HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Ribeiro speaks up and supports cap... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=110615)

Infensus 10-26-2004 08:34 PM

Ribeiro speaks up and supports cap...
 
The list is growing... Watch everyone keep quiet after the 11/02 meeting.

Link

007 10-26-2004 08:40 PM

You're becoming the lockout KING... ;)

xander 10-26-2004 08:48 PM

indeed, keep up the good work. And I just find your avatar amusing :).

Melrose_Jr. 10-26-2004 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infensus
Watch everyone keep quiet after the 11/02

Well, if Goodenow is really speaking on their behalf, then he's going to have to listen to his constituents and act, not shut them up.

Thanks infensus. ;)

Levitate 10-26-2004 09:26 PM

eh he's not really supporting a cap, at least not the kind bettman wants. i think it's misrepresenting the statements made to claim that.

he says that free agent salaries are what is driving up the salaries (well that's part of it at least) and he thinks there should be something that limits that. well duh, that's not exactly supporting a flat out cap though.

and he's said that he thinks no player should make over $6 mill...well again that's more of a player cap which isn't really what the league is proposing in the end...$6 mill is probably a reasonable number for the NHL to not pay players over, but it's still doesn't equate to the hard $31 mill cap the league wants

pld459666 10-26-2004 09:52 PM

In one of my "Gut Feelings" post
 
I mentioned that the majority of players that make up the NHLPA are not players that will ever have the ability to earn the kind of money that the 50-100 or so players that make up the richest portion of the NHLPA do. I also believe that the league can not only exist, but thrive without these players

Personally, I believe that the NHLPA is currently not as strong in their resolve as the owners are and if it ever becomes close to the point of calling the season and possibly even shutting the doors to a few franchises, the vast majority of lower paid players will not break ranks, but decertify Goodenow as their Union Leader and vote in new leadership that will accept a deal with the league that has a cap. The 50-100 players (stars if you will) will either play in Europe for a fraction of what they COULD make here or they will just play here but without controlling interest in the direction the union take on any matters which is how it should be.

There's just way to many players letting it slip on how they feel, Madden, Ribeiro, Hull, Roenick, Ference.

These are the guys that we have heard from, if there's 5 there's 50, easy.

Firefly 10-26-2004 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pld459666
These are the guys that we have heard from, if there's 5 there's 50, easy.

Definitely.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire."

We need some more smoke though. Open those damn floodgates.

Son of Steinbrenner 10-26-2004 10:36 PM

this union is not nearly as strong as in 92 or 94 i just hope they don't give in to much.

Brooklyn Ranger 10-26-2004 10:41 PM

And the owners are completely united?!

Absolutely, by a million dollar cap--the one preventing them from speaking out. The players are exercising their right to free speech--something the owners don't have right now. But, just because they are frustrated doesn't mean they will cave into whatever the Bettman demands.

Son of Steinbrenner 10-26-2004 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
And the owners are completely united?!

Absolutely, by a million dollar cap--the one preventing them from speaking out. The players are exercising their right to free speech--something the owners don't have right now. But, just because they are frustrated doesn't mean they will cave into whatever the Bettman demands.

did i say the owners were united?



you do realize the longer this thing goes the more chance of teams and nhl jobs have of being lost? its no wonder guys are starting to chirp. jesus some players have called for contraction. thats some unified membership the players have huh?

:shakehead

Onion Boy 10-26-2004 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
And the owners are completely united?!

Absolutely, by a million dollar cap--the one preventing them from speaking out. The players are exercising their right to free speech--something the owners don't have right now. But, just because they are frustrated doesn't mean they will cave into whatever the Bettman demands.

On that note, I still find it humorous that while most teams issued official statements "fully supporting" the NHL's decision or simply "supporting" it, the Rangers issued no statement at all. Personally I don't think Dolan gives a crap and the only reason he's going along with it is because Slats is telling him the Rangers wouldn't be competitive this year anyway and ticket sales probably would've taken a hit without enough marquee names.

You gotta believe that if this were the beginning of last season when we still had Leetch, Lindros, Kovalev, etc., Dolan might not have supported a lockout (assuming that he's supporting it now, which is not a given by any means).

Onion Boy 10-26-2004 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
did i say the owners were united?



you do realize the longer this thing goes the more chance of teams and nhl jobs have of being lost? its no wonder guys are starting to chirp. jesus some players have called for contraction. thats some unified membership the players have huh?

:shakehead

I bet a handful of owners support contraction right now and a hoping a prolonged lockout eliminates a couple teams so as to reduce the amount of revenue-sharing that is included in the next CBA.

