The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Lou Lamoriello on NHL lockout: 'I'm embarrassed for the game'
But with the lockout having reached its 102nd day without any hint of a breakthrough on a new collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players, Lamoriello voiced his frustration yesterday.
"I’m embarrassed for the game," Lamoriello told The Star-Ledger.
NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said no talks have been scheduled. With regular season games having been canceled through Jan. 14, the rest of the season will be scrapped unless the two sides can come up with a new CBA in the next two weeks.
"It’s coming down to the wire right now," Lamoriello said. "We’ve just got to trust the people that are involved. I’m embarrassed we are where we’re at. That’s the best expression I can use."
...
In past lockouts, Lamoriello has taken an active role in negotiations, working alongside commissioner Gary Bettman in 1994-95, but that hasn’t been the case this time.
"I’m not involved the way I was in the past. I can’t answer why," Lamoriello said.
It’s easy to speculate why. One of the points in which the owners have held firm during the lockout is the length of contracts. They want five or six-year term limits on new contracts and seven or eight-year limits on re-signing a team’s own players.
Interesting choice of words by Lamoriello. He's embarrassed for the game, which to me at least, doesn't sound like he's letting either side off.
This quote:
"We’ve just got to trust the people that are involved. I’m embarrassed we are where we’re at. That’s the best expression I can use."
We have to trust the people involved, but... I'm embarrassed we are where we are.
What's Lou trying to say?
As to the speculation about why Lamoriello isn't involved this time, I don't know how you could exclude Lou for his actions in giving out long contracts, but let Leipold on to the negotiating committee. Variance and term limits are on the NHL's wish list, while Leipold approved two massive contracts weeks before the lockout began. Maybe he's not involved because he doesn't like what the NHL has set out as it's wish list (-- and yes, I'm speculating too). As one of the NHL's best GMs, he probably has a good idea of the implications of some of these points from the GM perspective, while as the head of the Devils' operations, he may understand all the economic issues too.
The Kovalchuk contract(s) and the mess involved probably didn't make him any friends among the league leadership.
Lou stated publicly that he was dead against that. His owner intervened and forced the deal down his throat. The NHL really cannot hold that mess against Lou.
I am really glad that no one associated with the Devils (besides our newcomer Barch, but he has not played a game for us yet) has been publicly involved in either side of this fiasco.
I am really glad that no one associated with the Devils (besides our newcomer Barch, but he has not played a game for us yet) has been publicly involved in either side of this fiasco.
I am really glad that no one associated with the Devils (besides our newcomer Barch, but he has not played a game for us yet) has been publicly involved in either side of this fiasco.
They voted to lockout so no they don't get a pass.
After the Kovalchuk mess there was a settlement so the league can't challenge long term contracts that are within certain limits. From the league's perspective I think, while undesirable, those contracts are ok.
This is, if I have to guess, Lamoriello is in the cold and Leopold isn't.
Personally, I don't "feel" anything about any of them. They're acting in what they believe is a rational way even if it screws the league. That's why we need changes to contracting rules.
After the Kovalchuk mess there was a settlement so the league can't challenge long term contracts that are within certain limits. From the league's perspective I think, while undesirable, those contracts are ok.
This is, if I have to guess, Lamoriello is in the cold and Leopold isn't.
Personally, I don't "feel" anything about any of them. They're acting in what they believe it a rational way even if it screws the league. That's why we need changes to contracting rules.
My point was why would Lou be in the cold and owners who worked against every intent of the cap system, even if declared legal by the NHL, be part of the negotiating committee?
Technically, Lou gave a out a contract that the CBA allowed. We all knew that every one one of those long contracts with extreme variance was a cap circumvention in intent-- which ultimately what an arbitrator ruled about the Kovalchuk contract. It was identical to the others, just extreme.
I think Lou was saying this whole mess is an embarrassment to everyone involved - he was not towing the NHL's or Bettman's line and attacking just the players. Maybe I should have been more clear, I meant there has not been much partisan comments from the Devils camp during the lockout. Union representative Clarkson has been quiet as have most prominent Devils. I think Kovy made a comment awhile back that was interpreted as he might stay in Russia but that was about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones
They voted to lockout so no they don't get a pass.
