If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Like a kid in a high school play, the NHL season refuses to die without a lot of thrashing about and moaning   (sports.espn.go.com) divider line 129
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8246 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2005 at 5:48 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-11 12:03:41 AM  
It's almost time for a do-over. Make a new league, draft the players who want to play in the league, and go from there. Or go back to an 8 or 12 team league. There simply won't be enough fan support, if this is ever resolved.
 
PTK
2005-02-11 01:40:27 AM  
Freaking idjits. You don't get paid unless you play... Cock bites.

/having hockey withdrawls
 
2005-02-11 06:04:57 AM  
Let's all agree that the NHL season is over.
 
2005-02-11 06:06:48 AM  
Do the players and owners realize how few people give a flying hocky puck?
If it wasn't for these few blurbs on Fark, I would toataly forget about the NHL.
 
2005-02-11 06:07:08 AM  
attention whores.

/lost interest in pro hockey the day the north stars left minnesota for texas.
 
2005-02-11 06:07:10 AM  
Geez, I miss hockey. It's going to be sad to see it go. And by go, I mean disband. Farking GOLF has become the fourth major sport, and these jokers cancel a season. I've got $10 that says they never drop an NHL puck again. I hope I lose, but I don't think I will.

Stupid owners! I'm normally a very pro-business guy, but it's the teams who are causing the problem here. Why shouldn't a player have the right to earn whatever the market will pay? The teams can't control themselves when it comes to salaries and they bid too high. That's not the players' fault; it's the owners' fault!
 
2005-02-11 06:10:10 AM  
i miss my hockey :-(
 
2005-02-11 06:19:58 AM  
I thought it would be about playoff time already. Give it up, the season's over. I will sincerely miss playoff hockey, though. I never really manage to stay up to date for the regular season, mainly because it's all a big warm-up for the teams who usually make the playoffs anyway (avalanche,devils, red wings, flyers, etc...) but I am always captivated by the playoffs.
:-( indeed
 
2005-02-11 06:20:23 AM  
ederosia

I think the problem is that a lot of the teams just can't afford to pay the players, what was it.. something like 4 or 5 teams were going to, or did file for bankruptcy. If you are making 26 million a year (let's be realistic) do you really need to ask for more? christ, for that much, why not work for free for a couple years, it's not like you will ever spend it. I think in this instance, a cap is necessary. Maybe not a permanent one, but at least one that stays in effect until all the teams are financually secure enough to pay the absorbant amounts these players want.
 
2005-02-11 06:22:58 AM  
I don't enjoy watching baseball. I can, on occasion enjoy college hoops. Football is decent. But, the one sport I love can't get their shiat together.


/misses hockey
 
2005-02-11 06:26:57 AM  
"There are clearly other ways to reduce player costs but they have not been prepared too look at any other way. The writing has been on the wall for some time."

TO LOOK MORANS!
 
2005-02-11 06:27:00 AM  
Karate Explosion, it was the team's fault for signing them to such a contract. You made some bad deals and your team is in over your head financially? Trade your stars away. Your team wouldn't be the first to have a fire sale. It's a time-honored tradition. Fans hate it when teams (in all major sports) do that, butwhachagonnado -- lock everybody out and cancel the season? That's even stoopider than over-paying players.
 
2005-02-11 06:28:19 AM  
*cries again*
 
2005-02-11 06:31:47 AM  
Stick a fork in it. It's done.
 
2005-02-11 06:38:43 AM  
ederosia

But then you run into problems like the one you have with the detroit red wings, the yankees of the NHL, who can afford to spend abutt load on players. Dont get me wrong, I love seeing my red wings win, but when you have a team like that, and then another team who cant afford any stars because of poor attendance or anything else, it just doesnt seem very fair. Heres what they should do. Every player on the team makes 2 million as a base. Then, their salary increases as performance incentives kick in. After the season, they drop back to 2 million. The captain, assistant captain, goalie, and 1 defense man can start at 7 million a year. Your franchise player starts at 10 million a year. thats more money than anyone needs for a year, so everyone should just be happy with it dammit
 
2005-02-11 06:41:37 AM  
I forgot to add, there is a 5 million cap for incentive bonuses. so, your average player can make 7 mil, captains, assistants, a defensive guy and a goalie can make 12 mil, and the franchisecan make 15 mil.
 
2005-02-11 06:42:38 AM  
ederosia

A fire sale being a 'time-honored tradition'? That doesn't sound live very practical business sense. Though both sides are at fault here, the players need to realize that they don't play for the MLB or NBA. The NHL cannot afford the big contracts that run rampant in other sports. Sure, some owners (Illitch, from the Wings for example) can afford to pay players big money, but the idea here is parity. Think how good the Ottawa Senators could be if they just had decent ownership! This is a playoff calibre team that is bankrupt! I'm siding with the owners here. Though I miss hockey more than anything right now, if this is what it takes for the league to sort itself out, then so be it. Just make it quick.
 
2005-02-11 06:50:17 AM  
Karate Explosion

I don't know about 2 mil as a base for everyone on the team. That's 50 mil a year in base salary for a 25-man roster. The Wings base salary for the year is something like 62 a year. I do, however, see where you're going with this and I agree with you. I wouldn't mind seeing everyone start out equally at the beginning of the year (say $500,000) and then getting performance based incentives over the course of the year. Good luck pitching that to the players, though. Anyway, even at around 12.5 mil a year, there are going to be some teams who won't be able to afford even the bonuses. When the league finally starts back up, I won't be surprised to see a few teams have folded.
 
