Fantasy Guide is updated through August 15, Draft List (included) was updated the following day. At the end of the Anaheim Ducks section, there is a 60% off coupon code to pick up the DobberFootball fantasy guide and/or playbook. So if you have the hockey guide and you enjoy football, grab the coupon code, reach into your pocket for the pennies this football guide will cost you, and set up a great week!

Sergei Samsonov will try out for the San Jose Sharks. After Samsonov took a year off to get healthy (as far as I know), I find this one extremely interesting. He'll be 34 in the fall and he had 40 points in 2010-11.

Also in that link you'll find a news item on Nail Yakupov wiping out on the treadmill. Oy - the rookie injury curse is happening already for the Oilers, though it was just a rugburn.

Look at this - Michal Neuvirth thinks that Braden Holtby is his weakest competition. He feels that Varlamov and Vokoun were stronger competition. Where his logic falls short is health. All a goalie needs is to stay healthy and just like that he'll pass Neuvirth on the depth chart.

So the Canadian Hockey League is forming a union. On one hand, good for them. The players really get a raw deal in that league, generating revenue and seeing a tiny weekly allowance and minor expenses for their trouble. And 90% of them never make it to a level where they can earn a living off the sport. On the other hand, uh oh, ticket prices are about to go up. Because you just know that the owners aren't going to see their profits take any kind of dip.

It's August 21, generally well into the dead hockey news window - but with this CBA it's more so. Now we're stuck with all this off-ice news.

I made a comment yesterday that puzzled some people.

"Don't blame Bettman for the lockout. Blame the six or seven richest teams' ownership".

I'll clarify. Were it not for those highly profitable teams, Bettman - under the direction of the 23 other owners - would work on a CBA with revenue sharing. Lockout averted. But if I own the Leafs, and I made $250 million last year (I have no idea, just bear with me)… would I be happy if I make $220 million next year because $30 million went to poor teams? Even the players taking a cut, and a rollback, etc would only creep that number back up to $230. I'm still down quite a bit. And I have yacht payments to make. The point is, only a handful of owners are against revenue sharing. The rich ones. And there's your biggest sticking point.

Not that Bettman is a saint, mind you. Here is what it is like negotiating with him - this is what he did with CBC. Thanks to Sentium (ahem - Dakkster), who posted this in the forum. Check out this quote from that piece, from the perspective of CBC:

On July 19, in Montreal, we presented Bettman and Daly with a formal offer. Less than two weeks later, we met again in New York. This time Bettman tabled his revenue model, which had been prepared by an outside group of consultants. The numbers looked absurd to us. They were another world from what we were actually achieving. Bettman, however, seemed quite happy with them.

“So,” he asked, “now that you see how well you should be doing, how much more can you put on the table?”

“These numbers are crazy,” I said. “Your projections are way too aggressive.”

“Maybe you just have a lousy sales force,” he countered.

“We have a good sales force. They have been selling Hockey Night in Canada since the dawn of history. They know the market better than anyone.”

“Our consultants say you are priced too low,” Gary went on. He smiled cheerfully.

At last we agreed that his man, Steven Hatze-Petros, would meet with our head of sales, David Scapillati, to see whether there was a common ground. And in fact they did agree. By the end of the month they had produced a common revenue number, which was much closer to our own.

The next day, I called Bettman. He was his usual sunny self.

“Now,” I said, “since we have agreed on the revenues, we should be able to close.”

“Nope,” he replied.

“Nope?”

“There is no agreement on the revenue number,” he said.

“That can’t be! Scapillati told me that he and Hatze-Petros had agreed.”

“Well, I didn’t.”

Another commente yesterday, I think it was Dukla, noted that he figured Eric Tangradi would be a bust three years ago and there is nothing to change his opinion. Right you are, my friend. But the easiest call to make in fantasy hockey is pointing to a prospect - any prospect outside the top 10 - and say "he'll be a bust". Nine times out of 10, you'll be right!

Yeah, lack of news has me commenting on comments now. Sigh.

