Lockout Update: Day 72: There is still a lockout.

*

My THN column profiles Marcus Foligno and it's right here.

*

This conflict is very emotional for people. Myself included, obviously. And the pro-union vs. anti-union discussion takes some to new heights of emotion. I didn't want to get into such a discussion, but my wording below clearly got me there. I didn't mean for that to happen and I regret it. So I would like to clarify some things.

1. My discussion of my circumstance - that is my own circumstance and what I would do. I was speaking from the heart. I know it's not for everyone. I didn't need to have that in my rant. I wrote that part last Thursday based on emotion, but it wasn't needed to make my point.

2. I use the words "anti-union". That term refers to the NHLPA union, not unions in general. I would have been Ted Lindsay's right-hand man back in the day. Fought to the last breath for what I believe in. Because in that circumstance, and in millions of other circumstances around the world, fighting as a collective brought a greater good. However, there are some circumstances where I think it brings negatives. It hurts the people it should help. And in the case of the NHLPA, I believe - me, my opinion - that they are hurting their players. I feel that they will come to an agreement in a month... or in seven months. But they will come to one. And the difference between the deal they sign then, versus one they could sign now will not compensate the players for the amount of money they will lose by the delay. So I am anti "this" union, not anti "all" unions.

3. My closest friend is a teacher currently in a union battling for what is fair. My wife is in a union that just averted a strike. So please, anyone in a union, stop jumping on my back. Relax. I want what is best for everyone and wish nobody malice. Take a look at your 2011 tax statement. Your 2012 tax statement will probably be very similar. Well, mine won't even be close. So give me some emotional leeway, I beg you. And please see other points of view in any online discussion before getting personal. Occasionally things are said innocently, or just plain came out wrong. 

 

I'll stick to hockey more going forward, as I should have in the first place.

 

*

On Black Friday I felt the impact of the lockout directly for the first time. Some software that I wanted to buy for the website was on sale and I was unable to take advantage. I had been waiting for the lockout to end, so I can sell some guides then improve some areas of the site. Ah, well.

In the meantime, you can support the site by pre-ordering the 2012-13 Fantasy Goalie Guide for just $6.99 right here. Justin Goldman and I have been working away at this thing for a month now, it's out December 3. It profiles the political landscape of each team's goaltending system - every goalie, plus a goalie by goalie profile of talent. Combined, the two pieces of information give you as clear an idea of where each goalie stands as it can get. In fantasy hockey, it's the toughest position to figure out. And I think my read of the situation, as far as a team's internal pressure for Goalie X to succeed, combined with Goldman's ridiculously accurate breakdown of actual talent, is a combo that is unparalleled. This product is unique, the first of its kind.

*

In case you missed it Thursday, Puck Daddy had a "Things we're thankful for in hockey" piece, and I have a little blurb in there. It's unfortunate that I'm writing about wishing for the game…more than the actual game.

*

I shouldn't say "game". I should say "NHL". Because the game lives on, right? I was at the Oshawa Generals game on Friday. Took my daughter Avery. She turns four next month. This was her first hockey game. Instead of the NHL grabbing such a precious memory, the OHL got dibs. How many other four-year-old precious memories have the NHL missed out on?

*

The last time there was a lockout, the NHL wanted X. The union wanted B. Eventually they negotiated and agreed on T - much closer to the owners initial offer than the union. But seven years later, the finances of the game were still broken. So now the owners want X and this time they're not going any lower than W. And the players are getting angry, not to mention confused.

"Why won't you meet us at M?" they exclaim, angrily. Then they concede - "Fine, meet as at Q! What? Why not?"

Now the players are pissed. They went from B all the way to Q and wonder why the owners aren't budging from W. But the answer is simple - the last time the owners moved too far away from where they felt the business needed to be, things were still broken and now there's another lockout. The union claims that the other sports' business models are not the same as hockey. But … the owners wouldn't be willing to give up billions to get a similar deal as NBA and NFL.

Hey, before I started DobberHockey, I went from a retail store manager to an inventory analyst in an office. Then I went to a similar job in another office for more money. And then I took an inventory planner job at another office for more money. Each time I moved was because I wasn't happy with the offer I got. I wanted more money to do what I was doing where I was doing it. I considered factors such as the commute, the co-workers, the breaks, the pressure for overtime and the pay. I don't need a union to get more for me, I am capable of doing it myself. I market myself, and I have a low tolerance for being unappreciated.

What I'm saying is, the players need to sign the offer given and back to work. Those players who don't want to work under the conditions in the offer need to market themselves to other companies. The KHL, the SEL, the AHL, etc. If they don't like those options, then they need to go to law school, or medical school, or chef school, or a trade school and work another career. If the situation is better elsewhere, then go elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to play for a share of a piddly 50 percent of $3 billion.

