The NHL Lockout...does anyone REALLY CARE?

[POJO_Risin]

I'm a hockey fan...but...

who in the fuck is EVER going to buy into a scoring line that looks like this...

Vlakestanowicz...to Ikkkkanin...over to Lemieux (-you...you know...silent fucking X...like Hockey is close to drinking a Bordeaux)...who skates around Andreychuk...flips it back to Grand-Pierre...over to Zednev...back to Vakestanowicz...over to Konolwalchuk...off the pads of Roy (no...not roy...fucking WAH!!!!)

puck snagged out of the crease by Andreychuk...flips to center ice where Desrochers is waiting...over to Quintal...across to Jillson...one-timer off Khabibulin's pads...but the REBOUND BY ORSZAGH IS PUNCHED IN FOR A GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try rollin' all that off your fucking tongue a couple of times...

[Lou]

Again, that shows what a joke the powers that be are.

The Comish says it's over, and then others keep trying to work something out anyway.

[POJO_Risin]

Do the owners elect the commisioner in the NHL?

[Va Beach VH Fan]

I believe it's the Board of Governors, whoever in the fuck they are...

Well, I should've known not to put so much stock in press rumors about the deal being imminent, even though ESPN was reporting that for about 24 hours....

Then the NHL came out of the meetings and pretty much said, "psyche !!!"....

The Union said that the deal the NHL offered today was WORSE than what they offered Wednesday....

According to them, any further negotiations will be focused on an on-time start to NEXT season, not this season....

And BTW, both Bettman and Goodenow were NOT involved in talks today....

[POJO_Risin]

Good...both should be gone after their immense clusterfuck...

[Dave's PA Rental]

Wha?...holey crap...where did the last 5 hours go? Ive been playing this game

http://www.xgenstudios.com/play/motherload/

and havent been paying attention...say goodbye to your Saturday night, friends...

[POJO_Risin]

lmfao...not even going to look...my once a week on this stupid waste of a life internet...is over...getting off now...see most of y'all next week...

[Lou]

In all seriousness, what do you think lies ahead for 2005-06? I'm betting they start out with replacement players, mainly elevating AHL players to the NHL. I can see some of those players who went to Europe staying there.

[POJO_Risin]

They were talking about something yesterday on ESPN...that intrigued me...essentially saying what you just said...

They would declare an impasse to the National Labor Board...who would then allow the NHL to use replacement players...

Lemieux and Gretzky were both at the meetings...laughable that it was their first time...these are the guys you want involved from the start...it's funny...we may never see Mario again in an NHL uniform because of this...

Next year...I don't see the impasse getting fixed...the Owners were flaming pissed at Bettman because he upped the hard line cap from 40 million to 42.5...without their permission...but the players wouldn't come down at all from their perch at 49 million...

I think if they would have come down to 45 million...and the owners would have allowed the "luxury tax" portion...which they would and should do (but of course they don't because they don't trust each other NOT TO GO OVER THE CAP...like MLB)...we could have had a season...

The year will start with scabs...which is unfortunate...because good players will be tagged for the rest of their lives...

I'll be honest with you...if I were the NHL...I'd use the new players...and just forget about the old players...let them start their own fucking league...

I see 20-30 players retire because of age because of this...

and probably 50 or so marginal Europeans...staying there for good...

a big impact for sure...

Maybe the AHL...but you'll see a lot of the major minor leagues effected...

you'll have some AHL guys (but not the top players who WILL play in the NHL someday...and don't want the stigma)...

you'll see a bunch of ECHL guys...the AA of hockey...who's careers are less for sure...

you may even see the juniors have an impact...and the interesting thing here is...if it's an extended time...you may see an interesting thing happen with the juniors...perhaps get another Gretzky and/or Lemieux or Jagr...who come into the league at 17 or 18...and start tearing it up...

doesn't happen much these days because of the fear of starting a guy that young...

I don't know...but a dark day for hockey...that's for sure...

[Lou]

OK, next question:

How many teams, if any, get eliminated within the next five years?

My opinion, they need to get rid at least 10 teams, basically teams south of the Mason-Dixon line. What the hell hockey market is there in Columbus, Ohio? That one will forever baffle me.

[POJO_Risin]

It should happen...but it won't...

I think you may lose some teams...

The teams that would need to go...

Florida, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Phoenix, Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville and either Anaheim or the Kings...

that gets rid of 8 teams...

You could probably reintroduce teams to Hartford...who supports their teams...and...hmmmm....a Canadian Market...where did Colorado come from? Give that city back a team...Quebec....

anyways...I don't agree with you HAVING to get rid of 8 teams...what I do agree with is that they need to be in the right markets...

putting teams in the South was a bad idea...you look at the situation here in Raleigh...

you have a team that essentially made money one year...the Stanley cup run...and they didn't make money until the playoffs...but in the playoffs...they were making nearly a million dollars a game...

other than that...you are looking at losing 5-10 million in a good year (not counting playoffs)...and nearly 20 million on a bad year...

not a good investment...

To make a long story short...teams like the Canes need to go bye-bye...

but...the fact of the matter is this...

without a cap...it doesn't matter where the teams are...

[Lou]

Well I don't know about that. The Flyers make a shitload of money, one of few NHL teams that do. They'd be over the proposed cap. The Rangers I'm sure make a shitload of money too.

It's really not the same thing as the NFL. The NFL's cap is about trying to make each team competitive. It's not about fear of teams outspending their means. I don't think there's one NFL team, even the Arizona Cardinals, that's not making good money.

Hockey is afraid of losing money, but honestly I don't know that a cap solves that. Because the small market teams aren't spending a lot of money anyway. And it's been shown over and over that you can be just as competitive spending bargain basement money (see Calgary, Tampa, Anaheim) as you can spending big bucks.

I agree with Goodenow that only 6 teams would be able to afford spending over the cap amount anyway.

Really, why should the teams that CAN afford a big payroll be punished as if they were in a small-market economy? What does the NHL care if the Flyers and Rangers spend big bucks if they continue to make money. If the Flyers and Rangers won every year I could see their point. But they don't.

[POJO_Risin]

No...it's not the same as the NFL...as someone else said...more like the NBA...where you have idiots like the Knicks and Lakers over the cap...but not winning...

a soft cap (ie...luxory tax) would take some money from those teams that are overspending (they still will)...and allow some of the smaller markets to not take as big a hit...

The problem is always the owners overspending...which is why they lose money...it's funny...they are hardlining now...because they know they can't help themselves...

What Goodenow isn't taking to account is that a hard cap...say at 42 million...would keep the overall contracts down...so yeah...only six could go over the cap...

but...

overall...contracts would be down...

The problem with the Rangers and the Flyers overspending...is that if they are both...along with Colorado...Detroit and Anaheim...spending 15 million a year for a stud...it then brings it up for everyone...

including the marginal players...who instead of making a mil or so...make 3 or 4...

it adds up...

What the fear is...is that if it continues...it will not only run the 8 teams I mentioned into the ground...but the league in and of itself...

I doubt that's true...but...owners were frantic...because...lmfao...of what THEY did...so fuck 'em...

[Lou]

I guess the problem is that most teams can't spend up to the cap anyway, which is really fuckin' sad. That's why I think a cap still wouldn't be effective. It's not like the NBA where every team obviously can afford the cap amount, because most NBA teams are well over it. In the NFL, again most teams are right at the cap amount; very few have a problem forcing themselves to spend the minimum 80% of the cap.

I just don't see how a cap is gonna make teams like Pittsburgh, Columbus, Atlanta any good. Is a cap number gonna give them more money? Is it gonna give them more revenue? It'll make players more affordable, but what good is it when you can't even afford the reduced price? That's like if you offered to sell me a $500,000 Lamborghini for $300,000. Yeah it's a bargain, but guess what, I still can't afford it.

[POJO_Risin]

Your point certainly has validity...and don't forget Buffalo...

if you set a cap at 42-45 million...that would be a 2 million dollar average per player...slightly over that...

that would make most of those teams viable...

well...like I said...I think you have to take out all the Southern teams...

once you do that...then you're looking at teams like Buffalo and Pittsburgh as the old school teams that need help....

You combine that with a change in the way that things are played...and you have something...

I remember watching the World Cup in what...96 or 97...when the US beat Canada...playing international rules...one of the best things I've seen on TV...and hockey was making a move...

then came the grabbing...and the holding...and away it went...

Do I think the Cap is the end all answer? No...but I do think it's a part of it...