The new DobberHockey banner, based on  your votes in the forum, for 2012-13 will have:

Claude Giroux

Steven Stamkos

Jonathan Quick

Erik Karlsson

The NHLFA, now there's a group I haven't heard from since the last lockout, are back with a CBA proposal via extensive poll results. I remember when the NHLFA first got started. I think it was during my last year of university, so 14 years ago. I remember writing to them, commending them for their idea and offering my services. I didn't hear back.

Which teams would benefit the most from a lockout? Obviously, the youngest teams. The teams filled with stars who can play in the AHL (or junior) in October. And the teams that have been finishing near the bottom of the league a lot. Of course, Edmonton leads the pack. Think of the last lockout and extrapolate to this one:

1. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins would play in the WJC. As would Nail Yakupov. Last lockout had Crosby, Getzlaf, Perry, Bergeron, Carter, etc. Wonderful hockey.

2. For the draft, the NHL weighted teams based on their previous few years in the NHL standings. Um…yeah, so the Oilers would pretty much get all the lottery balls.

Bottom line - the Oilers benefit the most from a lockout. It would help the Islanders and the Blue Jackets, too.

Other thoughts:

3. Last time, Eric Staal and Jason Spezza thrived in the AHL. Each came back to the NHL as a force.

4. Last time, Teemu Selanne limped into the break as a 50-point guy on the decline. One year off and he became a 90-point superstar again.

The Flyers have extended Scott Hartnell for six more years ($28.5 million). That's $4.75 million per year, up from his current $3.2 million (salary, not cap hit). Nice to get raises of close to 50%. How many of us Joe Lunchpails get that kind of raise? Pretty sweet.

Mike Fisher has signed a two-year extension with Nashville worth $4.2 million per.

Scott Hartnell highlights. Beauty:


Write comment
Comments (22)add comment

Dakkster said:

Dakkster
... Why do the players need a union? Go back to before there was a player union and see how they had it then. Then go and look at how they had it with corrupt-to-the-bone Eagleson.
August 22, 2012
Votes: +1

4horsemen said:

4horsemen
Unions Unions certainly have merit however it's generally in industries requiring relatively unskilled labour (ie. easily replaceable workforce). If your skills are truly valuable/rare then unions are not always necessary because the individual is not easily replaceable and can therefore negotiate a fair wage for themselves. I know this from experience, my employer needs my services far more than I need theirs so we come to a mutually agreeable settlement and move forward.

So why do the players need a union? The argument can be made that they are in an industry with only one employer and therefore have no choice. It could also be argued that there are other options but most North American players simply don't see it that way....maybe they should? That's not really for me to say.

To imply that either side is 'right' in this standoff is naive. They are both operating out of self interest...as almost all of us do....sometimes these mutual interests overlap and sometimes they diverge. It's closing the gap on the diverging interests that is the tough part and I feel like the non-profitable expansion teams are one of the issues at the heart of the disagreement. I blame Bettman for that!!!
August 22, 2012
Votes: -2

shingy said:

shingy
Unions
Trust me, without them, there would a lot of children in the US working right now, just like anywhere else in the world that doesn't have or never had a union presence.

And like Dakkster said, Corps don't always win, if they did, we'd all be making pennies to the dollar by now, living in Corporate (Walmart) owned housing, getting paid corporate currency only to spend at their company store.
August 22, 2012
Votes: +1

Dakkster said:

Dakkster
... Don't even put me on that silly American political spectrum (where liberal doesn't even mean the true meaning of liberal = personal freedom). I'm a social democrat, through and through, as with a lot of people here in Europe.

Of course there are plenty of people willing to play hockey for a living. However, they don't have the talent for it, so your precious investors still don't have a product.

And no, corporations and owners don't always win.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Board Member said:

crackho1976
Huh? DakkSter i didnt mean to offend a Liberal such as yourself!smilies/wink.gif

There are many good hockey players that would literally kill to play hockey for a living....how many people are willing to purchase an NHL franchise? There are always other willing to step in at any level of work. We will see in the coming months but owners and corporations always win.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Dakkster said:

Dakkster
... Board Member: Bullshit. Unions are what built up the middle class of America. No unions to seek and protect the rights of workers = A two class society of very poor and very rich, no middle ground. No unions = The US wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today.