I'm anti-union, BUT pro-player. I want the players to make as much as they can, and I'm explaining what I would do if I were a player in order to make me - the player - as rich as possible. Missing a season, or even half a season, reduces the dollars in your account at the end of your career.

Sorry for the rant.

*

Clarification - I resent being labeled pro-owner. I'm not. Owners are responsible for the lockout and thus my livelihood. In fact, if there was a personal hate scale of 1 to 10 (10 being 'despise/loathe'), owners would be firmly in place at 10. Union is at 9.5. Players are at a 2. Players are being taken advantage of by both sides. 

*

I didn't know this, but I guess Freddie Meyer has retired as a player and is now an assistant coach with Manchester of the AHL.

*

Ben Bishop is getting hung out to dry by Binghamton - and that's great news for Bishop owners. The guy has faced 165 shots in just four games. The more rubber a goalie sees, the better his game gets - or so goes the theory. His SV% is 0.927.

*

Interesting stats for the Charlotte Checkers:

Zach Boychuk 18 games, 17 points

Justin Faulk 15 and 16

Zac Dalpe 17 and 14

Drayson Bowman 18 and 14, with 11 of those 14 as goals

Nowhere to be seen in the Top 10 - Jeremy Welsh, who has just six points. If he can't produce in the AHL this year, then it's unreasonable to expect anything in the NHL this year. I had been asked about him a lot over the summer, and my answer pretty much stated that. But what's surprising is the fact that he only has six PIM - a number which should be much higher.

*

So who is the top scorer in major junior hockey? Mikhail Grigorenko? Nope, he has 43 points, second in the Q. Ryan Strome? Nope, 51 points, tops in the OHL. JC Lipon, who plays for Kamloops of the WHL and has 53 points. He was passed over in the draft. Twice. But he's about four games away from getting to the 65-point mark, which matches last year's totals. This year's Tanner Pearson. Here's some more info on him.

*

No matter what Roman Hamrlik said about the union, what Troy Brouwer said about his teammates was worse. Teammates before union-mates, buddy. That's your family. When the CBA is settled, will it be Donald Fehr watching your back out there on the ice? Nope, it will be that guy you just insulted. Brouwer was too harsh, and his words needed to be said directly to his teammates over the phone, and not through the media. 

*

Tyler Toffoli has six points in his last three games, including a hat trick. He had seven points in 14 games prior to that.

*

San Jose goalie prospect Alex Stalock gave up six goals on 36 shots last night. Four of those points were thanks to JT Brown, a Tampa prospect. Brown has eight points in his last six contests for Syracuse.

*

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins was held off the scoresheet, but Jordan Eberle, Taylor Hall and Magnus Paajarvi combined for eight points. Oh, and Justin Schultz picked up three more points and was plus-4. Schultz and Eberle are making the AHL their bitch.

Dan Ellis gave up six goals before getting the hook. I'm sure many goalies are getting the hook when they play OKC

*

Joe Colborne has now gone six games without a point. Meanwhile, Matt Frattin has five goals in five games for the Marlies.

*

Don't forget to click 'next' below and read Chris Nichols' awesome ramblings from yesterday. The guy really brings it week in and week out.

*

Larsson and Zucker combine on this OT goal for Houston - five seconds in…

 


Write comment
Comments (41)add comment

4horsemen said:

4horsemen
I didn't realize.... .....so many people around here belong to a union

I feel sorry for those who see the world in black and white.....or maybe I'm jealous because it would be so much easier that way.

The bottom line is that unions are neither good nor bad, sometimes they serve a purpose and other times they serve to destroy the very thing they're attempting to leverage.

November 27, 2012
Votes: +0

donpaulo said:

donpaulo
... I think the main complaint against destroying unions come from historical facts.

Do we really want the mega rich and their hired hands choosing what is and isn't allowed in the workplace ?

There is a long and ugly history of the 1% cutting back on wages and increasing hours.

Its right there for anyone willing to pick up a book.

Many people have given their lives in the fight for a 40 hour work week or for a free weekend with the family.

The difference is that crushing the union is an achievable goal for those with the money, while crushing those with the money & power is most likely impossible to achieve.

So please union bashers be careful what ye wish for.

You just may get it.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

CallMeJerry said:

CallMeJerry
... Sovereign must have been visited by the Tim Thomas family-faith-friends tour. No one on here is suggesting taking away Dobber's right to express his opinion. They are just expressing their own opinions.

