Comments for December 14, 2012 at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Sat, 18 May 2013 15:25:27 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/5116-december-14-2012#comment-23540 Good to see Stefan Elliott on the right side of the score sheet for a change. 1G, 1A, +2. As an Elliott owner, I smiled when I saw Tyson Barrie with 0G, 0A, -2 (For a change) - kevin_mcallister Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:43:31 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/5116-december-14-2012#comment-23539 Jason, you make some valid arguments but at least one of your theories can never happen. Owners collectively privately agreeing to a) set contract lengths; b) set spending limits is illegal. Yes, I understand your argument that such agreements would be "private" but the problem is that nothing is truly private. Owners would have to instruct GM's who would have to instruct Assistant GM's and other staff (e.g. capologists). When the coaching staff is asking for explanations as to why they haven't retained player x, they'll have to be told player x didn't fit within the privately league mandated self imposed salary cap. These "gentlemen's agreements" constitute collusion and violate antitrust laws. MLB ran through a similar scenario in the 80's and it ended up costing the owners $280 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_collusion) in penalties awarded to the players. (and yes, MLB owners thought this was all "private" as well and they'd never get caught) The end result - NHL owners cannot get together and collectively set limits on term and amounts. Period. It HAS to be collectively bargained. - germant Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:32:27 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/5116-december-14-2012#comment-23538 While I'm here... Expansion - Yes it was dumb to move into markets that can't/won't support NHL franchises and their economics, but these things should be known and understood by the owners and NHL before they make these moves. That said, Franshise's in these markets are not a terrible thing, they need to be there to grow the market for the product, Toronto didn't start out at the massive cooperation it is today, many people were going to games easily and cheaply in the mid Maple Leaf Gardens days, they are over 100 years old, expanding its fan base with every generation which is 3-5X the base it was many years ago. This has nothing to do with the product, more the growth of the population around the product. If Florida, Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta ect are given 50 years, and their populations around the products grow 2-3 fold, they become sustainable... Florida right now is in the range, they their early young fans, are creating kidlets, who are growing into the culture of Panther fans, who soon will be at a working age to start paying for the product themselves... Also I mentioned above, economics of the NHL, The sates love hockey... as much or more than Canadians... My proof? NCAA Rinks, almost every game is see be it Harvard, North Dakota, Bowling Green, all those rinks are packed and sound rather loud, southern AHL, ECHL, CHL and others have the same or larger attendances than Canadian AHL and Major Junior franchises... Canada is more guilty of poor franchising of their hockey teams, I think its 5 OHL franchises have been relocated in the past few years, couple or Western Hockey Leauge teams, and a couple Q teams... for some reason they like to put these low market franchises in low population or interest areas and operate them as if they are large entities... They don't make as much of a big deal of this because the owners treat the franchises as tokens that our their's, rather than money makeing entities... Anyway, in summery, Growth is needed to some odd, markets where they do not start out as sane, Personally, Atlanta should have stayed, they were getting close to reaching the population growth factor, next Las Vegas and Seattle make the most sence, Hartford to Carolina was an excellent move... The owners and leagues just need to understand that they will not be profitable, and likely lose much, for several years until they are engrained into peoples lives. - Jason_Banks Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:22:45 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/5116-december-14-2012#comment-23537 The extreamly sad thing about all these 'lookout' issues are due to miss-management by the owners, their GMs and little else... yet the players are getting the rap for it all... If the Owners and GMs all got togeather at a Board or Goveners meetings, they can all come to the agreement in private, we will not offer any contract term over 5 years, then stick too it. It doesn't have to be put on paper, if doesn't need approved by the players... If a player pisses and moans about it and fights for a 7 year contract... if no team is offering it, then he is sitting himself out or will sign for what is offered and no more... Salery cap reduction, again be done the same way, 'ok this years contract range is 46-70 million, well lets reduce it 7 so the players only get 50% of revenue, so lets make this cap 46-60 million, no one in this room spends more than 60 million on thier roster...' If they do it and stick by it, it doesn't need to be put on paper, or approved for a CBA... The only issue with my thinking is there is guys like Charles Wang, Lou Lamorello and others, who will go above and beyond and break that thinking, because its not written down... Make Whole - should not even be an issue... It should be illegal for owners to go back on the contracts they already made, they need to pay the full ammount in my opinion.. Now if the lg were to get togather and say 'for the purposes of our cap rule, every contract signed before Oct 1st (or when ever the lockout begun) is reduced by 7% for cap implications, but the player is paid everything he is owed in his contract' These things can be fixed in house, without being regulated in the CBA, all the CBA is a legal set of rules both sides agreed on... if the owners collectively decide to not go up agaisnt the created 'wall', they by all means dont have too... All these obscene contracts have been offered and conjured up by owners and GM, they players have just agreed and signed them... never understood why they are getting a bad rap for saying 'ok' to the offers of 15 year deals and 7 million a year... sorry guys... feel like ranting... - Jason_Banks Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:56:47 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/5116-december-14-2012#comment-23534 The 31 Canadians forwards picked before Charles Hudon in the 2012 NHL draft didn't make team Canada. Talk about a steal !!! - yougo Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:45:46 +0100