recent developments have really had the players "holding more cards" (refusing very good last two offers).  Additionally, I haven't seen any proof the player's union would have agreed to play the year through the old CBA while working on a new one, so "lock out" or no, I don't think ice time would have happened this year.  It's a good 'ol fashioned game of chicken, neither party here are saints.

If I recall correctly, the new CBA signed in 2005 was very "owner friendly"  The NHLPA conceeded a lot to get the deal done, and as a result, they now have a new NHLPA chief.  So the owners got the deal they wanted back in 2005, and now they're not satisfied with it?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

I don't follow hockey particularly closely, but my understanding is that the owners got nearly everything they wanted in the last CBA, including straight up salary rollbacks.

However, my more-general objection is to the idea that strike and lockout are somehow interchangeable (and both are the fault of the players).

Are you saying that the players were prepared to strike?  I have seen nothing to this effect.

I think he also didn't want the game to be aired due to the "Fire Betman" chants from the crowd of 11,000 (probably more) that attended. ;D ;D

Pretty sad that during a charity event people are calling for someone's head but that's how bad he is to the sport.

I would say yes and no. Yes, I think the players would strike if they didn't have any other options and locations to play, but they do which I also say no that they would not go on strike (if given the chance).

I recently read that Sidney Crosby is getting tired of waiting and is fed up with both the league and the NHLPA and has considered jumping ship after telling everyone that he was not planning on jumping ship. Considering that people I know don't know anything about hockey but know about him, this is like (OK, not exactly, but consider) Gretzky considering playing overseas because his players union and the NHL owners don't see eye to eye. I'm waiting to hear if NBC has a "bail out of contract" contingency plan since they only signed on recently.

If the players didn't have any of the Europe leagues I could see them strike but since they seem to be OK with playing overseas, they seem to be OK with the league owners locking them out. What I think would piss the players off is if the owners follow through and bring in minors and juniors into the league just to get some business going. Even with the owners in the position of locking the players out, teams may go into (or close to) bankruptcy for this (mostly the lower revenue generating teams). The NHL has already lost some sponsors over this and if it does come back, it will be the weakest the league has probably ever been.

Now they (not sure who) brought Federal Mediators into this only to have one of them taken off of the "case" due to his Twitter account getting hacked.

Not really seeing any positives coming out of this. Players have considered de-certifying their players union but it may not work for them like the other major sports leagues.

Interesting though, a lot of the players that are mostly just sitting around for this to be resolved are the ones mouthing off (mostly on Twitter) while all of the owners are silent. Sounds to me like (for now) the owners have the upper hand in this negotiation. 

The league pretty much wants to put rules in place to prevent stupid GM's from being stupid. "Contracts are too high and long"? Who gave them out? One of the bigger sticking points is the rolling back of contracts, even ones signed this offseason. Zach Parise and Ryan Sutter both signed matching deals for the Minnesota Wild. I doubt they agree to go there if they knew those salaries would be cut in half.

I don't even want a hockey season. The 48 game season in 1994-1995 was a complete joke and I still don't even recognize the Devils Cup win as legit. Let them lose the whole year and figure it out and fire Gary Bettman. 3 seasons lost due to work stoppages in 18 years is absurd.

If the players want to play for free, I'm sure the league would accomodate them.

Based on the old CBA, no.  However, they are not playing under the old CBA, are they?  When players refused very good offers, time in and time out, it could be viewed as a paramount to a work refusal.  The owners started insanely low and have had to come up, which they've done.  Some circles are now saying there are fractures within the players union, the "1%" can afford to ride this out while the others can't and there are a lot of players who wanted to take the last deal.

So, yes.  In a way ~ this could be viewed as a mutual strike / lock out at this point.

The players didn't all sign contracts that had an end date of the 2012 offseason, did they?

The players who were under contract were willing to play under the terms of the contracts they have signed.  That's why it's a lockout.  The players failing to accept the owners' offer does not turn it into a half-strike.

Again, I am somewhat annoyed when people try to spin a lockout as a semi-strike.  Somehow, I doubt that if it were the players that had called for an actual strike, and the owners had refused the players' Totally Reasonable Offer, you would be saying that said refusal means that the owners are really staging a lockout, too.

To be clear: I have no problem with owners locking out (or players striking).  It is a legally valid option.  However, let's call a spade a spade; I'm not on board with this "strikes are the players' fault, but lockouts are also the players' fault" mentality that is commonplace in the media now.

Coming straight from a guy who isn't a hockey fan and doesn't understand the sport, yet you're trying to understand the "lock out" and reasons behind it?

Maine, that's a really lazy response.  I don't like Twinkies or Ho-Hos... does that mean I should keep my mouth shut about the Hostess strike?