I'm sick of people playing the "Freedom of Speech" card when their opinion is attacked.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Sovereign said:

Sovereign
You shouldnot have back-tracked... Not in my opinion.

You have nothing to apologize for by being anti-union or at minimum non-union. Or Even Pro-union. I am not a union supporter myself. And I was once part of a union (a long time ago).

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Voltaire.

So pro-union folks, get off his back, because without the same freedom of speech he is exercising, YOU WOULD HAVE NO UNION!
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

CallMeJerry said:

CallMeJerry
... JBanks - "...(the PA) should have no say in % of revenue made avalible (sp) to the players"???

Is this your understanding? Because this is 100% wrong.

Grapes - "Freedom of speech. We're all entitled to our own opinions.
Ones opinion needs to be respected."

People's right to express their opinions must be respected. Opinions do not need to be respected. Ridiculing or agreeing with someone's opinion is in itself expressing an opinion.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

grinder12 said:

grinder12
... I also support you 100% Dobber. This site is all about opinions.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

repenttokyo said:

November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Mr. Guru said:

Mr. Guru
... Haha, you talk about how this lockout hurt you financially (which definitely sucks) and then go on to say that you have to take your daughter to an OHL game.

A Friday/Saturday night game at the ACC would cost you about $100 a ticket (nosebleeds). Plus $20 to park. Plus some food/drinks/candy for your daughter and yourself ($50 minimum)

At the end of the day, you should be happy you didn't have to spend roughly $300!!
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Puckhead said:

Puckhead
Either way the game of hockey loses! Dobber, I feel your frustration, and while my livelihood is not linked directly to the NHL, and the current lockout, I hate too am frustrated and sick of what is happening. Rogers Sportsnets 'Hockey at Noon' show had Derek Sanderson in studio late last week, talking about his new book, his career, his alcoholism, etc. and when asked what his opinion was on the current lockout he said 'its ridiculous'...'how did we get to the point where a basketball guy, and a baseball guy are in charge of the future of our game?' He is so right, because neither of these guys, Bettman or Fehr have the best of the game at heart here, and while Gary is working for the owners, I question if he still should? The have been sold such a crock over the years. With getting expansion money from the new southern markets, he grew the game into. Markets it has largely no business being in, and those clubs that make money have given much more back to the lesser teams in revenue sharing, then they made in the initial expansion fees...

As for the players, well, Donald Fehr is no Bob Goodenow,, and while that may seem like a good thing when it comes to labor negotiations, the fact remains that Fehr has been hired to do a job for the PA, and he is doing it so well, that the future of the game is in limbo. He's not a hockey guy, he's never played it, I would wager he's never even watched it, and therefore he is indifferent to what ends up happening to the game. However this all plays out, Fehr won't lose any sleep, because the game is a non issue to him.

That is what we as fans really need to be worried about here...they can fight over HRR, which incidentally is shrinking with each passing day. They can fight over 'make whole provisions', which seems more laughable since the owners are losing $20 million a day, and the players $8-$10 million...

It's not right that the owners are bullying the players in this manner, but the fact remains that a players career is finite, and every lost pay cheque will never be made up, to say nothing of the older players who may retire if the season is flushed, or the countless bubble prospects, or 3rd and 4th liners who will get passed on the depth chart by the young up and comers, hungry to make it to the show.

Overall its just sad, to think that a game and those involved in the product on and off the ice, have made such progress since the last lockout, and yet here we sit, with the another season hanging in the balance, and the so called decision makers who can't see the forest thru the trees...

Puck
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Grapes said:

Grapes
Support you 100% Dobber Freedom of speech. We're all entitled to our own opinions.
Ones opinion needs to be respected. Whether I agree or not, is not the case.
I respect your opinions 100% about everything on this site.
Peace out ...
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Rodgort said:

Rodgort
... Dobber you are the man, write whatever you want. Many of us will still buy the guides as they are the best out there (I'll be buying the goalie guide once it is out). Opinions are opinions everyone has them and should get to express them whenever they want without getting jumped all over for what they believe. It is your site
November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

PensInThree said:

PensInThree
Re: Jason Banks I strongly disagree with (most of) this.

People taking this personally and attacking each other has nothing to do with people not "having all the information" or whether people are "qualified".

It has everything to do with a) people misinterpreting each other, b) people overstating their opinions, and c) people spreading unthinking ideology.

Nor is this not "public concern". Public concern is whatever I, or you, or Tokyo, or whoever -- all as members of the public -- think it is. If we are concerned, it's public concern.

