Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[The_Admiral]

"Increase revenue sharing" sounds nice in theory, but that doesn't address the fact that the NHL doesn't have and may never have the centralized revenue that the other three leagues do, and the teams that carry the water for this garage league aren't keen on propping up the weak sisters any more than they already are, which, despite the calls for increasing revenue sharing, they are doing quite a bit.

And they're not even doing it right! The Islanders are the kind of small-market team that's really hurting and needs revenue beyond their own market, but because their small market of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is a subdivision of the New York tri-state area, they're disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. Same with the Devils. Same with the Ducks out in LA. There's also the part about having to make enough money to get the handout, unless, of course, you don't have to: the Coyotes couldn't make a buck if they got two deer to copulate, but they get special dispensation to miss every benchmark necessary for revenue sharing and still collect in full. It's a system that's somehow both half-assed and byzantine, but I suppose it's the best we can do. Putting even more strain on the Maple Leafs and Canadiens to subsidize everyone else isn't fair: their consumers are already paying so much money for parking, concessions, tickets, Leafs TV, TSN-Habs, everything, all so that the backwaters can get free tickets and park free at Dollar Hot Dog Night, all the while receiving an inferior product at luxury prices. How many times can you keep going to that well? I know demand is virtually inelastic there, but I don't want to test that even more: imagine a scenario in which Canada goes John Galt on its crappy expensive teams and suddenly there's no more prop-up money for the Predators and Hurricanes. I understand that there's a responsibility to help maintain the health of the league, but there's also a responsibility to maintain the health of the league by doing business in places that might actually make you some money. The revenue disparity that comes from these thirty teams in these thirty locations is unsustainable, and maybe that has to be fixed in a different way than hitting up Toronto and Montreal for more handouts (EDIT: and New York, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and Pittsburgh, for that matter. Even Winnipeg is subsidizing the South right now).

The owners got what they wanted so badly that they sacrificed a full season. They've experienced record-setting revenues. They have a national American network paying them for games for the first time since 2004. I don't see a problem that necessitates clawing back money from the players.

[Magnus]

Well, I see one good possible outcome from the NHL taking an extended break. It gives people who want to start up rival leagues the opportunity to try. (Even if all serious attempts so far have failed miserably.)

[rams80]

Well, I see one good possible outcome from the NHL taking an extended break. It gives people who want to start up rival leagues the opportunity to try. (Even if all serious attempts so far have failed miserably.)

So Russian gangsters and Tweedle-dee the Wonder Dummy.

[Magnus]

Yeah, I guess. But it also would give existing leagues more exposure. I think the 2005 Memorial Cup was one of the highest-watched Mem Cups ever because there were no NHL playoffs.

[The_Admiral]

I don't live in Baie-Comeau. I can't be arsed to watch junior hockey all year. That's not a good outcome at all.

Speaking of inferiority, another one is that with the precipitous decline in level of play, the NHL is charging top-dollar for what's not necessarily a premium product. If you want to be a luxury good and charge NBA prices or higher, you damn well better give us hockey played at its absolute highest level, not 59 minutes of defensive shells, or bouts of orchestrated grab-ass to "rally the troops." That Devils-Rangers faceoff brawl game, and pretty much every Nashville Predators game, was a travesty to the sport. Right now, I would even say that teams with elite talent are at a competitive disadvantage. That's not something worth paying a dime for, let alone $90 for nosebleeds.

[CS85]

The players union's proposal, at least on paper, doesn't sound like anything entirely objectionable.

[Funky Bunky]

I don't live in Baie-Comeau. I can't be arsed to watch junior hockey all year. That's not a good outcome at all.

Speaking of inferiority, another one is that with the precipitous decline in level of play, the NHL is charging top-dollar for what's not necessarily a premium product. If you want to be a luxury good and charge NBA prices or higher, you damn well better give us hockey played at its absolute highest level, not 59 minutes of defensive shells, or bouts of orchestrated grab-ass to "rally the troops." That Devils-Rangers faceoff brawl game, and pretty much every Nashville Predators game, was a travesty to the sport. Right now, I would even say that teams with elite talent are at a competitive disadvantage. That's not something worth paying a dime for, let alone $90 for nosebleeds.

I can get nosebleeds for 20-30 bucks.

[The_Admiral]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

[CS85]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

Pretty much my initial thought. This response from the NHLPA was quietly agreeable, and I'm curious as to how Bettman's going to handle his rebuttal.

[Don]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

Pretty much my initial thought. This response from the NHLPA was quietly agreeable, and I'm curious as to how Bettman's going to handle his rebuttal.

Terribly is my guess...

[pollux]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

Pretty much my initial thought. This response from the NHLPA was quietly agreeable, and I'm curious as to how Bettman's going to handle his rebuttal.

Terribly is my guess...

Not necessarily. The NHLPA's offer should look very enticing to struggling owners and it might not be dismissed as easily as Bettman would like. The players have done a good move hiring Fehr to handle the negotiations, and it looks like they are more educated now than they were the last time around.

