So who is bummed about the lockout? II
View Single Post
11-17-2012, 10:54 AM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Originally Posted by
As much as I like Simmons, I can't take seriously any argument that is predicated upon the belief that "there are too many NHL teams." Furthermore, to suggest that Bettman step down over it, after being the only man in history able to get the NHL owners to sit down and behave (and this is something people take far too much for granted) is just silly.
Did the 2005 CBA fail to produce an infinitely viable agreement? Yes, but then again, so did the previous NFL agreement and the previous NBA agreement. The fact that the 2005 deal was not perfect doesn't make
any other deal
more viable. To keep with my "quotes from video games" theme here:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others which have been tried."
There are two arguments that back up Simmons' assertions that Bettman is not the right man for the job:
1. The NHL is on the verge of losing a second FULL season of hockey due to lockout in addition to losing half a season in 1994. The NFL lost no time and the NBA still had a shortened season in their recent lockouts.
2. The expansion and relocation of teams to non-traditional markets that sap money from otherwise profitable markets. The fact that the NHL is going on its fourth year of owning the team while hemorrhaging money is just ridiculous.
There's no question the NHL has been successful under Bettman, the question is whether it would be more successful under other leadership. For sure if he loses another season of hockey there should be someone new at the helm.
View Public Profile
Visit Jarick's homepage!
Find More Posts by Jarick