In fact, while we might take issue with the Forbes article (don't know if you read it, but it's linked in the forums somewhere) that argues that we, the fans, are responsible for the lockout, there's enough truth to it (in my opinion) so as to be more than a little bit unsettling. If there's any truth to it, then it's crucial for us to sort through the (mis)information and come to our own informed conclusions.

It's our responsibility as fans to do this, just as it's our responsibility as citizens to sort through all the political misinformation that assaults us on a daily basis.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

hawkdog said:

hawkdog
unions good intentions but to often support the lazy and useless. makes it easy for workers to milk the system.
workers who don't take coffee breaks or work 10 minutes longer in a day get evil looks.

No one who makes over a million a year should need a union.

great ramblings by the way. its not just the players starting to get riled up its the fans and all those secondary businesses that are losing money.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

Jason_Banks said:

Jason_Banks
Tokyo It's not that its complex, its that not enough information is out there and what is out there is not fully accurate, nor fully understood, nor is it public concern.

If someone has all the facts of every detail involved and understands it fully, by all means share, analize and hopefully teach/inform us.

Un-qualified opinions lead to what Smack metioned and Dobber is experiancing, people attacking each other...
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Ross The Boss Palmer said:

Ross The Boss Palmer
... If someone could make a parody of this song, it may become the best of the lockout, at least in my mind.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aj5OT3z1VGA
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

repenttokyo said:

repenttokyo
Jason Banks It's disingenuous to suggest that people not get involved or comment on an issue that interests them, simply because it is 'complex.'
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Jason_Banks said:

Jason_Banks
General CBA Info/opinion Me and Dobber don't see Eye to Eye on his Anti-NHLPA stance, but I don't need to shoot him down in here for it.

Personally, my opinion is that the NHLPA has very little clout in a CBA negotiation as they are not a full fledged Union, they are an Association of workers who's goal should and was fairness in to work place in workers rights and health/saftey... In a Union, everyone is repersented as an equal, thust they all fight for the same base wage in the ideal of fairness and employment... The NHLPA does not fight for a fare wage policy of any type and does not look at all members as equals and encourages members to seek the best an individual can do.

That said, where the NHLPA has its rights within the basic argument, is in the contract rules and rights, Free Agentcy, Arbitration, Disiplanary Hearings and basic Contract rights and Obligations, but they should have no say in % of revenue made avalible to the players, they should also have no say in revenue shareing as these are issues that need to be agreed upon by the owners of the NHL not its employees.

Currently what you hear is % based and revenue related, for the owners to lockout over these, it is thier own problem within the group of owners, they are just publicly released figures used to form market analysis with. Remeber in all of this the players nor the NHLPA have not gone on strike, thust are not in anyway responsible for the current loss of hockey.

The NHLPA is currenty fighting for the rights of contracted players to get paid what they are owed within thier signed contract, which is an employment right on a guarenteed contract and for the contract rules, they are not fighting FOR future earnings. Unfortunatly currently you hear that this is projected to be 56.4% the first year, 54% next year and lowers from there which are #s that the owners are throwing out there.

Also the fact that these numbers are based on Hockey Related Revenue allowable to the players based upon their named and linknessed used within the marketing the game. The players are not fully entitled to all branding and other marketing of the team/orgization within NHL's revenue structure. (One of the reasons the Leafs make so much $$$ is based on the fact they have controlled their arena and rent it out since MLG opened, which will be discussed next)

It should also been known that NHL player saleries is not a overly massive expence within a teams year to year model. If a team like Florida is losing 20 Million per year, its not because they are over paying on the players. One of the biggest expences on a teams books in the Arena rental agreement, which for many of the "richer" teams is owned in house thust only operating the Arena is an expence (The Leafs own/have owned ACC and MLG), In cases were the Arena is publicly owned or operated, the expence of the rink rental comes with a commision (which is the big sticking point in Pheonix). If the owners have no problem paying players 70+ million/year, how much do you think the rental/operation expences of an NHL rink is, most #s thrown out to the media is the year to year commision on an arena, not the overall rental contract.

My understanding with all of these issue is rather basic, I have no economic schooling myself, nor access to any non public figures. So what I have discussed is a VERY basic overview... thus there is way more involved than what everyone in the public knows.

There is way too much mis-information being released on this issue and public/media opinion is being used as leverage on both sides for the intention of keeping fans involved in the game, but unfortunatly YOUR BEING USED by both sides as leverage. This is not a straight fight for 57% or 50% or anything that can be simply stated and agreed upon with public pressure or opinion.

It is best that people not get invloved or comment on the issue at all as it only leads to frustration, and more mis-information...
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Jason_Banks said:

Jason_Banks
To Alberia Your shooting out false information my freind...