More to the point: which part of my previous post applies differently to hockey than to football or basketball (two sports I do like and follow)?

I think I mentioned something close to this before that the NHL owners have brought up the idea of using replacement players (something the league commissioner is OK with. but the NHL board of governors has not approved (currently)) which would mean cheaper prices for the product on the ice. The complications for this currently would be to allow potential players that have no affiliations (whatsoever) to the NHL (example: college players that are not NHL drafted would be eligible as a "replacement player" in the eyes of the League). Any AHL, ECHL, and other directly related minor league NHL affiliates would not be due to signing a NHL related contract though not playing for the league (similar to MLB's minor league set-up of AAA, AA, and single A leagues in the US).

Most likely, this would make the sport a worse product to sell to potential future fans and would create more headaches (hard to believe, right...) in the long run.

The Rick DiPietro contract (for me) started this "lifetime" contracts and extraordinary compensation pay with the Kolvachuck one whom is now a Devil until 2025 (provided there is a league to play in) which assumes he will be playing until he is 41 years old. Think that's likely??

Kolvachuck's contact was interesting because it was something that broke the League and CBA agreement but they (the Devils) went with it anyways and their penalty (other than money and lowering the contract value) was losing 1 draft pick of a year of the team's choosing. To me, they got off easy. I would have blocked all of their draft picks for that year to send a message about trying to circumvent these contracts.

If you have the free time, I implore you to go to capgeek.com with the below web addresses to get a better grasp on the money and contract terms:

http://www.capgeek.com/player/339 - Kovalchuck's (started the compensation manipulation process)
http://www.capgeek.com/player/1101 - DiPietro's 15 year contract (started the "lifetime contract")

I call this out because Kovalchuck's next 6 years of play are over 11 million dollars. If he can make it to the 2020-2021 season, his contract value will be $1 million for 3 seasons ???.

Something the previous CBA did not control, that needs to, is the compensation being badly manipulated in these "lifetime" contracts to how the money is being displaced to be under the cap (which varies depending on how well the League does financially).

Rather than standard compensation (kind of like an even pay scale under a negotiated time period excluding bonuses), they are getting the bulk of the money all up front at once and then tailing it off at the end. For players who are not the "superstar(s)" of their team, they will never get contracts like this where it is so dramatically tiered, yet I would think that most players would want to be paid the bulk of the contract amounts when they are younger so if they can't play when they are older, they don't financially lose out, so this is a problem the players and owners have put themselves into that they should have resolved but chose not to over the summer.

Courtesy of the CBC:

When the union suggested mediation, the league backed away from two extra weeks of cancellations. After watching Wednesday's farce, I kind of wish they'd done it. At least we'd be at the brink. Something would have to happen or the season would be over.

For the same reason, I'd like to see the players file their "Disclaimer of Interest." There is some nervousness about it, because the NHL will likely respond with the wrath of Zeus -- despite a worst-case scenario of billions in damages.

Whatever happens, it probably brings about the end of this -- one way or another. This is the most self-destructive behaviour ever, and I grew up with four teenage sisters.

So this, along with the "so-called" Just Drop It" movement, seems to indicate the "good feelings" Mr. Donald Fehr mentioned on Wednesday (which was actually BS), are making it seem that the "kill date" for the season (will be January 15th, 2013) could not get here fast enough while and the players and owners continue to fight with each other even after the car falls off the cliff (obviously not the fiscal cliff, but you get the idea). 

Anyone curious about the "just Drop It" movement can link to the article where I found it:
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/21346631/nhl-lockout-video-fans-pledge-own-lockout-with-just-drop-it

Personally, I find 2 faults with this (the "movement"):
1. It should have started at the beginning of the season, rather than making a self pledge of cutting out the NHL from their personal lives for the number of games the NHL makes fans miss after December 21st (why that day???)
2. If and when the league comes back, I don't see them having such an issue that maybe 100 to 1000 people don't show up for a couple of games (this refers to the "you take one game from me, I'll take one game away from you" message). Tell me its 10,000 across all 30 arenas for ## days of the lockout (current day 89 of the lockout as of writing this), then this will send a message to the players and owners that they F-ed up by pissing their fans off.

Chances are, when the league comes back, rather than lowering prices, I see the prices going up further to compensate for "lost revenue during the lockout". Hey, its just a business, right?