[NJTank]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

Pretty much my initial thought. This response from the NHLPA was quietly agreeable, and I'm curious as to how Bettman's going to handle his rebuttal.

Terribly is my guess...

Not necessarily. The NHLPA's offer should look very enticing to struggling owners and it might not be dismissed as easily as Bettman would like. The players have done a good move hiring Fehr to handle the negotiations, and it looks like they are more educated now than they were the last time around.

Looks like the players care about the sport and are willing to make a fair deal while Gary Bettman wants to break the players' back and dose not care if he nukes the sport forever. This is why this sport needs a hockey guy as comish.

[The_Admiral]

Um, Tank? There's a sledgehammer of irony hanging over your head like the Sword of Damocles. You know who's fighting hardest for the good of the National Hockey League right now? A labor lawyer who made his career working in BASEBALL.

And ultimately, even though Bettman is pretty much awful, he's still a mere figurehead for the Board of Governors, who, let's face it, generally just aren't made of the same timber as the owners in leagues that aren't total jokes. You could invent the perfect commissioner, a longtime NHL star who started a successful law firm after his playing days, and there would only be so much that he could do as long as his bosses were Jeremy Jacobs, Peter Karmanos, Craig Leipold, Bruce McNall, Boots Del Biaggio, the Japanese mafia, and other past and present luminaries of the NHL board.

[wildwing64]

But it also would give existing leagues more exposure. I think the 2005 Memorial Cup was one of the highest-watched Mem Cups ever because there were no NHL playoffs.

Actually, the UK's EIHL got more media attention during the NHL lockout too. Or so I've heard. And that was only because a small number of NHLers came here and played for the teams in that league. Then the coverage resumed back to its previous levels of barely anything.

Maybe history will repeat itself for British hockey, before disappearing beyond the backburner once again, but it's too bad I don't have a favourite team in that league anymore. Maybe I'll briefly adopt a team if a Ducks player happens to sign a contract with one.

[Don]

"There's still a wide gap between us with not much time to go," Bettman said Wednesday.

"I do think it's fair to say that the sides are still apart -- far apart -- and have different views of the world and the issues," he added.

*drinks*

[The_Admiral]

Let's stop deluding ourselves with ridiculous silver linings like "cancelling a second NHL season in eight years could be a hidden boon to hockey in Kazakhstan" or whatever. I'll tell you where you can hide your boon. Instead, let's hear your ideas for how you'd change the CBA. So strap on your Magnus hat and come up with some Big Ideas!

- Rollback of the players' share to 53% and a 10% salary rollback. I do this with a heavy heart, but this is inevitable. It's not the NFL and NBA that have dictated cutting the players' share. It's the NHL. By propagating the lowest-common-denominator brand of hockey we have now, the world's best and brightest have a much tougher argument that they're the straw that stirs the drink here. When teams can have considerable success merely by putting some knuckle-dragging schmucks in body armor and having them block shots, how do you demand so much money to ply your trade? Being special doesn't matter anymore. You could play this season with replacement players and I swear to God, people in Nashville, Miami, and Phoenix would never know the difference. So this needs to be adjusted. The ever-expanding union has in some sense brought it upon themselves.

- The range from the salary midpoint has to be increased. ±$8 million is bleeding the weaklings dry. It has to be at least ±10, maybe as high as ±16.

- A variation of the NBA's Bird rights, I suppose in this case "Oil rights," as the impetus here is making sure that teams like Edmonton (and Long Island, too; alas, it's a little late for Chicago), who have torn it all down and built it back up The Right Way won't be made to lose their drafted stars to a hard salary cap. There would have to be limitations, of course, like limiting it to one first-rounder a year, or putting a luxury tax on the overages, but the Oilers are on the verge of something special, as other teams were before them, and others will be after them, and it's in the best interests of the league not to ruin such things.

- Banked cap space should be a movable asset. This could pay huge dividends for rebuilding teams who are keeping payroll close to the floor. For those who don't know, the salary cap hit is calculated on a daily basis, and what isn't spent on the active roster is "banked" for future acquisitions, so while you may have a lot of money on the books at the end of the year, for the totality of the season, you've stayed under the cap. But if the season ends and you've stayed well under the cap, that cap space you didn't use goes to the land of unsold hotel rooms. If you're not going to spend it, why not let someone else spend it, for a handsome price?

So let's say at the halfway point of the season, Philadelphia wants to add a player from Dallas making $6 million a year, but doesn't have room for his cap hit. So Philadelphia goes to Winnipeg and makes a trade for $3 million in heretofore unused cap space that the Flyers need dearly and the Jets don't need at all. Of course, the Jets would hit the Flyers up hard for such a luxury in the picks-and-prospects department, thus making the most of a down season in the long run. Alternatively, a team could pair the cap space with the moving player, so the team moving the player commits the entire salary to its cap space, between what was paid out before the trade and the banked space being sent to the acquiring team, who would still, of course, pay the remainder of the salary. Luxury-taxing acquired space would be a real possibility.