Alberta is a Pro-Union province, especially in the oil sands, that doesn't mean all jobs are union. My backround is that of an Ontario Building Trades Union, a majority of contruction work done on industrial and commercial structures with government registered trades is done via unionized workers and companys. 20% of my brotheren in Ontario is currently working in Alberta due to the wages and work offered out there. Alberta sucks up Unionized workers from the Maritines, BC, Manitoba and the US also. I personally have been approched to go to Alberta and work for the union and they are openly asking for unionized employees.

They also hire none unionized constuction workers as well due to lack of avalibility of workers, but most of these crews are run under the guidance of a qualified Unionized Foreperson... It is also a well known fact that due to the ammount of workers and lack of handy resources on these job sites that production of work per worker is rather low compared to most provinces, but they up thier production with the population of workers they hire... which they do to skew the numbers so that it looks much more attractive to company investors...
November 26, 2012
Votes: +2

repenttokyo said:

repenttokyo
i'm not saying they don't have 'the right' i'm saying don't blame employees who want to unionize when a company shuts down their location. The company is the one that killed the jobs.

I also disagree with your scabs comment. I'm not going to buy tickets to see second-tier players at NHL prices. I was a season ticket holder for the bruins for three years, so yeah, i put my money where my mouth is. But my money's not going to pay to watch 'scabs' as you call them.

I think you are quite wrong about NHL players not having power. The NHL is not eternal - they are only as good as the product they put on the ice, and if you put second-tier product on the ice you disappear like the WHA did.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

notoriousjim said:

notoriousjim
... Walmart has every right to strike down unions, and the workers have the same right to start a union. Unions work best in 2 situations; they are a skilled group, and they are essential group

When walmart goes out of their way to fight unions, it is actually a smart business move. It is heartless, but it is smart. The reality is that if you work in a walmart store, you are very replaceable. the cashiers, and even the managers are not rare or hard to find. Since they do not offer anything that anyone else cannot, they have no bargaining power. They fail to be skilled.

Plumbers and other skilled people are in a much better position. If they strike, not everyone can do thier job. They have some power. And the reality is that they are needed. Eventually people will give in since they need plumbers.

Hockey players are a whole nother boat. They are rare and have distinct skills, but the employer does not need them. the reality is that other leagues have had scabs play, and hockey could do the same. these guys could walk away and never play in the NHL again, but there are a lot of players who would gladly take their place. They have no power since the owners have no reason to give in. They are not an essential service.

When we look at the stronger unions, most of them are essential and skilled. auto workers, teachers, police, firefighters, plumbers, electricians, ect. Not every group should have a union, since if they lack the two part test, then they have no bargaining power.

Dobber is right in his ramblings that the union needs to give in. The players have no leverage to force a beneficiary result. The difference between the first few offers and what they will end up with is negligable when you look at their actual losses from not playing.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

repenttokyo said:

repenttokyo
smack how exactly is it the union's fault when employees talk about unioninzing and wal-mart decides to shut down the store before that can happen? I think it's pretty clear that Wal-mar killed those jobs.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

smack said:

smack
Don't You Dare Ever Have an Opinion That Is Different From Mine You guys are something else. I don't care if you agree or not with Dobber's stance, but you guys don't believe in having an intelligent conversation (though one or two of you have approached the topic very eloquently)? If these are the people that union breeds, then get rid of them.

Some of you mentioned the jobs that unions have saved, but you forgot to mention the jobs that unions have lost. Did you forgot already what happened with Hostess recently? They went bankrupt after the union didn't accept their last offer to salvage the business. So what happened? All those people lost their jobs. So they went from not getting enough $ to no $. Good job. Then there was talk of Walmart unionizing in Quebec (I believe it was Walmart) a few years back, so they just shut down. All those employees - bye bye. So don't give me this one sided argument. Also, how many union heads were later found to be corrupt from stealing. Oh, nevermind, why bring up Alan Eagleson when he would be counter-productive to your point.

I've worked in jobs that are unionized and non-unionized, both have their pros and cons. But if you have the mentality of "You're either with us or against us" then guess what, everybody will be against you. Unions were made to protect workers' rights, and now some of them are power hungry monsters which hurt the "brand" of the unions (brand is a bad term)that are there truly protecting its members.

I'm not anti-union but there are 2 sides to every story. Don't attack someone cause they don't agree. Look what no hockey has done to us. smilies/smiley.gif



November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

repenttokyo said:

repenttokyo
Alberia Comparing a resource-based economy to other economies is not a logical / fair comparison when discussing 'productivity' and labor relations. Everything is hunky-dory until the oil runs out, then once it does, you will discover just how well your non-unionized workforce fares. Just like every other resource-based economy in the history of the world. Just ask those people 'out East' in the maritimes what happened when the fish were all gone.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +2

Alberia said:

crackho1976
I come from the land down under........... A perfect example is look at what unions have done with the automobile industry out East, the government had to bail them out due to extreme labour costs. The majority of that cost is due to lack of productivity from the workers. Have to wonder if that was negotiated? (do your research).

Everyone has an opinion and if you live out East it seems that everyone is pro union and thrives on them because they feel entitled.

Come out West to Albeta where productivity is superior to all other provincies and you will learn that the majority of the work is done without them and Union is considered a swear word just like Liberal.

Jockstrap what industry do you work in LOL?

November 26, 2012
Votes: -1

Jockstrap Zamboni said:

Jockstrap Zamboni
... Guess what. Businesses closed shop prior to unions. As far as research. Research the business that unions have saved. It sounds like you'll be surprised.

However, I don't suggest that I'll be able to change your mind. Nor, you mine. Much like what is happening in NHL/NHLPA boardrooms - and society.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Ross The Boss Palmer said:

Ross The Boss Palmer
Cool Hand Luke "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so we get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men."


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&desktop_uri=/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

SeaDawg said:

SeaDawg
Give him a break Sheesh, I didn't realize unions were such a touchy subject. I haven't been around much lately. Honestly, I'm starting to feel apathetic about the labor talks (or lack thereof) and hockey in general. That said, I do periodically check in to read the ramblings, and I'm glad I didn't miss this one. The sad part is, before this lockout, I don't think I ever missed any of the ramblings since I joined this site in 2008. I had an incredible run, but this lockout has done me in. I can understand Dobber's frustration, because most of us are just fans of hockey, whereas Dobber's livelihood depends on it.

I say give him a break if he wants to vent a bit. Agree or disagree with his view, if nothing else his rant (and everyone's response) was a bit of entertainment.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Hybrid said:

fulcrum
Enjoyed the ramblings The site has always been a site that has HAD an opinion and not walked the fence. Its refreshing that people say what they feel. Nobody has to agree or disagree, but it takes you clser to learning the personalities behind the names. I enjoyed the ramblings....it was something new today.

Everyone is frustrated.....
November 26, 2012
Votes: +1

Dobber said:

Dobber
... Jockstrap - I don't want to pick up my ball and go home. I'll take it. Taking it is still what is best for me.

"However, collectively it is a no-no?"
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on the situation. But I'll get a read on the situation before making that decision, and not blindly believe in something because it worked at times before. Or blindly disbelieving in something because it didn't work at times before. And I find with the passionate fans and/or media that it's either black, or white. No way, it can be gray too.

Bottom line everyone - I want hockey back. And I want the players to get the most that they can. Those are the only two things I care about. So are we on different sides?

November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Dobber said:

Dobber
... germant - I've had worse ramblings, but thanks for understanding.

Unions were one of the most important ideas in the growth of society and business. Absolutely necessary and in the 70s and 80s they literally saved lives.

Once again, another person misunderstands what I think and how I feel. You're statement is categorically wrong. And while we're both doing research, look into Wal-mart and how the union in Quebec helped employees. Or Hostess. Or the plants around Oshawa. Go ahead. Google's a great tool to get you started. Unions are necessary, but not always. And sometimes - sometimes - they need to learn how far they can go before they hurt the people they try to protect.
November 26, 2012
Votes: -2

Jockstrap Zamboni said:

Jockstrap Zamboni
... Unfortunately, I don't have time to counter argue everything that has been stated against what I said. It would be pointless anyway. I will state that hockey won't go away. If you want to pick up your ball and go home because you don't like unions, go home. Much like that playground lesson, someone will eventually find another ball. Of course there will be chaos in the mean time but eventually everyone gets tired of the kid who constantly makes and changes all the rules for their own benefit.
Dobber, if your writers decided to unionize you would sell or shut down, looking on for a better investment? By this your insinuating that unions are a bad investment. Yet, don't you make your money based off a unionized business? Its ok for everyone to make as much money as they can as long as they do it individually? However, collectively is a no-no? Why? It can be no other reason than its easier to push an individual around.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

germant said:

germant
Worst Ramblings Ever Anybody who can't recognize the necessity of a union should inform themselves of the history of unions before saying something stupid.

And if your argument is that unions were necessary at one point and are no longer necessary, do a little research on Walmart and the distribution of wealth in that company.

As far as the argument if you don't like it, find another job - remember, this isn't a career you fall ass backwards into. It's not a retail manager or inventory planner. It's a career that you start training for when you're a kid. It's a career where you are asked to make sacrifices at such a young age. It's a career where what, maybe 5% will ever make serious money in. To make such an asinine argument like - if you don't like it, leave is just dumb. It's simplistic and minimizes the investment these players made into their career.
November 26, 2012
Votes: -1

notoriousjim said:

notoriousjim
... DObber i partly agree. The reality is that owners want to make money at hockey. If they are losing money on it, they have other options. THe players have a similar choice, they want to play, if they cannot they will go play in another league.

The only group that relies on this negotiation (and needs the league) is the union. If the players (like members of any union) had better control of what the union was doing, we would be back to the NHL.

I hate to say it, but the owners have far more power here. They are not losing money, the players are. The owners know that this will be resolved at some point, and the value of their team will rebound, and with a better profit margin, it will be worth even more than they were. So long as they have the ability to pay more than the SEL and KHL, then they will have the best players in the world, so really they know thier minimum pay for players, and they want to make it as close to that line as possible.

I hate to hurt the players, but you are worth others are willing to pay you, and the NHL wants to pay you more than the SEL and KHL. Take it and be happy. Unions only have power if there are other employement options, henry ford kept unions out by paying well... the nhl wants to do that.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

PensInThree said:

PensInThree
Philosophical differences? The 'Dobber is pro-owner' argument is getting old. Those making it are coming at the issue from a completely different perspective than is Dobber. It's the difference between shoulds: should from a pragmatist's perspective (Dobber's) vs should from a normative/moral perspective (others). While someone who says the players should make a deal now and settle could imply that the players are in the wrong, this is not necessarily implied. One can be consistent and say: the players are getting screwed, the power is on the owner's side, the players need to suck it up and accept the terms (which is what I understand Dobber to be saying).

Jockstrap - if I broke off Dobberhockey into 10 franchises, and a union cropped up, I would just sell or shut down. If I'm a billionaire owner, I just take my money and invest in other things. No more NHL. That's why, much as I hate to say it, the players need to give in to these %^#^%#^. And the union is holding them back from that


This is interesting. Isn't the important question about why the union cropped up? Let's say a) you franchised Dobberhockey because there was too much work for one guy, and the union cropped up because you were paying the franchise owners poorly. The owners are essentially saying, the amount that your paying us isn't commensurate with your reliance on us. In this hypothetical, selling or shutting down simply on the basis that you've met resistance through a union would be foolishly ideological imo.

This is the historical story of unions. They start as liberation movements, and can become hotbeds of obfuscation, entitlement, and corruption. They are not inherently problematic.

So one question is: has the NHLPA let too much of a sense of precedent-based entitlement guide their bargaining position? As this process drags on, I'm leaning towards thinking yes on this one.

Who's to blame? I'm become fairly pro-owner in the last two months, but not all owners. I have sympathy for the 20 owners who have made no money in the last 3 years. Sure they're wealthy, sure if we're talking about 'sympathetic characters' they're all way down on the list. But imo the system is broken. The blame is solely on the shoulders of the top 7-10 grossing owners who are forcing the players to shoulder the majority of the changes that the league does in fact need. What I feed really frustrating is the PR game that accompanies this charade. (I'm sure I'm not in the minority). What's worse though is the adversarial owners vs players structure to the bargaining. It's a structural problem, bc a sit down with the NHLPA and the 20 owners who desperately need changes would get things done. It's just the system's been structured so that's impossible.

All this to say, I don't really think you guys are talking to each other. There are a bunch of reasons why 'pro-owner', 'pro-union', and 'pro-player' labels are misleading, and arguing ideology vs pragmatism isn't going to get anywhere.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Dobber said:

Dobber
... Just venting Pengwin. We all want to do it. I wrote the vent part on Thursday. From the heart. The rest I wrote last night.
I try not to censor myself, so you get the real me. Naturally, it won't all be good. Frustrated that my income for 2012 has been cut in half...and nothing I can do about it but vent. Hope you understand.
November 26, 2012
Votes: -1

Pengwin7 said:

Pengwin7
Poor Rant I didn't like this rambling. A little all over the place and hypocritical, IMO.
Great work overall providing something to read... but this one was not good.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Dobber said:

Dobber
... Jockstrap - if I broke off Dobberhockey into 10 franchises, and a union cropped up, I would just sell or shut down. If I'm a billionaire owner, I just take my money and invest in other things. No more NHL. That's why, much as I hate to say it, the players need to give in to these %^#^%#^. And the union is holding them back from that.

Jerry - The players would not be worse off financially because they would have two years salary in their banks that they don't have now.

big dl - both sides do suck. I just fear that the players are putting a lot of stock in what their union tells them they should do.

bowler - not pro-owner. I'm anti-owner, and anti-union. Players are the victims of both.
November 26, 2012
Votes: -1

bowlercoaster said:

bowlercoaster
... Another day another pro-owner rant. "Just sign the deal. If you can make more money in the SEL do it. Or go be a doctor."

Those are some sound arguments Dobber. How on earth did the PA wind up hiring Donald Fehr instead of you?
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

big_dl said:

big_dl
Jockstrap's 'argument' What a ridiculous argument. One giant faulty analogy.
1. The NHL was playing 70 games with only 6 teams in the 40's and 50's.
2. Many careers require people to move, some even require a move overseas.
3. Players give up the right to "market" themselves in exchange for the job security of guaranteed contracts. Once a contract expires the ability to "market themselves returns.
4. The fact that an NHL players career is short is something they know going in. Any NHL player who expects to play until he's 60 is an idiot. They get paid as well as they do because of the physical risk and the short time span. The players chose to play, they were not forced into it. There are trade-offs in every job.
5. If you dont think there's a cap on what you can earn as say a stocker at walmart I invite you to go and ask them to pay you 50k a year to do that job. Almost every job has a cap on earnings artificial or otherwise.

For the record both sides suck. I wish I could walk away and actually stay away.
November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

CallMeJerry said:

CallMeJerry
... The last time there was a lockout, the NHL wanted X. The union wanted B. Eventually they negotiated and agreed on T - much closer to the owners initial offer than the union. But seven years later, the finances of the game were still broken. So now the owners want X and this time they're not going any lower than W. And the players are getting angry, not to mention confused.
"Why won't you meet us at M?" they exclaim, angrily. Then they concede - "Fine, meet as at Q! What? Why not?"
Now the players are pissed. They went from B all the way to Q and wonder why the owners aren't budging from W. But the answer is simple - the last time the owners moved too far away from where they felt the business needed to be, things were still broken and now there's another lockout. The union claims that the other sports' business models are not the same as hockey. But … the owners wouldn't be willing to give up billions to get a similar deal as NBA and NFL.
Except in this go around, the PA started at T (not B). Now they’re at U. And everyone knows the deal is V. The PA knows it. The NHL knows it. The NHL will sign the deal at V on the date Prokhauser Rose gives them the nod.
Hey, before I started DobberHockey, I went from a retail store manager to an inventory analyst in an office. Then I went to a similar job in another office for more money. And then I took an inventory planner job at another office for more money. Each time I moved was because I wasn't happy with the offer I got. I wanted more money to do what I was doing where I was doing it. I considered factors such as the commute, the co-workers, the breaks, the pressure for overtime and the pay. I don't need a union to get more for me, I am capable of doing it myself. I market myself, and I have a low tolerance for being unappreciated.
I don't see how this advances the CBA discussion. With all due respect, your work experience history is not analogous to an NHL player’s.
What I'm saying is, the players need to sign the offer given and back to work. Those players who don't want to work under the conditions in the offer need to market themselves to other companies. The KHL, the SEL, the AHL, etc. If they don't like those options, then they need to go to law school, or medical school, or chef school, or a trade school and work another career.
A really silly argument.
If the situation is better elsewhere, then go elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to play for a share of a piddly 50 percent of $3 billion.

I'm anti-union, BUT pro-player. I want the players to make as much as they can, and I'm explaining what I would do if I were a player in order to make me - the player - as rich as possible. Missing a season, or even half a season, reduces the dollars in your account at the end of your career.
Sorry for the rant.
If the players had accepted the NHL's last offer before the cancellation of the 04-05 season, they would have been far worse off financially when compared with the resulting settlement.


November 26, 2012
Votes: +0

Jockstrap Zamboni said:

Jockstrap Zamboni
Anti Union Eh? Biased writing in its finest. An owner taking an owner's side. I see it like this: if you franchised "dobberhockey" out to others and collected the franchise fees, and collected the benefits of having other franchises (82 games would be hard with 10 teams), its mostly your responsibility to help those struggling franchises out. Not mostly the employees. Your own analogy shoots yourself in the foot. You were able to "market" yourself out to other options. What if you had contract limitations on those options? What if every decent inventory analyst position in N.A. had a cap on what you could receive as compensation? Or limited you due to age amongst other things?
Let me ask you this. Would you take more money at the expense of those following you when you realize that the money your getting is from those ahead of you?
It bothers me to no end when people can't see the pro's of the symbiotic nature of the union/owner dynamic. Don't think so? See what decertifying does.
November 26, 2012
Votes: -1
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy