HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

So who is bummed about the lockout? II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 01:14 PM
  #151
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
hopefully they will come up with a new realignment scheme again before we get started again. Could be a good way to peak interest (esp in the twin cities with more games versus chicago and winnipeg).

Casper is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:18 PM
  #152
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Would realignment have increased or decreased travel expenses? Is it all Winnipeg in the SE that's throwing it off? I thought there would have been more travel for the East teams.
It would have increased travel for the Florida teams, decreased travel for the entire Western Conference, and would have been a wash for the Northeast teams.

bozak911 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:27 PM
  #153
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Problem is that there is no turning back now that his guys have already lost more money than they can make up.

Zero chance of a season this year imho. Canceling the winter classic will seal the deal on thurday.
That's a horrible use of the gambler's fallacy. The players should do what's best for them moving forward. Desperately looking at the past to try determine current behavior is how we're in this mess. Saying "I already lost 27% of my salary, so I might as well lose it all" is beyond ludicrous.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:34 PM
  #154
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,305
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
That's a horrible use of the gambler's fallacy. The players should do what's best for them moving forward. Desperately looking at the past to try determine current behavior is how we're in this mess. Saying "I already lost 27% of my salary, so I might as well lose it all" is beyond ludicrous.
well, a lot of them seem clueless enough to give it a shot.
i think what agents are hoping for now is that contracts will get invalidated somehow and they can get another fee for re-negotiating.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:51 PM
  #155
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
Realignment makes so much sense that the players just looked like jerks blocking it. They did do it for negotiation reasons.

The new conferences made all the sense in the world.
I figured they would roll over pretty easily on that so long as the owners allowed players to go to the Olympics.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:22 PM
  #156
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
That's a horrible use of the gambler's fallacy. The players should do what's best for them moving forward. Desperately looking at the past to try determine current behavior is how we're in this mess. Saying "I already lost 27% of my salary, so I might as well lose it all" is beyond ludicrous.
1)We're not gambling and 2)they would only loose salary from this year as opposed to their salary over the length of the CBA.

I take the fact that they barely even made an effort to preserve this season as an indication that its not necessarily all about money. If it was the players would have at least negotiated under the owners last terms.

Obviously the players should do whats best for them but what does that mean? Are they fighting against what they perceive to be a bully? Are they looking to get rid of linkage? maybe the cap? I'm just curious as to what will satisify the players; right now i just don't see an end game.


Last edited by Casper: 10-29-2012 at 03:38 PM.
Casper is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:37 PM
  #157
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,305
vCash: 50
they lose this year they lose more money than they'd ever hope to gain in their negotiations for the length of the CBA. they won't make up this year's money. ever.

rynryn is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:37 PM
  #158
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
1)Were not gambling and 2)they would only loose salary from this year as opposed to their salary over the length of the CBA.

I just take the fact that they barely even made an effort to preserve this season that its not necessarily all about money (which some players have indicated). If it was strictly about money the players would have at least negotiated under the owners last terms.

Obviously the players should do whats best for them but what does that mean? Are they fighting against what they perceive to be a bully? Are they looking to get rid of linkage? maybe the cap? I'm just curious as to what will satisify the players, right now i just don't see an end game.
1) Gambler's Fallacy has very very little to do with gambling. The argument you're putting forth is "good money after bad" that because the players lost a ton of money, they now have to bet more.

2) This wouldn't even be true in the absolutely ridiculous scenario where the players somehow come out of negotiations with a better deal than they had under the last CBA. It is impossible for the average player to recoup a year's salary with the difference between the 2005 CBA salary projection and the league's offer over the remainder of their career. While certain young players on short contracts could possibly hope to recover that over their career, they wouldn't even be able to get it over the term of the CBA being negotiated. That's just talking about the difference between the 2005 CBA and the league's proposal. The actual difference between the NHLPA's proposal and the league's proposal is even less.