Brooklyn Ranger 10-27-2004 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
did i say the owners were united?



you do realize the longer this thing goes the more chance of teams and nhl jobs have of being lost? its no wonder guys are starting to chirp. jesus some players have called for contraction. thats some unified membership the players have huh?

:shakehead

I wasn't commenting about your post, just making a general observation about the thread. However, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to point out here. Yes, some players--not many, really just a handful--are speaking out. Of the players speaking publically, quite a few are being supportive of the union's position.

It's important to remember that this is NOT a strike that we are experiencing here, it's a lockout--players are being prevented from practicing their craft by owners. So, of course, they are going to have more diverse views. I have yet to see any revolt by the players regarding their union's position. No one is coming out and saying let's do what the owners want. Yes, they are unhappy--they're not allowed to play NHL hockey. But, that's a far cry from breaking with the union.

Of course, since the owners have not presented any realistic plan at this point, it's very hard for the players to break from the union's position. But, that's another story all together.

Brooklyn Ranger 10-27-2004 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjb3599
On that note, I still find it humorous that while most teams issued official statements "fully supporting" the NHL's decision or simply "supporting" it, the Rangers issued no statement at all. Personally I don't think Dolan gives a crap and the only reason he's going along with it is because Slats is telling him the Rangers wouldn't be competitive this year anyway and ticket sales probably would've taken a hit without enough marquee names.

You gotta believe that if this were the beginning of last season when we still had Leetch, Lindros, Kovalev, etc., Dolan might not have supported a lockout (assuming that he's supporting it now, which is not a given by any means).

I don't think the rules regarding authoritization of the lockout required that all 30 teams agreed. So, it really doesn't matter what a few teams thought. But, I can't imagine that Cablevision is on the front lines of support for Bettman and some of the "ideas" thrown out to prevent teams from overspending (such as penalties involving loss of draft choices) would pretty much guarantee lousy Ranger teams for the next 3-4 years, making it that much harder for the Dolans to sell tickets.

patnyrnyg 10-27-2004 05:09 AM

I think technically it was 3/4 of the teams, maybe 2/3 had to agree.

Melrose_Jr. 10-27-2004 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patnyrnyg
I think technically it was 3/4 of the teams, maybe 2/3 had to agree.

But, for the record, all 30 owners voted to lock players out.

True Blue 10-27-2004 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pld459666
There's just way to many players letting it slip on how they feel, Madden, Ribeiro, Hull, Roenick, Ference.

These are the guys that we have heard from, if there's 5 there's 50, easy.

But what you are not saying is that these same guys came out and said that while they would support a cap, the $31m that Bettman wants is utterly ridiculous. That's not really throwing support in the type of cap that Bettman wants to implement.

And again, a year of hockey where the Jeff Toms of the world are considered top players, after a year of no hockey at all, will not do the NHL ANY good whatsoever. When there are 25 people showing up for games, will Bettman then say that they need a $5m cap?

"jesus some players have called for contraction. thats some unified membership the players have huh?"

You're missing the boat on this, SOS. The playes talk about contraction becuase they see those same 6 needlesly expanded teams in markets that they clearly do not belong in. As such, contraction of those teams will not only make the product better, but eliminate the great majority of the losses that the NHL is claiming. ANd then you take in the top 3 teams that reported losses (Rangers, Chicago, and St. Louis) and combine those losses with losses that those markets report, and I am betting that that is over 90% of the entire loss reported by the league.

Fletch 10-27-2004 09:22 AM

It's tough for the NHLPA...
 
to keep things together. You're talking about 700+ players in the NHL, with additional players overseas, the AHL, the ECHL, juniors, college, etc., hoping to someday play in the NHL. And of those in the NHL, they're divided into different camps with salaries ranging from [I don't really know, but let's just pick $350K] to about $11 million. And there's a distribution curve in there with the mean around $1.8 million. So you have a lot of different types of people wanting to live different types of lifestyles, from you Jagrs, who are in the upper echelon to your Purintons, who do this to make a living, not really a lavish lifestyle. How the heck do you keep these guys together, especially when more than 1/2 of them make under $1.8 million, many of whose salaries would not change one bit under a cap, as the ones to be affected are those making the big bucks, and those with the potential to make big bucks. The NHL needs to keep 30 owners in line. Many of whom are busy doing things other than tending to hockey business, as the guys left back to tend to hockey business can focus more on their prospects and possibly prepare better for a draft, if there is going to be one. There's bound to be breaks in the players' ranks (although none are really supporting such a cap as Bettman, as a cap on individuals' salaries has been discussed). It's only a matter of time until some players just say f-it, I need to play, and I need to make money. That's been the NHL's stance all along, and it's easier to break a bunch of millionaires than a bunch of billionaires.