I'm torn as to when you would close the book on movable banked space. Should there be a window between the end of the season and July 1st to send 2013's banked space to a team in 2014? I don't know. I do know that trading future cap space is a no-go: first of all, the midpoint changes from year to year, so there's no telling what the future brings. Also, you know the Sharks would trade all their 2016 space between ceiling and floor for a bunch of guys, choke in the playoffs, and get to the year they mortgaged away with only enough cap space to dress ten janitors. And then with those ten janitors they'll hire Dave Tippett and win the Stanley Cup. But the point is that it would be limited to what has been banked.

- To continue with the NHL's model of revenue sharing contingent on still at least making some money, a "Quixote Tax" on the league for teams that don't pull their weight. We hear a lot about how the league and the union are partners in the new NHL. It's then incumbent upon the league to do right by its partner by conducting business in locations that maximize revenues for the partnership. For teams that miss revenue benchmarks for two or more consecutive years, the league should have to compensate the players for income they're losing out on because the NHL is leaving good money on the table in other markets to tilt at windmills. The league has to be prodded into being where it is most lucrative to be. They shouldn't have to be, but they do.

- All players shall be made to spend their entire playing careers living in 40-story dormitories like freshmen at Illinois State University. Oops! Had my Magnus hat on too long!

Basically, we need to correct against the inherent randomness of the game and the league's tendency to drift into mundanity by better allowing for greatness, if only on paper. I don't want slice after slice of hockeyloaf. I want to watch the world's best players make my jaw drop. The league should be in the hands of its best players. It should belong to Sidney Crosby and Steven Stamkos, not Boyd Gordon and Hal Gill. It should belong to its heritage franchises that fill arenas and capture hearts. There are still mechanisms to help other teams out financially and competitively, but really, the league would do well to inject some stratification back into things. As for the backwater teams, a high tide raises all ships, so they'll profit from amazing, loaded Leafs and Flyers teams as much as fans of the game will, and there will always be ways for them to come out of nowhere, because it's still hockey.

[IceCap]

NHLPA counter-offered. Best I can tell, they basically want to keep the same CBA, but take a small salary rollback in exchange for cap flexibility in the form of a luxury tax. Sounds good to me.

The details of their proposal aren't important. What is important is that Fehr put forth a perfectly reasonable outline full of compromise and partnership, while Bettman's offer was so cartoonishly evil that it came with a handlebar mustache. Unlike 2004-05 when many people agreed that the system had to be reworked at the players' expense for the survival of the game, this public relations war has gone completely to the players. Right away, too. Lots of people here have washed Bettman's balls for being "such a good negotiator," but I can see why now: he'd been jousting with fellow denizens of the #4 league. Donald Fehr is big-time. He's baseball. This small-time punk-ass bitch doesn't stand a chance.

Pretty much my initial thought. This response from the NHLPA was quietly agreeable, and I'm curious as to how Bettman's going to handle his rebuttal.

Terribly is my guess...

As condescending as possible.

I don't live in Baie-Comeau. I can't be arsed to watch junior hockey all year. That's not a good outcome at all.

Speaking of inferiority, another one is that with the precipitous decline in level of play, the NHL is charging top-dollar for what's not necessarily a premium product. If you want to be a luxury good and charge NBA prices or higher, you damn well better give us hockey played at its absolute highest level, not 59 minutes of defensive shells, or bouts of orchestrated grab-ass to "rally the troops." That Devils-Rangers faceoff brawl game, and pretty much every Nashville Predators game, was a travesty to the sport. Right now, I would even say that teams with elite talent are at a competitive disadvantage. That's not something worth paying a dime for, let alone $90 for nosebleeds.

I can get nosebleeds for 20-30 bucks.

It was around $150 for Leafs nosebleeds last I checked. At least I know the money's letting the Coyotes have Dollar Hotdog and a Free Snuggie night.

[CS85]

I wonder if I can get my Subway oven roasted chicken on hockeyloaf.

[oddball]

Does it really matter what system of pay that the two sides agree to? Whether it be a salary cap system (hard or soft), luxury tax system, or free for all system, the player salaries will rise as the owners keep giving into their salary demands, and the teams that know how to scout and develop talent (Det, Nas, Bos, Van) will succeed while the crappy managed (NYI, TOR, CAL) teams will continue to fail.

[Funky Bunky]

Um, Tank? There's a sledgehammer of irony hanging over your head like the Sword of Damocles. You know who's fighting hardest for the good of the National Hockey League right now? A labor lawyer who made his career working in BASEBALL.

And ultimately, even though Bettman is pretty much awful, he's still a mere figurehead for the Board of Governors, who, let's face it, generally just aren't made of the same timber as the owners in leagues that aren't total jokes. You could invent the perfect commissioner, a longtime NHL star who started a successful law firm after his playing days, and there would only be so much that he could do as long as his bosses were Jeremy Jacobs, Peter Karmanos, Craig Leipold, Bruce McNall, Boots Del Biaggio, the Japanese mafia, and other past and present luminaries of the NHL board.

Wait, the Japanese mafia owned a hockey team? Which one?