Put simply, there is no way for the players to "win" financially. This is just an ego-trip by Fehr trying to remove the cap being sold to players as "getting revenge for the horrible things done in 2004." The only horrible thing that happened in 2004 was that the NHLPA leadership refused to allow the members to vote on any proposals (players later said they would have accepted had there been a vote) which is exactly what the NHLPA is doing today.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:57 PM
  #159
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
1) Gambler's Fallacy has very very little to do with gambling. The argument you're putting forth is "good money after bad" that because the players lost a ton of money, they now have to bet more.

2) This wouldn't even be true in the absolutely ridiculous scenario where the players somehow come out of negotiations with a better deal than they had under the last CBA. It is impossible for the average player to recoup a year's salary with the difference between the 2005 CBA salary projection and the league's offer over the remainder of their career. While certain young players on short contracts could possibly hope to recover that over their career, they wouldn't even be able to get it over the term of the CBA being negotiated. That's just talking about the difference between the 2005 CBA and the league's proposal. The actual difference between the NHLPA's proposal and the league's proposal is even less.

Put simply, there is no way for the players to "win" financially. This is just an ego-trip by Fehr trying to remove the cap being sold to players as "getting revenge for the horrible things done in 2004." The only horrible thing that happened in 2004 was that the NHLPA leadership refused to allow the members to vote on any proposals (players later said they would have accepted had there been a vote) which is exactly what the NHLPA is doing today.
I never said the players would "win" financially. I said they would only completely lose thier money from this year but would still have salaries from future years. Its quite obvious that the players already lost money in real dollars. I am just saying that they have other motives besides 'real' money. What I don't understand is what that is exactly.

It sounds like the players fear that the owners will just take more and more each and every CBA. If the players stand up to the owners and get a deal done on their terms (no immediate roll backs), the owners will think twice before trying to take from players in future years. If the owners do manage to take from the players this time, it will cost them dearly. Its just some asinine ideological battle that will hurt both sides.

Casper is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:07 PM
  #160
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I never said the players would "win" financially. I said they would only completely lose thier money from this year but would still have salaries from future years. Its quite obvious that the players already lost money in real dollars. I am just saying that they have other motives besides 'real' money. What I don't understand is what that is exactly.
You said that since players have already lost some money this year, they could never give in and have a partial season. There's literally no way to justify that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
It sounds like the players fear that the owners will just take more and more each and every CBA.
This is demonstrably false. The players claim they're afraid the owners will come back and try take more, but they keep offering shorter proposals than the league has said they'll accept. If the players were actually afraid of owners trying to take more in the next deal, they'd make this deal as long as possible. Rather than these silly 4-5 year deals they keep offering, they'd be throwing out 10 year deals (like the 1995 CBA ended up being) or at the very least be negotiating at the same 6 year length the league has been. The players have been adamant about getting a shorter deal done, which cannot coexist with the fear of owners "taking more" in the next negotiation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
If the players stand up to the owners and get a deal done on their terms (no immediate roll backs), the owners will think twice before trying to take from players in future years. If the owners do manage to take from the players this time, it will cost them dearly. Its just some asinine ideological battle that will hurt both sides.
Beyond just how silly this claim is, the players have already refused an offer that included no rollbacks.

Furthermore, the owners have never actually proposed a deal that included meaningful rollbacks on current contracts. The players worst off would have lost less on their contracts than they did via escrow in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 under the previous deal. In other words, there was no significant difference from the behavior of contracts under the previous CBA in that deal.

The players aren't "standing" for anything other than ignorance and some desperate want to "be the winners" while they're being so blatantly manipulated by Fehr who cares for nothing except his legacy and his own (borderline insane) personal quest to rid pro sports of salary caps.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:10 PM
  #161
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
they lose this year they lose more money than they'd ever hope to gain in their negotiations for the length of the CBA. they won't make up this year's money. ever.
This.

The players fought over 6 pucks at the cost of losing 12 pucks. They've already lost 3 pucks.
T

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:10 PM
  #162
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Squidz, that offer was below 50/50 split.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:19 PM
  #163
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Squidz, that offer was below 50/50 split.
Which?

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:20 PM
  #164
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Which?
The latest NHL offer that was pulled off the table.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:24 PM
  #165
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
The latest NHL offer that was pulled off the table.
No. The league's offer was a 50/50 split of HRR.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:26 PM
  #166
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
No. The league's offer was a 50/50 split of HRR.
It pays some players over 50% and others under 50%.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:33 PM
  #167
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
It cannot possibly pay contracts in full while maintaining a 50/50 split.
You're desperately trying to split hairs to try make an argument that has no merit, even if accepted. Furthermore, you completely missed the underlying point of the statement. On top of all that, only once under the 2005 CBA were contracts "paid in full" by the silly (extremely inaccurate) standards of the people trying to make that argument.

But, as has always been my position, had the players simply attempted for one tenth of a second to negotiate that the league pay that miniscule difference out of their pocket, they would have given in but they didn't. That was a proposal that was designed to be negotiated against, but the players refused to negotiate. There were several ways to get that imaginary difference hammered out, and for you to try argue that makes it somehow unworthy (and seriously, what sort of silly strawman was your original post anyway?) is at best disingenuous, but most likely just pointless.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:34 PM
  #168
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
It pays some players over 50% and others under 50%.
Now you're just trying to make up issues that don't exist.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:36 PM
  #169
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
You said that since players have already lost some money this year, they could never give in and have a partial season. There's literally no way to justify that statement.
I said there was no turning back now that they have lost more money then then can hope to make up (i.e. they have lost money for good). I also said that in my opinion the there is no hope for a season. I never said that they could not accept a partial season because they lost part of their wages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
This is demonstrably false. The players claim they're afraid the owners will come back and try take more, but they keep offering shorter proposals than the league has said they'll accept. If the players were actually afraid of owners trying to take more in the next deal, they'd make this deal as long as possible. Rather than these silly 4-5 year deals they keep offering, they'd be throwing out 10 year deals (like the 1995 CBA ended up being) or at the very least be negotiating at the same 6 year length the league has been. The players have been adamant about getting a shorter deal done, which cannot coexist with the fear of owners "taking more" in the next negotiation.
So what are they trying to do then? This is in fact the question i have been trying to ask this whole ****ing thread. Honestly i clearly asked a question and threw out a general theory. this would be more productive if you weren't always looking for an arguement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Beyond just how silly this claim is, the players have already refused an offer that included no rollbacks.

Furthermore, the owners have never actually proposed a deal that included meaningful rollbacks on current contracts. The players worst off would have lost less on their contracts than they did via escrow in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 under the previous deal. In other words, there was no significant difference from the behavior of contracts under the previous CBA in that deal.
These claims have come from the players themselves, Im just trying to get a motive. It seems like the players want to be gauranteed that there will be no roll back (no linkage would accomplish this).


Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The players aren't "standing" for anything other than ignorance and some desperate want to "be the winners" while they're being so blatantly manipulated by Fehr who cares for nothing except his legacy and his own (borderline insane) personal quest to rid pro sports of salary caps.
So the players are a bunch of goats and this is Donald Fehr's rodeo?

Casper is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:50 PM
  #170
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Now you're just trying to make up issues that don't exist.
Two words: "make whole"

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:51 PM
  #171
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
So the players are a bunch of goats and this is Donald Fehr's rodeo?
The players (for the most part) don't know what they're doing, and they just listen to and obey their leadership. Look through these two threads for example after example of that. The "how we got here" Paul Kelly story alone says enough of what the players' "plan" is.

Remember, we're talking about professional hockey players here. Sure there's a few Parros and Powes out there with a quality education, but most of the few who went to college at all never graduated, and many never gave a serious effort in classes. There's plenty of players who came up through the CHL whose education level is equivalent to a high school dropout. These people are often wholly dependent upon others to explain things to them, and one only needs to look at Heatley's issues with his former agent to understand how that relationship often works out.

The players ousted their previous union leadership in the dark of night by a secret ballot which only a select few were allowed to vote upon based upon false and incomplete information because a couple people had personal conflicts and career aspirations that were hidden from voters. In their panic to fix the disaster they brought upon themselves, they brought in an infamous crafter of repeated work stoppages who openly admitted to his ulterior motives.

This is the reality of the lockout, and it has little to nothing to do with the actual league. The owners are almost bystanders in this because they are united by the will of Bettman (seriously, if you want to understand how great of a job Bettman has done, look into league leadership prior to 1995) and they're negotiating for their own well being and existence, not for bravado and a puppet show.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:53 PM
  #172
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Two words: "make whole"
Three words: "read the post"

I know ignoring those sorts of things is in your best interest if you want to keep your silly preconceived notions, but you're really taking that idea way too far.

squidz* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:01 PM
  #173
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The players (for the most part) don't know what they're doing, and they just listen to and obey their leadership. Look through these two threads for example after example of that. The "how we got here" Paul Kelly story alone says enough of what the players' "plan" is.

Remember, we're talking about professional hockey players here. Sure there's a few Parros and Powes out there with a quality education, but most of the few who went to college at all never graduated, and many never gave a serious effort in classes. There's plenty of players who came up through the CHL whose education level is equivalent to a high school dropout. These people are often wholly dependent upon others to explain things to them, and one only needs to look at Heatley's issues with his former agent to understand how that relationship often works out.

The players ousted their previous union leadership in the dark of night by a secret ballot which only a select few were allowed to vote upon based upon false and incomplete information because a couple people had personal conflicts and career aspirations that were hidden from voters. In their panic to fix the disaster they brought upon themselves, they brought in an infamous crafter of repeated work stoppages who openly admitted to his ulterior motives.

This is the reality of the lockout, and it has little to nothing to do with the actual league. The owners are almost bystanders in this because they are united by the will of Bettman (seriously, if you want to understand how great of a job Bettman has done, look into league leadership prior to 1995) and they're negotiating for their own well being and existence, not for bravado and a puppet show.
So that would make the end game the cap then? That is, if the players stick by fehr?

Casper is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:01 PM
  #174
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Three words: "read the post"

I know ignoring those sorts of things is in your best interest if you want to keep your silly preconceived notions, but you're really taking that idea way too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
the players have already refused an offer that included no rollbacks.
You literally cannot have "no rollbacks" along with a 50% revenue split with the last NHL proposal unless revenues increase to over $3.6B next season.

Jarick is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 05:02 PM
  #175
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The players (for the most part) don't know what they're doing, and they just listen to and obey their leadership. Look through these two threads for example after example of that. The "how we got here" Paul Kelly story alone says enough of what the players' "plan" is.

Remember, we're talking about professional hockey players here. Sure there's a few Parros and Powes out there with a quality education, but most of the few who went to college at all never graduated, and many never gave a serious effort in classes. There's plenty of players who came up through the CHL whose education level is equivalent to a high school dropout. These people are often wholly dependent upon others to explain things to them, and one only needs to look at Heatley's issues with his former agent to understand how that relationship often works out.

The players ousted their previous union leadership in the dark of night by a secret ballot which only a select few were allowed to vote upon based upon false and incomplete information because a couple people had personal conflicts and career aspirations that were hidden from voters. In their panic to fix the disaster they brought upon themselves, they brought in an infamous crafter of repeated work stoppages who openly admitted to his ulterior motives.

This is the reality of the lockout, and it has little to nothing to do with the actual league. The owners are almost bystanders in this because they are united by the will of Bettman (seriously, if you want to understand how great of a job Bettman has done, look into league leadership prior to 1995) and they're negotiating for their own well being and existence, not for bravado and a puppet show.
Leave it to Squidz to turn labor negotiations into a Dan Brown novel

Jarick is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.