Could we be possibly facing yet another lost season? The 2004-05 lockout was bad enough as it was; it seems that we might be headed down the same rabbit hole this year.
Thankfully there's still a lot of time to get this figured out before the season starts, but that's what I was thinking at this point in the summer of 2004. C'mon NHL and NHLPA; get this figured out and the sooner the better.
Last edited by SuperGenius: 12-27-2012 at 02:16 AM.
Too early to get worked up about it, MF, the league just fired the first salvo. It'll be interesting to see what the union counter-proposal looks like in order to know how far apart the offers are. I expect them to be very far apart! The two biggest differences I see from the last time:
Fehr is a pro and will negotiate in a much more effective manner than his predecessor,
and,
Both sides will remember how great a hit the game took, last time.
Those leave me a bit more positive than perhaps seems warranted by the radical nature of the first league offer and the general fear of Fehr that seems to prevail among most hockey fans.
Being serious though, I think there likely will be a lockout. With the demands reportedly being made and the hardball tactics of Fehr, I wonder how much hockey we will see this season.
Sure hope it doesn't happen, but at this point who knows. The only good part of a lock out is the monthly refund check with interest STHs get for unplayed games.
__________________
“@Aportzline: RT @skeezer1212: @Aportzline are you on record about if you think they should trade Nash, *Carter? / Not my place. Reporter, not columnist.”
Too early to get worked up about it, MF, the league just fired the first salvo. It'll be interesting to see what the union counter-proposal looks like in order to know how far apart the offers are. I expect them to be very far apart! The two biggest differences I see from the last time:
Fehr is a pro and will negotiate in a much more effective manner than his predecessor,
and,
Both sides will remember how great a hit the game took, last time.
Those leave me a bit more positive than perhaps seems warranted by the radical nature of the first league offer and the general fear of Fehr that seems to prevail among most hockey fans.
I agree, Pete. I think Fehr isn't going to get butthurt at the league's offer, and I think both sides understand that if there's another lockout, they may very well destroy this league, and any hope of them ever returning to similar jobs will be down the toilet.
I think they're far apart, but I think alot of ado is being made over nothing at this point ... I really hope it gets settled.
The year seems to start a little later this year. My first thought was that they wanted as much room to negotiate as possible.
If there is a lockout could Edmonton possibly get a fourth #1 pick in a row?
In the event of a season-killing lockout, AND in the event of a lottery in the style of 2005...
Each team started with three balls and lost one for each playoff appearance in the last three years, AND lost one for each time awarded the 1st overall pick in the previous four years (whether it was traded or not). No team can lose more than two balls combined. With this in mind:
2 balls - Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, NY Islanders, St. Louis, Tampa Bay
1 ball - Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, NY Rangers, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phil Kessel, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington
That's 50 total balls in the hopper. Each team with 1 ball would have a 2% chance of winning, each team with 2 would have a 4% chance, and each with 3 would have a 6% chance.
However, the idea of Edmonton winning with less-than-optimal odds means that them getting #1 again would probably happen.
In the event of a season-killing lockout, AND in the event of a lottery in the style of 2005...
Each team started with three balls and lost one for each playoff appearance in the last three years, AND lost one for each time awarded the 1st overall pick in the previous four years (whether it was traded or not). No team can lose more than two balls combined. With this in mind:
2 balls - Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, NY Islanders, St. Louis, Tampa Bay
1 ball - Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, NY Rangers, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phil Kessel, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington
That's 50 total balls in the hopper. Each team with 1 ball would have a 2% chance of winning, each team with 2 would have a 4% chance, and each with 3 would have a 6% chance.
However, the idea of Edmonton winning with less-than-optimal odds means that them getting #1 again would probably happen.
And every team named Pittsburgh would have a 100% chance to win.
Or the Hockey Gods could smile on us and our ball comes out first and LA's ball comes out second giving us the top two picks. Ok, well, I am going to go back and drink some more NyQuil now.
Even with the CBJ coming off a horrific season, I'm still on a seven-year honeymoon period with the NHL. A ton of goodwill goes down the drain if they find a way to lockout again.
In the event of a season-killing lockout, AND in the event of a lottery in the style of 2005...
Each team started with three balls and lost one for each playoff appearance in the last three years, AND lost one for each time awarded the 1st overall pick in the previous four years (whether it was traded or not). No team can lose more than two balls combined. With this in mind:
2 balls - Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, NY Islanders, St. Louis, Tampa Bay
1 ball - Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, NY Rangers, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phil Kessel, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington
That's 50 total balls in the hopper. Each team with 1 ball would have a 2% chance of winning, each team with 2 would have a 4% chance, and each with 3 would have a 6% chance.
However, the idea of Edmonton winning with less-than-optimal odds means that them getting #1 again would probably happen.