Son of Steinbrenner 10-27-2004 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
You're missing the boat on this, SOS. The playes talk about contraction becuase they see those same 6 needlesly expanded teams in markets that they clearly do not belong in. As such, contraction of those teams will not only make the product better, but eliminate the great majority of the losses that the NHL is claiming. ANd then you take in the top 3 teams that reported losses (Rangers, Chicago, and St. Louis) and combine those losses with losses that those markets report, and I am betting that that is over 90% of the entire loss reported by the league.

don't you understand that if 6 teams go that means 140 jobs are lost. it would make the product better and the league did overexpand but what kind of union only looks out for the superstars? this union is in big trouble right now and it doesn't matter how many larry brooks stats you can come up.

Fletch 10-27-2004 01:55 PM

By contracting...
 
you're not just looking out for the superstars. Even in a smaller league you're going to need your quality fourth line players to play those 5-10 minutes. You'll still need your role players. The guys that may be lost is some of the top six talent that just really isn't top six talent but are in those roles becuase there too many teams to go around. The bottom talent may improve somewhat too, but by no means would that mean that only superstars would be protected and exist. The goal of the NHL is to make money and make the quality of its product better. Diluting the talent pool and overexpanding a means to accomplish that objective.

Son of Steinbrenner 10-27-2004 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
you're not just looking out for the superstars. Even in a smaller league you're going to need your quality fourth line players to play those 5-10 minutes. You'll still need your role players. The guys that may be lost is some of the top six talent that just really isn't top six talent but are in those roles becuase there too many teams to go around. The bottom talent may improve somewhat too, but by no means would that mean that only superstars would be protected and exist. The goal of the NHL is to make money and make the quality of its product better. Diluting the talent pool and overexpanding a means to accomplish that objective.

a union that is for losing jobs is not a strong union. the owners know a month into this work stoppage that the union isn't strong. this is the 87 nfl strike all over again. what i mean is now the owners know the some players would cross the picket lines. how bad of scab league would it be if 140 nhl players that would normally lose there played?

i'm starting to think the owners and bettman aren't that dumb. they are going to get the expansion fees and than a few years later get rid of 140 nhl contracts.

True Blue 10-27-2004 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
this union is in big trouble right now and it doesn't matter how many larry brooks stats you can come up.

What on Earth are you talking about? The fact that the Rangers, 'Hawks, & Blues show the 3 biggest financial losses is a fact and Larry Brooks has nothing to do with it. The fact that hockey is struggling in virtually every single expansion market is ALSO a fact and nothing you or Larry Brooks can do about it. When you add those 2 things together, you would come up with the great majority of the losses that the league is claiming. I have no idea how you can dispute this.

"don't you understand that if 6 teams go that means 140 jobs are lost. it would make the product better and the league did overexpand but what kind of union only looks out for the superstars?"

Off course removing 6 teams would improve not only the league's bottom line, but also the quality of play (probably dramatically). It is certainly a viable solution when you consider that just continuing to carry teams that are playing in markets that they have no business in being will result in nothing more than the continuation of the hemoraging of money.

Fletch 10-27-2004 02:39 PM

Any scab league...
 
would end up in the players' favor. This ain't football, first of all. People will not be coming out in droves to watch guys like Jeff Toms don a jersey. It would be a colossal failure and the owners and the league would look real stupid. I tell you this much, that as a die-hard hockey fan, I wouldn't go to too many scab games, and I wouldn't pay anywhere near top dollar - I'd pay AHL dollar, but that's about it, and MSG ain't keeping the doors open charging $20 for seats near the ice.

True Blue 10-27-2004 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
how bad of scab league would it be if 140 nhl players that would normally lose there played?

Pretty damm bad when you consider that Ulanov and Karpa would be touted as the top defensive pairing for some team and Jeff Toms would be considered a top 2 line center.
Besides, you are underestimating the deterent that most players would feel to scab labor. It is not quite so simple in crossing the picket lines. And I can guarantee that 140 players ARE NOT going to do it. If there is 10 that do, that will be a lot. But those players life would be pure hell. On ice and off.

Melrose_Jr. 10-27-2004 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner
a union that is for losing jobs is not a strong union.

This isn't the local iron workers we're talking about. The NHLPA is looking at the situation realistically. They can see that the product quality has slipped. They know that, for the good of their livelihood, the game has to find a way to improve.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.