View Single Post
09-16-2004, 12:27 PM
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,794
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by eye
Goodenow will die before he caves so the only solution is to dump him.
I believe you do not understand that Bob Goodenow works for the players, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by eye
Smart agents that found ways to manipulate the old CBA are more responsible for the 1.8 million league average than Goodenow was.
Even if we accepted that (I don't) Goodenow would still be responsible for negociating CBAs that didn't allow owners to correct the market in time. Instead, it's been players totally scoring on the owners. It's never been a better time for players.

Originally Posted by eye
It's fire Goodenow now or see 200 NHL jobs disapear over the next 2 years while both sides refuse to cross or even get closer to that deep line in the sand.
Just how many teams do you expect to see disappear in the next two years? 200 players sounds like a LOT of teams. This isn't realistic. In fact, if the owners are telling the truth, this break, which is seen as a negative, is actually a *positive*. Those teams, under the lockout, are actually better off than they were last year since many lose money.

Not a single franchise will disappear in the next two years. It won't happen.

Originally Posted by eye
Bettman will always have at least 8 owners on his side and public opinion is also on the owners side.
All things which were also the case 10 years ago and that didn't prevent Goodenow from completely owning management.

Originally Posted by eye
Time for the players and Goodenow to wake up and smell the coffee. 1.3 and playing is a lot better than nothing. Heck, if they give it a try a compromise of 1.5 mill per is likely there for the taking.
You're confusing what you think they should do because of common sense for what they think they can get. None of what you are saying actually demonstrates why it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

It's not that I don't agree with you on common sense. It's that you do not realize it's no incentive to fire a guy who has traditionally reaped the rewards under much tougher conditions. The union was poorer 10 years ago. Goodenow didn't have a track record. The owners were richer.

Everything points to a more unified group of players than ever before, who have at their helm the guy who has been the most successful at screwing owners than anyone before. But you think the players need to wake up and fire him.

I don't think the players could agree with you. He's done great things for them and they must trust him more than they did before. Not less. Considering they were willing to go pretty far with him, I suspect they are not going to wake up anytime soon.

Vlad The Impaler is offline