We're gunna have a lockout, owners aren't willing to afford the current split....
FTFY
Don't believe for a second that >90% of the owners are anything but rich and getting richer. The other<10% have self-imposed caps, and while they may complain about that, it's more an issue of their market than it is anything else.
If all but 2-4 teams can support things as they're going, then adjust revenue sharing and move on.
Don't believe for a second that >90% of the owners are anything but rich and getting richer. The other<10% have self-imposed caps, and while they may complain about that, it's more an issue of their market than it is anything else.
If all but 2-4 teams can support things as they're going, then adjust revenue sharing and move on.
If you believe any of that, I've got a bridge to sell you...
It's extremely amusing to see people get so up in arms because of "the rich getting richer" when the 'alternative' they so desperately demand is to make a different group of rich get richer, at a much greater risk to those who aren't in either category.
Me, too. Players took first offer as an insult when its really an opening point. Then they wait 5 weeks for a counter-offer? Come on. I'm just hoping for a shortened season at least.
At least in the lockout we'll have a great chance of building for the future. We can gain back some of the Cups we lost by winning late in the season by being able to draft high(Hopefully) and letting the cubs develop.
In the past few years, the PA has admitted that Europe is no longer a serious option for most NHLers. I still have not seen anything that makes me think the season would even start late. At the very worst, things could be pushed back to NBC's first game of the season (in November IIRC).
If the entire season is locked out, where do we draft in 2013?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae
I was wondering if anybody could verify that this is how the breakdown of lottery balls would go for the 2013 draft assuming there is a lockout. I never followed the draft closely until after 2005 and despite looking it up, I still have a question: If a team was in the playoffs more than once in the past 3 years, does that mean they only get 1 ball? Because that is how I have done it below, but I am still unsure. And if there was, by some ridiculous chance, a full season lockout, do you think the NHL would go with this same method (including the snake draft)? If not, does anybody have an idea for a better system?
Anaheim (1 playoff appearance) Boston (3 playoff appearances) Buffalo (2 playoff appearances) Calgary (0 playoff appearances) Carolina (0 playoff appearances) Chicago (3 playoff appearances) Colorado (1 playoff appearance) Columbus (0 playoff appearances) Dallas (0 playoff appearances) Detroit (3 playoff appearances) Edmonton (0 playoff appearances, 3 first overall picks,) Florida (1 playoff appearance) Los Angeles (3 playoff appearances) Minnesota (0 playoff appearances) Montreal (2 playoff appearances) Nashville (3 playoff appearances) New Jersey (2 playoff appearances) New York I. (0 playoff appearances, 1 first overall pick) New York R. (2 playoff appearances) Ottawa (2 playoff appearances) Philadelphia (3 playoff appearances) Phoenix (3 playoff appearances) Pittsburgh (3 playoff appearances) San Jose (3 playoff appearances) St. Louis (1 playoff appearance) Tampa Bay (1 playoff appearance) Toronto (0 playoff appearances) Vancouver (3 playoff appearances) Washington (3 playoff appearances) Winnipeg (0 playoff appearances)
TEAMS WITH THREE BALLS (7) Calgary, Carolina, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Toronto, Winnipeg
TEAMS WITH TWO BALLS (6) Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, New York (I), St. Louis, Tampa Bay
TEAMS WITH ONE BALL (17) Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, New York (R), Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington
the meat of it, or what i always think of is the fact that both sides have seen their wallets get fatter through the financial growth of the league. they're sharing the extra whatever billion in revenue the league has gained. it seems like i see that growth thrown out there only to paint the owners in a greedy light when both sides are benefiting. I know insurance premiums have gone up by quite a bit, so that's somewhat reduces the net gain for the owners. Operating costs have gone up. Those are two pretty big factors somewhat taking away from the rise in revenue most of them are seeing. $3.1 billion (or whatever) in increased revenue for the league doesn't mean profit. overall i'm pretty sure the players are benefiting more from the increase in revenue as the deal stands.
Walsh tweets make me want to side with the owners. That slimy ****er just needs to keep his mouth shut.
the meat of it, or what i always think of is the fact that both sides have seen their wallets get fatter through the financial growth of the league. they're sharing the extra whatever billion in revenue the league has gained. it seems like i see that growth thrown out there only to paint the owners in a greedy light when both sides are benefiting. I know insurance premiums have gone up by quite a bit, so that's somewhat reduces the net gain for the owners. Operating costs have gone up. Those are two pretty big factors somewhat taking away from the rise in revenue most of them are seeing. $3.1 billion (or whatever) in increased revenue for the league doesn't mean profit. overall i'm pretty sure the players are benefiting more from the increase in revenue as the deal stands.
Walsh tweets make me want to side with the owners. That slimy ****er just needs to keep his mouth shut.
The biggest thing on this front that needs to be remembered is that while league revenue has grown, it hasn't grown evenly. Much of the bump up from 11-12's cap to the one we're using for 12-13 was due to Atlanta relocating to a higher revenue market. The entire rest of the league could have ended the year on exactly equal revenue, but that change would have still driven up the salary cap. So, while it's fair to say the league's revenues have gone up, it's not necessarily true that any individual team's revenues have gone up. The Islanders' revenue probably went down. The same (at least for one year) can be said of Dallas and Minnesota.
The real issue is that this league desperately needs a genuine revenue sharing program. People say that sort of thing all the time, but rarely do they consider where that revenue would come from. In this case, there's an easy candidate. It should come from the group that most 1) disproportionately collects league revenue and 2) as a group would benefit the most from the revenue sharing program. Many people might be surprised to find that the players fill both of those descriptions in the NHL.
I really don't understand why people seem to find Leipold's comments about player salaries hypocritical.
I hate my company's time punching system even though I still use it, because I wouldn't get paid otherwise.
I dislike speed limits being so low on certain highways but still obey them (mostly), because I'd get ticketed otherwise.
I hate paying so much in taxes and health care costs but still do it, because I'd get punished otherwise.
Why is it hypocritical to obey the rules yet speak out against them? What the hell would Leipold change if he were to protest the system by not spending money? It would just be punishing the fans, the players, the front office, and everyone connected with the franchise.
I really don't understand why people seem to find Leipold's comments about player salaries hypocritical.
I hate my company's time punching system even though I still use it, because I wouldn't get paid otherwise.
I dislike speed limits being so low on certain highways but still obey them (mostly), because I'd get ticketed otherwise.
I hate paying so much in taxes and health care costs but still do it, because I'd get punished otherwise.
Why is it hypocritical to obey the rules yet speak out against them? What the hell would Leipold change if he were to protest the system by not spending money? It would just be punishing the fans, the players, the front office, and everyone connected with the franchise.
God, some people are just so simple-minded.
For once, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt here. It's not that they necessarily think Leipold's statements are hypocritical, it's that they don't think at all in order to fit things into their preconceived notions. They're not looking at Leipold's comments and reaching a conclusion, they'd made that decision long before knowing there were any comments to look at. Having already decided "how things really are" they simply take those comments and fit them into the conclusions they've previously arrived at without ever thinking at all. Acknowledging the comments in any other way would force them to reconsider that forgone conclusion, and people generally refuse to do that.