Yes, the owners take the risk of investment, but without the players they don't have a product to invest in. If it helps the league as a whole to grow, then revenue sharing is hardly a joke. You give me extremely heavy Ayn Rand vibes and that's not a good thing.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +1

Board Member said:

crackho1976
Unions I for one am with the owners, they put up the capital and took the risk to purchase the teams therefore they have the right to lockout the players. Unions seem to only be popular in the East and we all know what they did to the auto industry. Revenue sharing is a joke, the players should be happy with what they have for base salaries to begin with. Let them all head to the SEL for a year and fix this nce and for all gary!!
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

ChicagoChief said:

ChicagoChief
...
horsemen - I don't think Bettman has a say. So we're not understanding each other. I'm saying the say is 100% between Toronto, New York, and five or six other rich team owners/ownership groups. And they are looking out for themselves. Whether that is right or wrong, I haven't commented on. But it will be the reason for the lockout. It won't be Bettman, or (for example) Columbus' ownership, holding up the season.


Once again, I don't think big markets have any interest in holding up the year. It's costing them money. I'm sure they'd be quite happy to continue with the previous CBA, as would the players.

So, who then is holding up the season? You can blame this on any of the parties if your standard is that they are acting out of self-interest. The reason you choose to arbitrarily blame the revenue-generating franchises is what is really confusing to me. They have little to gain here.

You really believe that Bell and Rogers bought the Leafs (who made roughly $80 million in revenues last year, I believe) so that they could involve themselves in a labour dispute?
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

4horsemen said:

4horsemen
... Dobber - that implies that the situation the league is in now can in no way be attributed to Bettman's expansion philosophy.

Lets use the analogy of a building contractor who's been hired by a developer. Your comparison would be like the contractor hiring an electrician that the developer didn't agree with in the first place, then when the electrical work didn't pan out turning around and asking the developer for more money to hire another electrician to finish the job and telling the homeowner that it's the developers fault they weren't moving in on time.

The problem was created by Bettman not the owners of the profitable franchises. The idea that the lockout could now be pinned on them is absolving Bettman of all his failed choices.

August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Dobber said:

Dobber
... horsemen - I don't think Bettman has a say. So we're not understanding each other. I'm saying the say is 100% between Toronto, New York, and five or six other rich team owners/ownership groups. And they are looking out for themselves. Whether that is right or wrong, I haven't commented on. But it will be the reason for the lockout. It won't be Bettman, or (for example) Columbus' ownership, holding up the season.


August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

4horsemen said:

4horsemen
... @ChicagoChief - You have my complete agreement sir. From what I understand, the players themselves are even funding this fiasco through their escrow payments....somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

ChicagoChief said:

ChicagoChief
... Here's the question that people should be paying more attention to:

Why should the players pay the price here rather than just move two franchises? Columbus and Phoenix, as far as I understand, account for 1/3 of the league's losses, and instead of dealing with failing markets by folding them or moving them to where they can actually make profits (Quebec/Southern Ontario), the league insists that the players must take the hit.

Deal with these two failed markets and then maybe you can come to the players and talk realistically about revenues, and what's fair.

But, Bettman is smart. He has no intention of being fair. At this point, the value of those franchises is at a low. If he can get a better CBA, he'll have more interested parties willing to pay that much more to buy teams and relocate them. That's hundreds of millions in revenues. But, the current revenue numbers allow him to make the argument that more concessions from the players are necessary, at least a lot more than if he had already dealt with these two big loser franchises.
August 21, 2012
Votes: -1

Spec7ral said:

Spec7ral
... 4horsemen-

Very eloquent and very true.

