HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBJ Board realignment discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2012, 07:44 PM
  #901
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1857 Howitzer View Post
I never want to hear travel used as an excuse by the Jackets ever again.
I never want to hear ANY excuses from the Jackets ever again. You can't be challenging the players to fight through adversity while whining about travel, the schedule, no time to practice, injuries, suspensions, referee calls, etc. etc.

leesmith is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 04:51 AM
  #902
db2011
Registered User
 
db2011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 2,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samkow View Post
And that's probably the most valid reason to reject this proposal. There's a reason that MLB is going to go against years of tradition by moving Houston to the American League. It's a big deal to players.
Agreed, and I hope that disparity in playoff chances is why they voted it down, because I think they had better have a reason besides just wanting to make a power play. I'm a union guy, unions have helped my family a lot, but at first glance this felt like union obstructionism. Hope it isn't!

db2011 is online now  
Old
01-08-2012, 08:51 AM
  #903
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
I didn't see CBC Hotstove last night in person, so this could use verification, but...

I saw this post on the Mains where Elliotte Friedman was quoted as saying that the NHLPA team reps did vote on whether to give consent. The vote was 28-2 and it was the CBJ and Detroit who voted in favor of consenting to the new alignment.

If this is true, I have respect for Methot for at least putting the Jackets' interests above NHLPA posturing.


Here's the post on the mains that provided the quote:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=330


Did anyone watch the CBC feed yesterday to verify this?

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 10:17 AM
  #904
fox2usp
Inbred Cat
 
fox2usp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pumpkinville, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
I didn't see CBC Hotstove last night in person, so this could use verification, but...

I saw this post on the Mains where Elliotte Friedman was quoted as saying that the NHLPA team reps did vote on whether to give consent. The vote was 28-2 and it was the CBJ and Detroit who voted in favor of consenting to the new alignment.

If this is true, I have respect for Methot for at least putting the Jackets' interests above NHLPA posturing.


Here's the post on the mains that provided the quote:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=330


Did anyone watch the CBC feed yesterday to verify this?

When I read Porty's piece in Puck Raker's about this yesterday, I had the impression Methot voted against it, but re-reading it this morning, I'm not sure.

Quote:
Blue Jackets defenseman Marc Methot, the club’s NHLPA player representative, voted acknowledged the plan would have benefitted Columbus.

“We, as a team, were in favor of the realignment,” Methot said. “But from a league standpoint, we all felt we were not getting enough information and data regarding the changes.”
Did he vote for or against it? I have no idea reading this. I'll ask Porty on twitter.

__________________
"I don't think I'll live long enough to forgive Howson for knocking off my rose colored glasses. He's a horrible, wretched, little stinker of a man. I just hope he wakes up in the morning and can't poop." -CBJCougar (on the Klesla trade), March 23, 2011
fox2usp is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 10:21 AM
  #905
Jaxs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Jaxs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
I didn't see CBC Hotstove last night in person, so this could use verification, but...

I saw this post on the Mains where Elliotte Friedman was quoted as saying that the NHLPA team reps did vote on whether to give consent. The vote was 28-2 and it was the CBJ and Detroit who voted in favor of consenting to the new alignment.

If this is true, I have respect for Methot for at least putting the Jackets' interests above NHLPA posturing.


Here's the post on the mains that provided the quote:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=330

Edit: The wording in several different reports is a bit confusing. The Dispatch quote that I pointed out says, "voted against approving the plan." Some blog posts refer to it as voting for. This may be where the lack of clarity is.


Did anyone watch the CBC feed yesterday to verify this?
We talked about this in the GDT yesterday. In the print edition of yesterdays paper was the quote that I outlined. That quote was missing from the Puckraker (same article).

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...9&postcount=92


Last edited by Jaxs: 01-08-2012 at 10:57 AM.
Jaxs is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 11:05 AM
  #906
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxs View Post
We talked about this in the GDT yesterday. In the print edition of yesterdays paper was the quote that I outlined. That quote was missing from the Puckraker (same article).

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...9&postcount=92
Yes, the CBC hotstove is available online so I just watched it:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockeynight...84598953&tab=1

At about the 2:30 mark, Elliotte Friedman says there was a vote, the results were 28-2 in favor of denying consent. The two for the realignment were CBJ and Detroit.

This is a different scenario than originally put forth by Porty in the print edition, as you point out, that Methot voted against realignment. It also goes against Porty's tweet yesterday:
Quote:
#CBJ D Marc Methot said there was not a club-by-club NHLPA vote regarding realignment.
Not sure which is right, but Friedman is usually pretty reliable. It doesn't change anything, but as I said, I appreciate Methot's decision to go against the grain in support of realignment.

I don't understand this though: why the heck did the Winnipeg and Dallas reps vote against realignment???

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 11:05 AM
  #907
Jaxs
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Jaxs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,347
vCash: 500
Somewhere there is a discrepancy in what Elliot Friedman is saying, (The vote was 28-2 among the Players Association. The two teams that voted in favour of realignment were Detroit and Columbus), and the Dispatch article from Saturday written by Portzline with the following (Blue Jackets defenseman Mark Methot, the club's player representative, voted against approving the plan, even though he acknowledged it would have benefitted his team).

Jaxs is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 03:26 PM
  #908
Steeltown Jacket
FanFromPensTerritory
 
Steeltown Jacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 79
vCash: 500
So is this officially official? Is it just a bump in the road for realignment?

Are still going to see the current divisional lineup for 2012-2013 and Winnipeg in the SE still?

Steeltown Jacket is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 04:04 PM
  #909
HuntKop
614 Wing Columbus
 
HuntKop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Delaware, OH
Country: Italy
Posts: 195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
I don't understand this though: why the heck did the Winnipeg and Dallas reps vote against realignment???
I can only speak for the Jets camp, but word is that Hainsey was, like many of the other players, less than pleased with the lack of full disclosure shown by the league in this instance. It felt to some like the NHL set a deadline by which the players had to respond to the proposed realignment, then failed to provide full information (sample schedule, for instance).

Some Jets fans had the same question though, and I would expect that Hainsey will have a pretty good target on his back from the fans if the CBA discussions get ugly.

HuntKop is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 04:54 PM
  #910
CBJWennberg41
Formerly CBJBrassard
 
CBJWennberg41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 13,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steeltown Jacket View Post
So is this officially official? Is it just a bump in the road for realignment?

Are still going to see the current divisional lineup for 2012-2013 and Winnipeg in the SE still?
This is official, and next year will be exactly like this year in terms of alignment.

CBJWennberg41 is online now  
Old
01-08-2012, 05:22 PM
  #911
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
This is official, and next year will be exactly like this year in terms of alignment.
That's the threat, but not everyone is buying it.

pete goegan is offline  
Old
01-08-2012, 05:29 PM
  #912
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntKop View Post
I can only speak for the Jets camp, but word is that Hainsey was, like many of the other players, less than pleased with the lack of full disclosure shown by the league in this instance. It felt to some like the NHL set a deadline by which the players had to respond to the proposed realignment, then failed to provide full information (sample schedule, for instance).

Some Jets fans had the same question though, and I would expect that Hainsey will have a pretty good target on his back from the fans if the CBA discussions get ugly.
If this were the case, the NHLPA would have saved an awful lot of face if this had been said within 24 hours of the plan being announced over a month ago. Nothing too complicated, just something like "We're going to review it, but currently we have a couple of concerns that we'd like to sit down and discuss with the league."

Personally, I don't believe for a second that the NHLPA is so horribly inept from a PR standpoint to have not recognized that doing something like that would have created a much different reaction from the fans as a whole. Thus, we can only conclude that the rejection of realignment, followed then by this crap about "player concerns", was nothing more than a petty ****-measuring contest instigated by Donald Fehr.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
01-08-2012, 05:37 PM
  #913
HuntKop
614 Wing Columbus
 
HuntKop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Delaware, OH
Country: Italy
Posts: 195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If this were the case, the NHLPA would have saved an awful lot of face if this had been said within 24 hours of the plan being announced over a month ago. Nothing too complicated, just something like "We're going to review it, but currently we have a couple of concerns that we'd like to sit down and discuss with the league."

Personally, I don't believe for a second that the NHLPA is so horribly inept from a PR standpoint to have not recognized that doing something like that would have created a much different reaction from the fans as a whole. Thus, we can only conclude that the rejection of realignment, followed then by this crap about "player concerns", was nothing more than a petty ****-measuring contest instigated by Donald Fehr.
I actually agree wholeheartedly with you. I just don't trust the guy (D. Fehr). The reality is, they (he?) saw this as a "chip," and the lack of information was an opportunity to try to swing opinion in their favor. He's a dirtbag who is incredibly skilled in dirty politics, and who seems completely unable to negotiate in good faith.

Edit: I fully believe that the NHL knew exactly what would happen if they left off some key information. Both sides are dirty, and as usual the fans lose.


Last edited by HuntKop: 01-08-2012 at 06:06 PM.
HuntKop is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 01:03 AM
  #914
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Anybody else waiting for the NHL to threaten contraction in their next salvo to the NHLPA? Cut 2 teams and the playoff problem of uneven conferences is quickly fixed. I can't wait to see all the threads about how Columbus should be cut.

That said, while I never would wish contraction on any city, is it wrong to wonder if we could take Maloney and Tippett if the NHL decided to cash in their chips in Phoenix and cut losses?

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 01:39 AM
  #915
Robert
Foligno family
 
Robert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: KY & Lime Lake NY
Country: United States
Posts: 30,444
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Robert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
Anybody else waiting for the NHL to threaten contraction in their next salvo to the NHLPA? Cut 2 teams and the playoff problem of uneven conferences is quickly fixed. I can't wait to see all the threads about how Columbus should be cut.

That said, while I never would wish contraction on any city, is it wrong to wonder if we could take Maloney and Tippett if the NHL decided to cash in their chips in Phoenix and cut losses?
I doubt Bettman will contract, afterall, the NHL is in the business of making money and one can't make money with fewer teams. I'm thinking expansion regardless of the talent dilution issue, 32 teams would work fine as far as seeding goes.

Hartford/KC/Oklahoma and Quebec... Phoenix is not going anywhere imo but they could be in the mix, to many snowbirds out there.

Robert is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 09:44 PM
  #916
thos
Registered User
 
thos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Columbogus
Country: United States
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
What about a temporary fix to switch Winnipeg and Columbus until full realignment can be worked out? It would really help two financially struggling teams and, therefore the league.

thos is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 10:19 PM
  #917
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thos View Post
What about a temporary fix to switch Winnipeg and Columbus until full realignment can be worked out? It would really help two financially struggling teams and, therefore the league.
Sounds great to 95% of the posters on the CBJ boards, but there's too much opposition elsewhere (Detroit, especially)

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 10:35 PM
  #918
CBJ103
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Powell, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thos View Post
What about a temporary fix to switch Winnipeg and Columbus until full realignment can be worked out? It would really help two financially struggling teams and, therefore the league.
Is Winnipeg the 2nd financially struggling team you are referring to? I was under the impression that they had a well-financed new ownership group and sold out their season tickets within minutes.

CBJ103 is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 11:21 PM
  #919
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
Anybody else waiting for the NHL to threaten contraction in their next salvo to the NHLPA? Cut 2 teams and the playoff problem of uneven conferences is quickly fixed. I can't wait to see all the threads about how Columbus should be cut.
No chance in hell. You think the NHLPA complained about realignment, wait until they try and contract. That's 40+ player jobs gone with a potential cap hit of 120+ million.

Why is it only the fans talk about contraction?

blahblah is offline  
Old
01-09-2012, 11:29 PM
  #920
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
No chance in hell. You think the NHLPA complained about realignment, wait until they try and contract. That's 40+ player jobs gone with a potential cap hit of 120+ million.

Why is it only the fans talk about contraction?
Exactly. We're FAR more likely to be looking at expanding by 2 teams.

leesmith is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 12:10 AM
  #921
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
No chance in hell. You think the NHLPA complained about realignment, wait until they try and contract. That's 40+ player jobs gone with a potential cap hit of 120+ million.

Why is it only the fans talk about contraction?
Because hockey is the only sport where large numbers of people, including large numbers of media types, believe that the sport simply should not exist in certain geographic areas. The location of said areas, of course, is known only to those within that inner circle.

All I know is, we're not in it, and therefore never can be no matter what.

Mayor Bee is online now  
Old
01-10-2012, 12:14 AM
  #922
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
No chance in hell. You think the NHLPA complained about realignment, wait until they try and contract. That's 40+ player jobs gone with a potential cap hit of 120+ million.

Why is it only the fans talk about contraction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
Exactly. We're FAR more likely to be looking at expanding by 2 teams.

I agree that expansion is the most likely endgame in the future, preferably when the economy is a bit better. But, I would not be at all surprised to hear the NHL threaten contraction as the CBA negotiations commence in ernest. Because they own the Coyotes, if Glendale stopped chipping in for the bills, it could be more profitable to contract Phoenix and then expand to Quebec City or wherever a year or two later. I don't think the NHL is going to foot the whole bill for the Coyotes next year, and it may be easier to adjust the schedule by dropping a team than it is to plop Quebec or wherever into the Pacific.

Expansion fees are more lucrative than relocation fees, plus it would be a pretty good hammer to wield against the NHLPA who would get significant pushback from their members if it was a real possibility.

My comment was partially tongue-in-cheek (the stuff about stealing Tippet/Maloney), but I just have a bad feeling that this is going to be another no-holds-barred negotiation.

Nanabijou is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 12:26 AM
  #923
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Because hockey is the only sport where large numbers of people, including large numbers of media types, believe that the sport simply should not exist in certain geographic areas. The location of said areas, of course, is known only to those within that inner circle.

All I know is, we're not in it, and therefore never can be no matter what.
Not entirely true. Much of the world loathes the idea of the U.S. someday becoming good at soccer. Mention MLS or the US National Team in Europe and you'll quickly have someone looking down their nose at you. But your point certainly applies to hockey in Ohio.

leesmith is offline  
Old
01-10-2012, 12:29 AM
  #924
leesmith
"We're NEVER Done!"
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
I agree that expansion is the most likely endgame in the future, preferably when the economy is a bit better. But, I would not be at all surprised to hear the NHL threaten contraction as the CBA negotiations commence in ernest. Because they own the Coyotes, if Glendale stopped chipping in for the bills, it could be more profitable to contract Phoenix and then expand to Quebec City or wherever a year or two later. I don't think the NHL is going to foot the whole bill for the Coyotes next year, and it may be easier to adjust the schedule by dropping a team than it is to plop Quebec or wherever into the Pacific.

Expansion fees are more lucrative than relocation fees, plus it would be a pretty good hammer to wield against the NHLPA who would get significant pushback from their members if it was a real possibility.

My comment was partially tongue-in-cheek (the stuff about stealing Tippet/Maloney), but I just have a bad feeling that this is going to be another no-holds-barred negotiation.
Even though I expect to see expansion before contraction, I fear you may be right.

leesmith is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 07:13 PM
  #925
CBJWennberg41
Formerly CBJBrassard
 
CBJWennberg41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 13,910
vCash: 500
Bump

If the season is saved. The NHL suggests moving the CBJ to the Eastern Conference Southeast division and moving the Jets to our spot in the Central.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=802

Jets to the Western Conference and Central, Jackets to Southeast in the Eastern for this year.

CBJWennberg41 is online now  
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 01:39 PM.

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.