Now the NHLPA is looking to do the same thing the NFLPA is doing.  Decertify so they can allow players to sue the league.  I don't like this idea at all.  Either you are a union or you aren't.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/21/3151305/nhl-players-association-expected.html

This is the way I understood what is going on from the legal perspective:

While decertification is the players walking away from the union, a disclaimer of interest is the union walking away from the players. So a disclaimer of interest occurs when the union terminates its right to represent the players. It's also a less formal process than decertification. It can be as quick as Donald Fehr sending a letter to the commissioner's office declaring the NHLPA no longer represents the players as a bargaining agent. There's no vote, no petition and no decertification election.

- TSN.ca

The measure needs two-thirds approval to pass. If it does, the NHLPA — led by former baseball union boss Donald Fehr and his brother Steve — would have until Jan. 2 to file the disclaimer with the National Labor Relations Board.

The NHL is led by commissioner Gary Bettman, an attorney by trade who anticipates the measure passing and eventual decertification.

The league proactively filed a class-action complaint in New York Federal Court saying it has every right to lock out players in order to negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The league also filed an unfair labor charge with the NLRB.

- Miami Herald

To me, it sounds like a lot of law suits to pretty much wrap up any possibility of any season for this year and maybe next (depending on if the owners bring on replacement players) because a lot of revenue for the year is falling. Stores can't hand out NHL apparel for free (or darn near it) because no one is wanting to buy it (or take it). That along with ticket sales and season tickets they are refunding can hurt owners enough to basically walk away from organizations that they are supporting. To them (and all sports really), its a business and if they are losing their chance at a profit, they will just walk away from this and wont give it a second thought.

Also, the only players that have enough money to sue the NHL are the players with superstar contracts and superstar players. Most of the league is not made up of said superstar players so it does not seem to me that sue, sue, sue, is going to create a positive result for everyone else, just the top 1% players looking out for themselves.

Gary Bettman should be fired. Only in America can you do this poorly at your job and still keep it. Getting raises even. If the season is cancelled, and it will be, then that will be 2.5 seasons lost since 1995.

The biggest problem is Bettman keeps moving the league to markets it has no business being in like Arizona and Florida and then wants the higher revenue teams to cover their losses. The second biggest problem is that he is trying to make the rule idiot proof for all of the idiot GM's who hand out 15 years deals to mediocre goalies who keep getting injured. By lowering salaries and contract length and when players are eligible to be free agents, he is making it so a GM has very few opportunities to screw up and owners like that.

The players caved in 2004, they won't cave this year. Once Crosby moves to Europe or Russia and starts trying to get the puck past Henrik Lundqvist, more players will follow and that will be that. I don't want a season anyway. 48 games is too little and I personally don't recognize the Devils cup in 1995.

I wasn't a hockey fan in the 90's, so I have to ask...

1) Did the NHL have a standard-length playoffs after the shortened '95 season? If so, why the Devils angst?
2) Would your position be different if your favorite team had won in 1995?

They had a regular playoff schedule, but only 48 games instead of 82. This year, the Kings didn't make the playoffs until the final game and they won the cup. Hockey is different from other sports because if you are faster or tougher than the other team, you can win if you aren't as talented. So, it's vital to play a full season to ensure the best best 16 (or close to it) get in. In a 48 game season, a slow start dooms you. The Rangers were the 8 seed in 1995 due to a poor start and they beat the hell out of the #1 season Quebec Nordiques (Colorado Avalanche).

If it were 70 games, it's tolerable, but not 48 or below.

I am a Rangers fan and right now they are a Top 3 favorite to win the Cup and I am PRAYING for no season because I wouldn't want a Cup with an asterisk next to it. It wouldn't be real to me.

The Heat's win counts because the basketball season is too long anyway and 66 games is fine.

In what way is that different?  Less talented teams can win in every sport.  (And in most sports, being "faster" is considered a talent.)

If you're going to discount '95 because the #1 seed got stomped by a #8, I've got some disappointing news for you about 2012, 2009, 2006, 2002, and 1998.

Higher ranked teams lose in the (unshortened) NHL playoffs all the time.  I have mentioned this in a previous thread (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=20038.msg259398#msg259398).

I am not discounting it when a #1 seed goes down, just that the seeds were out of whack with talent due to the shortened season.

I am discounting it because the season was just too short. It doesn't show what teams really are. Some teams are flashy and can start off hot, but they can't handle the long grind of the season. That would be eliminated with a shorter season because they would be better rested.

It's just not real to me. I wouldn't recognize a 10 game NFL season either, regardless of whether the Dolphins won (which won't happen anyway).

from CBSSports.com

• This is so stupid. We are now 104 days into the NHL lockout, and 626 regular-season games have been missed. There's also the Winter Classic, which was scheduled for next week in Ann Arbor, Mich., as well as the NHL All-Star Weekend in Columbus.

I thought this part of the article was interesting. Despite a 48-game season not ending up to ba a satisfying and closer to a real schedule of physical and emotional tolls a regular full season has, there is still profit to be made

• Even though the NHL is looking at a potential 48-game season as a best-case scenario at this point, it would still stand to make a lot of money.

How much? Potentially 70-75 percent of the $3.3 billion that it made last season. Or, in other words, about $2.5 billion. How would the league not see its revenue take a significant drop despite losing half of its season? Because, as James Mirtle writes in the Globe and Mail, the playoffs would remain the same length (four best-of-seven rounds) and that is where the league makes the bulk of its cash.

"Unless you've had a fan revolt, unless you've had a large percentage of season-ticket holders cancel their tickets, you've got a base to get revenue from," Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon, told Mirtle. "Sponsors are typically on long-term deals and still with you. Television and media-rights holders are all waiting for that content to come back. It's a formula that gives them some level of certainty ... and a huge drop would be shocking."

No wonder they don't seem to be in any rush to get back to the bargaining table and get this idiocy settled once and for all. (Courtesy of the Globe and Mail)

Lockout is over

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-lockout-over-players-owners-reach-tentative-cba-102905515--nhl.html

Should be an interesting season.  Every game is now meaningful.  Here in Montreal and the rest of Canada, the fans will come back...not so sure for many of the markets down South?

The non-traditional markets were struggling as is, I don't think the Panthers or Blue Jackets will match last year's attendance. Especially Columbus who traded away their best player for absolutely nothing because the GM held onto him for too long. As a Rangers fan, Great Trade  ;D

This 48 game season favors the Rangers a lot actually because they grind a lot and wear their opponents down with hitting and blocked shots. With 34 fewer games, they won't be gassed like they were in last year's playoffs. So, this nonsense makes them even more of a Cup favorite now.

I can tell you that THIS Panthers' fan wants to go to every remaining home game now.  I have talked to a few others who feel the same way.  Believe it or not, the NHL may come back even stronger now.

Also, seems to be good value ticket prices and all...compared to here in Montreal, where a decent seat runs $150 PLUS.

I'll believe this when Bettman and crew are gone. They knew about this contract problem (the CBA) for over a year before the start of the regular season and did nothing. In fact, if there was not an outside mediator to resolve the petty issues that was holding the season hostage, there would have been a full season lockout.

Happy the NHL is back to save the sport of hockey in the US, but I do not believe that it is coming back better than before.

I think they should run a shortened season every year.  The NBA did it last year and it was really exciting.  ...compact, and every game had meaning.

I've heard that they are eliminating inter-conference games to keep the schedule short.  I like it!  Its like baseball now - 2 leagues with the winner of each play each other at the end.

They should do that every year!

Proof that 88 games is too many, but the games are just more opportunities to make money for the team.  You don't need more than 30-40 games to determine which team is the best.

The Kings didn't make the playoffs until Game 82 last year and then they steamrolled every team in the playoffs. 48 is not enough. They can probably cut it to 72 like the NBA, but nothing less than that.

The NBA also has 82 games.

http://82games.com

I know it does, I misspoke. I meant they should cut it down to 72 games, like the NBA should.

^^ And add MLB to that as well.

You can detemine what teams go the playoffs with just 16 regular season games. 

But there would be no way to cram in all the beer commericals you have with a longer season. 

I would say 3 games against each opponent would be sufficient.  There's the anomaly upset but 3 games would be consistent and level your team in the field.  1 game, while it would seem could be enough (NFL style), could truly be affected by injury or a bad call by the refs, etc.  Would rather let the law of averages take that stuff out of play.

Off topic.... but how does this sound for the NFL

Nine regular season games.  (You play each division rival three times --- that is it)

Each division winner advances to playoffs. 

One bye week.

Play off round 1 - You play each conference team once.

Best two teams advance to conference play off - best of three series.  (could be only two games if you sweep.)  If you sweep you get a bye week, otherwise no bye week.

Superbowl best of three. 

^^ Isn't that how soccer works, like for World Cup?  Group play, best two advance to tournament.

I kinda like it but some teams seasons would be over quickly.  And it wouldn't let anyone ever see other stars unless they get to the playoffs.  Its an interesting concept.

Under the current system, excluding preseason (which is unaddressed here):

- 20 teams play 16 games
- ~4 teams play 17 games
- ~6 teams play 18 games
- ~2 teams play 19 games

Under your system:
- 24 teams play 9 games
- 4 teams play 12 games
- 2 teams play 14-15 games
- 2 teams play 16-18 games

Sorry, but I don't think anyone would want to see 75% of the NFL lose nearly half of their games.

It would also kill fantasy football...

VETOED!!