I run two outlets for a very profitable company. One of the outlets has been in the red since opening years ago due to the fact someone thought that double-digits for rent was a good idea. It's a unusual situation to have one person doing two outlets, but that was the only way to have it make a profit and try to endure as the neighborhood undegoes comsetic uplifts and hopefully we see the return on (a absolutely idiotic) investment years later.

In this situation I do not own either outlet. I am paid by a company. But if these were franchised and if I was asked by the company to take on the shortcomings of another outlet due to the fact that some nimrod couldn't figure out that 2+3 does not equal 10,000, I would tell the company to go f*ck itself. It's not like any of these crap market teams are going to see some sort of huge boom anytime soon.

And the whining rich is true as well. Stop complaining, go out and use that time to create your own company, and pay yourself the same as your entry level workers. That would work QUITE well.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Dakkster said:

Dakkster
... Here's an interesting tidbit about the Phoenix situation:

"The NHL doled out more than $6 million for legal costs related to the Coyotes' bankruptcy and ownership soap opera during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, according to Sports Business Daily. The NHL's tax records reveal it paid $6.08 million to the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP that gave legal counsel during the Coyotes' legal fights. The NHL rescued the Coyotes from Chapter 11 in 2009 for $140 million after blocking the purchase and move to Canada by Jim Balsillie. The league is currently in the midst of trying to sell the team to Greg Jamison."
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

mabus said:

mabus
Blame In my mind, Bettman is clearly the person to blame for our current situation. He has tried to put teams non-hockey markets with no established fan base, then complains that some of the teams are losing money and says the system is broken. Would additional revenue sharing be necessary if we removed two franchises and moved one of the low revenue ones into the Toronto area? Over expansion was Bettman's push. Moving into non-hockey markets was Bettman's idea. Locking out someone for a year to push for system that you claim is broken only 5 years later is Bettman's problem.

We also don't need 30 franchises - we'd do just fine with 28 and have 4 divisions of 7 teams.

Finally, can anyone come up with a logical reason for why there is still a hockey team in Phoenix? They went bankrupt so they had an out on their contract. After a decade, there is still no established fan base - when I can get playoff tickets for $25 on game day from a ticket office, we have a problem. All this while there are other hockey markets screaming for a team. The Phoenix situation alone has me saying Bettman needs to go.

Mabus
August 21, 2012
Votes: +1

4horsemen said:

4horsemen
Blame Game Dobbs, thanks for adding a bit of clarification to your comments yesterday but I still take exception to what you're saying and since we seem to be coming at this from completely different angles we will probably never see eye to eye but I'll take one more stab at this.

Your view seems to be that the NHL is a singular entity who's common goal is represented by the views of one Gary Bettman. As such, his dogged determination to push hockey into non-traditional hockey markets at any cost should be seen as a short term pain for a long term gain. The upshot being that every market in the US is a profitable hockey market whether they know it or not. Eventually they'll come around and realize what a huge mistake they've made and embrace our beloved game, thereby raining down even greater profits on all.

I don't buy this for one second. The traditional hockey markets provide the highest yields year after year after year. Expansion to non-traditional markets should be a very calculated gamble with a definable timeline for success. Every single venture in the entire business world works like this, you don't throw good money after bad when there are clearly better options. In fact these options are begging to be considered yet a blind eye is being turned (much to the chagrin of the most profitable teams)in what I can only describe as, one of the most self serving martyr missions in modern day economics. Now some people are blaming these profitable franchises for their 'greed' at not wanting to continue funding these failed ventures to a greater extent. My questions are simple; why should they? Would you if you were in their shoes? Where do people get off with this socialist notion that they know how much money is sufficient for the ownership groups? Do we really feel sorry for players making 10, 20, 50 or 100 times more than the majority of us?

Good business is good business! We live in a capitalist society and it seems there are a lot of voices screaming for a move towards socialism. Oh the evil bosses and their profits?!? How many of you own an Apple product? Visit Facebook or Google on a daily basis? Shop on Amazon? Even drive gas car or tuck? Do you have any idea what sort of profits these corporations are raking in? Do you actually do anything about it?

