View Single Post
12-13-2012, 09:14 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Bottomline, no NHL hockey...... Why?
Well little Bobby, let me tell you a story.

In early 2000s many teams decided to throw big money at players in the hopes of winning Lord Stanley's cup.

A few General Managers looked at all of the high priced talent, and like Poke-e-mon, felt that they "Gotta Catch'em All" This generated problems for the owners who liked to spend their money on themselves rather than on players.

To insure themselves a profit, they decided to institute a salary cap. This displeased the players, who were happy to take whatever the General Managers were offering. They did not want things to change.

Since they could not come to an agreement in the offseason the owners locked the players out. Some of the players went to Europe and played for less money, some sat on their couches and did nothing. Eventually players started looking at the money they could be making if they were playing, and some started to think that maybe a salary cap wouldn't be a bad idea, if it meant they could get back on the ice and once again earn a paycheck.

While this gradual shift happened too late to save the 2004-2005 season, the owners learned a valuable lesson. The players like a paycheck, and that if you deny it to them, eventually they will want that paycheck bad enough that you can institute your demands.

Fast forward to the end of the 2012 season, and the expiration of the CBA that cost a season to create. The owners want more money, and the players want to keep the money promised to them by the General Managers. Once again, we're in the same situation. The owners could have started negotiating in the offseason, but why? Using the lessons learned from the last lockout they know that all they have to do is wait out the players who will eventually cave, and give them what they want.

This is why we are not playing hockey. Because the owners think that they can squeeze more out of the players if they keep them locked out. That eventually the players will fold and that they can get what they want.


I guess that's my biggest problem with these whole "negotiations". Negotiations are supposed to be give and take, but what exactly are the owners giving up in all of this? The players went from 57% down to 50%, that is a huge move, and what did they get in return? Shorter contracts, longer cheaper entry level contracts, the elimination of signing bonuses and front loaded contracts, and a longer time before they are free agency eligible.

That's like saying, "I'm going to rob your house, and because I'm taking from you, I'm going to give you the opportunity to have your dog kicked by me on my way out." That is apparently how "give and take" works to some of these owners.

I still want to know what concessions the owners have made in all of this? And no, going from a male bovine excrement number pulled out of a posterior like 43% up to 50% is not a "concession"

Skraut is offline