Completely agree, I did not write anything that suggested they should get one. Everything is relative though - I prefer Vanderbeek to public hardliners Jacobs/Leipold/Snider just as I prefer the Devils players' mostly radio silence to the clowns on twitter from the NHLPA side. Of course, the latter comes from being part of an organization run by Lou Lamoriello.
My point was why would Lou be in the cold and owners who worked against every intent of the cap system, even if declared legal by the NHL, be part of the negotiating committee?
Technically, Lou gave a out a contract that the CBA allowed. We all knew that every one one of those long contracts with extreme variance was a cap circumvention in intent-- which ultimately what an arbitrator ruled about the Kovalchuk contract. It was identical to the others, just extreme.
Lamoriello went 150 mph while Holland, Bowman and others went 90 mph. Sure, they all were technically speeding but Lamoriello went far over the line despite being warned and was punished for it. Lamoriello holding a press conference flaunting it in the leagues face before the league had reviewed the contract probably didn't work in his favor either.
I have no doubt another GM would have tried to push an equally absurd contract though had not Lamoriello done it.
The Parise, Suter and Weber contracts are completely different because it is clearly defined what is allowed and is not these days.
I think he's being pretty frank & honest, accepts some responsibility for the hash of a mess the game finds itself in. "Embarrassed" in as much as he likely feel's it couldve perhaps been avoided. Systemic problems engendering an extremely expensive internecine war between the league & its talent. Some serious collateral damage already caused, more to come the longer it plays out. As part of the "establishment", management, he's owning up, admitting to being culpable, though in a broader sense & objectively suggesting its not just the NHL thats at fault here. Its just downright embarrassing for everyone really. The league, the NHLPA...
Why does everyone assume Lou's not involved because the league's mad at him? Maybe he's mad at THEM, for their outrageous punishment of the Devils for a contract that got disallowed anyway? Not to mention the blatant and unpunished public tampering by the Wild with Parise?
Why does everyone assume Lou's not involved because the league's mad at him? Maybe he's mad at THEM, for their outrageous punishment of the Devils for a contract that got disallowed anyway? Not to mention the blatant and unpunished public tampering by the Wild with Parise?
Lamoriello went 150 mph while Holland, Bowman and others went 90 mph. Sure, they all were technically speeding but Lamoriello went far over the line despite being warned and was punished for it. Lamoriello holding a press conference flaunting it in the leagues face before the league had reviewed the contract probably didn't work in his favor either.
I have no doubt another GM would have tried to push an equally absurd contract though had not Lamoriello done it.
The Parise, Suter and Weber contracts are completely different because it is clearly defined what is allowed and is not these days.
You're pretty funny because the penalty imposed on the Devils is a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17
I can tell Lou why he isn't involved.
A) He will be retiring soon, and the people that will have to deal with whatever rules are in the new CBA should be the ones with the most input.
B) He either missed some major loopholes in the last go around, or he designed them in so he could take advantage of them.
And hows that working out for us?
Last edited by Crease: 12-27-2012 at 11:48 AM.
Reason: We don't LOL here...
I going out on a very, very long limb here... but I believe Lou owns a small (albeit 1% maybe?) of the team, or the ownership group that owns the team. Maybe he simply doesn't want to be a conflict of interest?
Lou owned part of the Yankees (according to citation in Wikipedia). The Yankees owned the Devils at one time... I'm not sure of this, but he's probably a very small owner of the team.
Furthermore, I doubt the Kovy saga has anything to do with the fact that he doesn't want to be involved. It's probably a kin to the PA letting the younger guys be more involved... How much more of this will Lou bother with?
__________________
"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
"I learned not to question Cowbell's willingness to ban." - Brian Boyle
Lou had a role in creating the situation we see before us today (concessions that had 'unintended' consequences). What makes a good GM does not necessarily make a good negotiator for a league. What they need is some corporate finance deal makers to step in here.
I'd speculate that he's not part of the negotiation process because his views are not held by the majority or by those who ultimately control the direction the owners are presenting. I think that's the simplest answer. And perhaps he was part of some of the concessions that the owners gave into last time, and this time they're not going to make such concessions.
He says he's embarrassed by the sport, because he thinks all of these lockouts are bad for the sports reputation. I don't think that means he is against the lockout, but just that it's shameful that it's happening yet again, that the League can't get its house in order and not keep needing these lockouts to try to resolve things.