Be careful of the hypocrisy of criticizing 'the machine' while enjoying it's benefits in a state of resigned bliss.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +2

InnocentBystander said:

27Blue
... after the lockout in 2005, the draft lottery gave weighting to clubs without playoff appearances, but also to clubs who hadn't won a draft lottery in the previous 3 years.... if the nhl is faced with a similar situation this coming draft and the adopt the same system as 2005 for determining the order, edmonton would have the lowest chance of winning the lottery....

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26401


Anaheim (1 playoff appearance)
Boston (3 playoff appearances)
Buffalo (2 playoff appearances)
Calgary (0 playoff appearances)
Carolina (0 playoff appearances)
Chicago (3 playoff appearances)
Colorado (1 playoff appearance)
Columbus (0 playoff appearances)
Dallas (0 playoff appearances)
Detroit (3 playoff appearances)
Edmonton (0 playoff appearances, 3 first overall picks,)
Florida (1 playoff appearance)
Los Angeles (3 playoff appearances)
Minnesota (0 playoff appearances)
Montreal (2 playoff appearances)
Nashville (3 playoff appearances)
New Jersey (2 playoff appearances)
New York I. (0 playoff appearances, 1 first overall pick)
New York R. (2 playoff appearances)
Ottawa (2 playoff appearances)
Philadelphia (3 playoff appearances)
Phoenix (3 playoff appearances)
Pittsburgh (3 playoff appearances)
San Jose (3 playoff appearances)
St. Louis (1 playoff appearance)
Tampa Bay (1 playoff appearance)
Toronto (0 playoff appearances)
Vancouver (3 playoff appearances)
Washington (3 playoff appearances)
Winnipeg (0 playoff appearances)

TEAMS WITH THREE BALLS (7)
Calgary, Carolina, Columbus, Dallas, Minnesota, Toronto, Winnipeg

TEAMS WITH TWO BALLS (6)
Anaheim, Colorado, Florida, New York (I), St. Louis, Tampa Bay

TEAMS WITH ONE BALL (17)
Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Montreal, Nashville, New Jersey, New York (R), Ottawa, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Vancouver, Washington





August 21, 2012
Votes: +4

thatbirdguy said:

thatbirdguy
CHLPA Let's try that link again:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blo...9327.html

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blo...09327.html
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

thatbirdguy said:

thatbirdguy
CHLPA Anything on a potential CHLPA is very tenuous at this point. This article gives a good summary:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blo...9327.html

Most players don't know anything about it, and they may not even have the legal ability to form a union.

Not to mention, you think its difficult to come to an agreement with 30 teams of adults? How about 60 teams of 16-20 year olds.

The goals of a union for the CHL are laudable, but I put zero stock in it at this point. And I have little doubt that we'll lose some smaller market teams because of it as well. The OHL will probably be fine, but the WHL and the QMJHL will feel an impact for sure.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

shingy said:

shingy
CHL Union
Great news. Unions are the only thing stopping many companies from taking total advantage of it's employees and fleecing them for all their worth. These kids are very vulnerable and need to be protected on many levels. Owners will be owners, they want more money and don't like spending it.
If prices go up because owners want to pass the cost of that needed protection down to the fan instead of out of their operating cost, boo on them. But that's what they do, and that's what they've been allowed to do.

Bettman is a little weasel. When a group of billionaire elite hand pick you to be their front man, it says a lot. The interaction with CBC goes a long way in giving people insight into how he works, and how the bosses prefer their leaders to work. Greasy. No respect, nothing. He would be a very good politician.
He studied Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Good to see his education benefiting people. 3 lockouts since he arrived.

Chelios and Gretzky have a few words to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTodQ6Svo9A


August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Dobber said:

Dobber
... Very true...do you get paid in cap hit, or salary? (just busting your chops, I fixed the wording ha)
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0

Username said:

Username
Hartnell's cap hit Hartnell's cap hit was $4.2m, so he only got a $550k raise.
August 21, 2012
Votes: +0
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy