View Single Post
12-06-2004, 03:36 PM
True Blue
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PepNCheese

It IS considered that way by the players, is it not?
Just like the opposite IS considered by Bettman. Does not make the NHLPA right and Bettman wrong or vica versa. Just means that you cannot single out the NHLPA for having a "non-starter", without including Bettman as the same thing.

"How does this change anything about the players' newest offer, though?"


"Unfortunately for the NHLPA, they simply don't have that kind of power. "

Neither does Bettman. Unfortunately for him, sitting back and awaiting offers without making as much as one counter-proposal will fall into the whole "lack of good faith" debate. And with lack of good-faith, there will be no impasse. With no impasse, he will be unable to ram his rules.

"If they did, then they'd just do exactly what you describe Bettman is doing, sit there and wait for an offer that doesn't have a salary cap in it. But they know that if they do that, then the case for impasse and therefore imposition of an agreement would be all the stronger. Hence this offer."

And, again, what Bettman is doing is cutting off his nose to spite his face. No good faith means no impasse. That is Bettman's primary problem. His thinking has not gone past what happens if his impasse is not allowed. How on Earth does sitting back, not making offers or counter offers, strengthen the case for an impasse? If anything, it just weakens it. To have an impasse, Bettman will have to show that he has bargained in good faith. There is more than enough proof already that anything but is the case.

"I think the players will look back at this time one day and wished they negotiated a better cap deal than the one that will be imposed next year sometime. Too bad Goodenow can't read the writing on the wall here."

2 quick points here. Players may not be the ones looking back and wishing. That very well could be Bettman. He cannot impose anything if there is no impasse. And even if he is allowed to do so (which personally I do not think that he will be allowed to declare an impasse), the next step is the players going on strike. Lots of luck having a league full of replacement players. NO ONE is going to pay NHL prices to see replacement hockey. There was an ESPN article talking about just that. San Jose tried to play an AHL game in the Sharks building. To say that the results were underwhelming would be a great understatement. Bettman's new league goes nowhere with replacement players.

"You think anybody wants revenue sharing, by the way? At least, anybody who be doing the paying rather than the receiving? "

Actually, that is EXACTLY what Bettman wants. He wants the top 10 teams to foot the bill for the rest of the league. What he DOES NOT want is NFL style of leaguewide revenue sharing, where EVERY team puts in money and EVERY team drinks from the well.

"Maybe the league has to face up to its own weakness and not try to patch the hole in the dam with illusory support of losing markets."

So you want the league to face up to it's weakness, but in a form of a salary cap? That makes sense. If you want the league to "face up" it's weakness, then Bettman better get off his high horse and start contracting teams that he expanded.

True Blue is offline