man watch this, we'll get a lock out and we'll end up with some dumb prospect roulette ******** as a bridging point and Minnesota will lose every good prospect. we will then watch as all of Granlund, Brodin, Coyle develop into super stars and we end up with <insert minnesota born prospect here that isn't any good>
Last edited by Jarick: 05-17-2012 at 07:51 AM.
Reason: profanity
If there's a lockout, will the AHL season still happen? If so, I'd assume most Wild players would play in Houston, the SEL, or SM-liiga.
AHL season would still happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild
man watch this, we'll get a lock out and we'll end up with some gay prospect roulette ******** as a bridging point and Minnesota will lose every good prospect. we will then watch as all of Granlund, Brodin, Coyle develop into super stars and we end up with <insert minnesota born prospect here that isn't any good>
Honestly, a lock-out would work wonders for our prospects. If they would all be able to play together in the AHL together, with others playing overseas, that would be wonderful for their development. The lockout was huge, in my opinion, for helping the 2003 become one of the greatest draft classes ever. They got a year (almost) without pressure, to just develop. Since we have one of the better draft classes, we'd be able to come back a much better team.
man watch this, we'll get a lock out and we'll end up with some dumb prospect roulette ******** as a bridging point and Minnesota will lose every good prospect. we will then watch as all of Granlund, Brodin, Coyle develop into super stars and we end up with <insert minnesota born prospect here that isn't any good>
Or their development will get screwed up.
Edit: Well, I'm thinking mainly about Granlund. He's essentially NHL-ready. I just want to see this kid play.
man watch this, we'll get a lock out and we'll end up with some gay prospect roulette ******** as a bridging point and Minnesota will lose every good prospect. we will then watch as all of Granlund, Brodin, Coyle develop into super stars and we end up with <insert minnesota born prospect here that isn't any good>
Honestly, a lock-out would work wonders for our prospects. If they would all be able to play together in the AHL together, with others playing overseas, that would be wonderful for their development. The lockout was huge, in my opinion, for helping the 2003 become one of the greatest draft classes ever. They got a year (almost) without pressure, to just develop. Since we have one of the better draft classes, we'd be able to come back a much better team.
I am glad somebody brought it up. I've been thinking about that for a while, but didn't want to say it outloud because I didn't want to get flamed
Anyway, in a strange and twisted way, I think a lockout is the best thing that could happen to our team. It's like a free development year for all the prospects, but without the pressure, or the anguish of the growing pains. Last time around, the lockout did wonders for Burns, Koivu, and PMB, among others.
There's not going to be a lockout. Last year the NHL made $2.9 billion and I'm sure it will be better than that this year with Winnipeg. Lockout = $0. Nobody wants to go through that again.
Again, look at the Vikings stadium. They were all but one a few weeks ago, remember?
I am glad somebody brought it up. I've been thinking about that for a while, but didn't want to say it outloud because I didn't want to get flamed
Anyway, in a strange and twisted way, I think a lockout is the best thing that could happen to our team. It's like a free development year for all the prospects, but without the pressure, or the anguish of the growing pains. Last time around, the lockout did wonders for Burns, Koivu, and PMB, among others.
But of course, lockout also means no NHL hockey
yeah but GMCF isn't a dumb **** like the other guy was, he'll see if a guy isn't up to par and send him to develop else where. NHL cannot afford a lock out, they are growing and getting some national attention back, if there is a lock out ESPN will do all they can to drag the NHL through the ****.
This will be my only post in this thread on account of not wanting to rack up too many infractions...
Any statement about an "impending lockout" is incredibily foolish at best. While the league actually filing for the termination of the CBA is surprising, the fact that they did it before the deadline is rather telling.
This action means absolutely nothing vis a vis a lockout.
In fact, multiple seasons have been played without a CBA in place. The most likely comparable to this season is not 04-05 as that was such a completely different scenario, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation, and basically should not even be referenced if people are talking about upcoming collective bargaining. Instead, the most comparable is likely the 91-92 season which was started without an agreement in place, and played until just before the playoffs, when the players instituted a strike. That strike lasted all of 9 days before an agreement was reached to bridge the previous CBA through the playoffs and the next season.
It's also extremely important to note, while in the NFL last year teams were immediately forbidden from communicating with the players or dealing with them at all, that will never be the case in the NHL. The existing CBA runs through September 15, 2012 no matter what either side does. That means the draft will go on as usual, player contracts can be signed, the July 1 start of free agency will continue unhindered. Contrary to the fearmongering claim quoted in the OP, it's highly unlikely that things like rookie camp will be cancelled. Team activities can and will continue like normal until the expiration of the existing CBA on 9/15/12. Beyond that point, considering the non-adversarial position the league is attempting to posture for, and the much greater potential negative impact to the players, the season will almost certainly begin on time, continue through normally, and an agreement be reached prior to the playoffs of next season. It's at that time that we're most likely to have issues as immediately before the playoffs is when the players have the most power. In this situation, a playoff strike is far more likely than any sort of lockout behavior by the owners.
This will be my only post in this thread on account of not wanting to rack up too many infractions...
Any statement about an "impending lockout" is incredibily foolish at best. While the league actually filing for the termination of the CBA is surprising, the fact that they did it before the deadline is rather telling.
This action means absolutely nothing vis a vis a lockout.
In fact, multiple seasons have been played without a CBA in place. The most likely comparable to this season is not 04-05 as that was such a completely different scenario, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation, and basically should not even be referenced if people are talking about upcoming collective bargaining. Instead, the most comparable is likely the 91-92 season which was started without an agreement in place, and played until just before the playoffs, when the players instituted a strike. That strike lasted all of 9 days before an agreement was reached to bridge the previous CBA through the playoffs and the next season.
It's also extremely important to note, while in the NFL last year teams were immediately forbidden from communicating with the players or dealing with them at all, that will never be the case in the NHL. The existing CBA runs through September 15, 2012 no matter what either side does. That means the draft will go on as usual, player contracts can be signed, the July 1 start of free agency will continue unhindered. Contrary to the fearmongering claim quoted in the OP, it's highly unlikely that things like rookie camp will be cancelled. Team activities can and will continue like normal until the expiration of the existing CBA on 9/15/12. Beyond that point, considering the non-adversarial position the league is attempting to posture for, and the much greater potential negative impact to the players, the season will almost certainly begin on time, continue through normally, and an agreement be reached prior to the playoffs of next season. It's at that time that we're most likely to have issues as immediately before the playoffs is when the players have the most power. In this situation, a playoff strike is far more likely than any sort of lockout behavior by the owners.
so what you are saying is the Wild will make the playoffs and then there will be a player strike so we won't get to watch our team in the playoffs
This will be my only post in this thread on account of not wanting to rack up too many infractions...
Look forward to this...
It all depends on what the three sides involved want and will be willing to damage their entire golden egg in order to get what they want..
So far, there has yet to be any major angry rhetoric being thrown around...
Issues that will be polarizing;
1. Re-Alignment (owners/league/players)
2. League Discipline (owners/players)
3. Salaries/Revenue (owners/league/Players)
4. Escrows (players)
biggest sticking point as i said waaaaaay earlier is revenue sharing. insurance premiums have skyrocketed so the old agreement isn't nearly as equitable as it was when it was signed.
biggest sticking point as i said waaaaaay earlier is revenue sharing. insurance premiums have skyrocketed so the old agreement isn't nearly as equitable as it was when it was signed.
from the player perspective, i think the two big things are escrow and discipline.
players won't get paid any less than before if the cap is scaled back and escrow is done away with...
Actually I wouldn't mind seeing the league reduce the salary cap rather than expand it. That means just that many more teams won't have enough space for Parise.
Although it could cause quite a cluster **** for the teams that are already at the cap I suppose.
Actually I wouldn't mind seeing the league reduce the salary cap rather than expand it. That means just that many more teams won't have enough space for Parise.
Although it could cause quite a cluster **** for the teams that are already at the cap I suppose.
They would have some kind of provisions in there to make sure that doesnt happen, either salary rollback proportional to the cap rollback, or some other mechanism.