2005-02-11 07:17:27 AM  
quick1

I'm kind of with you on this..

How do I get a job at the new league hq?
 
2005-02-11 07:18:04 AM  
Leeds37

I was just tossing numbers out there, I wasnt really sure what the goingrate was, but I knew some players wanted way more then they are worth. First I would eat a snickers bar, then I could pitch that to them while their testicles were at knife point, Im sure they would agree that the base pay arrangment is a good one, and wouldmost definately accept. Then, I wouldbe hailed as a hero by the owners, the season would be saved, and St. Lois would change their names to the St. Louis Karate Explosions.

/eat a snickers and have an NHL team named after you
 
2005-02-11 07:24:20 AM  
I'm against a salary cap for the same reason I typically support the owners of businesses -- the free enterprise system is a good one, and a salary cap violates free enterprise. A player should be able to make as much as someone is willing to pay him. Think of a player as a business (not that much of a stretch, I'm sure you'll agree). Such a business should be able to set prices (i.e., the salary charged) at whatever the market will bear. If some customers can't affort to pay the price (e.g., the Senators), then they shouldn't buy. If they *do* buy despite the fact that they can't afford to do so, I'm not impressed with their cries of "The players are picking us clean!" It's their own stupid fault.

Parity is a different issue altogether. Perhaps parity is a worthwhile goal, although I am not totally convinced. It has had a strange effect on the NFL. But, importantly, parity is not the main reason the owners are giving for the lockout. The main reason they offer is financial. "We're losing money! We don't want to pay the players what we said we would pay them!" I say their financial woes are their own fault. By canceling the season, the owners are tightening their grip on the throat of the goose that lays the golden eggs.
 
2005-02-11 07:29:40 AM  
Karate Explosion wrote:
...I knew some players wanted way more then they are worth...

No, players are worth what they're paid because a team offered to pay them that much. Worth is determined by the highest bidder in the marketplace. If you put your used Snickers wrapper on E-bay and some joker offers to pay $10 for it, it's worth $10.

The players aren't *demanding*. The teams are offering.
 
2005-02-11 07:31:57 AM  
Hey! Look at the bright side! The Avalanche are undefeated!
 
2005-02-11 07:38:57 AM  
Fark the owners. They locked-out the players and their poison dwarf, Betteman, has killed the season. They don't control their own spending and when offered a 24% across the board paycut by the players, they whined, "but what about when we make asses of ourselves again?" They don't want 'cost-certainty', they want guaranteed profits no matter how stupidly they act or how badly they mismanage their teams.

Fark the small-market teams. If it's a major sport, bush league cities shouldn't have franchises. For the most part that means 'Canada, you're out!'
 
2005-02-11 07:41:28 AM  
ederosia

Players arent demanding???

I seem to remember a few years back when sergi federov held out for more money. If you havent noticed, holding out is quite common. He was an important part of the team, knew it, and wanted more for it. It would be like my liver refusing to work unless I gave it more alcohol then it is currently getting. I can't afford more, and my other organs cant deal with it... stupid greedy liver
 
2005-02-11 07:42:44 AM  
ederosia

While I don't disagree that the owners are the ones controlling what they choose to pay for players, this is just a step for them to curb their own spending habits. Consider it a budget, if you will. You said it yourself, the owners are going to determine what a player is worth by how much they pay them. Fine, a salary cap isn't going to stop them from determining how much a player is worth, it's just going to force them to consider the player to be worth a lot less than 10 mil a year. The leauge tried to stretch itself quicker than it was actually growing and I blame Bettman for that 100%. He granted expansion teams like he was handing out candy at Halloween and it's basically destroyed the league. Now we have a watered down version of the sport so many of us love. Players that might once have been considered only minor leaguers at best suddenly find themselves at hockey's highest level of competition in cities that can't truly support an NHL franchise. It's no wonder the owners are saying they're losing money. They're trying to beat out bigger and better funded teams for players they think can help them compete. Now, teams have paid inflated prices for guys (see Brett Hull/Phoenix Coyotes) and yet they can't offset the cost because they don't have a fan base that sells out stadiums day-in and day-out. Aside from gate receipts, the merchandising and (above all) the tv contracts aren't there for the NHL like they are for the MLB or NFL. At the end of the day, the owners have the upperhand, like it or not. Don't expect to see hockey come back without a salary cap.
 
2005-02-11 07:45:11 AM  
On the bright side, there are several players who have already signed contracts to play in the Russian Hockey League and are packing their bags as I write.
 
2005-02-11 07:45:45 AM  
Karate Explosion:

ederosia

Players arent demanding???

I seem to remember a few years back when sergi federov held out for more money. If you havent noticed, holding out is quite common. He was an important part of the team, knew it, and wanted more for it. It would be like my liver refusing to work unless I gave it more alcohol then it is currently getting. I can't afford more, and my other organs cant deal with it... stupid greedy liver


A team can survive without Federov. Can you survive without your liver? Besides, apparently having Federov is even worse than not having Federov, financially.
 
2005-02-11 07:48:56 AM  
I'm sorry, but you can't have hockey without the Canadian teams and still expect the league to survive. Well, I suppose you could, but seeing as how it's their national pastime and all, I bet they wouldn't be very happy. Besides, a majority of the Canadian teams are the best supported teams in the league (Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver...the exception being Ottawa thanks to expansion) and they will do their part to keep the league going. The teams that need to bow out are San Jose, Phoenix, Dallas, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta, Nashville, Columbus, and Carolina. I'll give L.A. a pass since they were there first, but they're treading a fine line.

As far as the 24% rollback on salary, that was a joke from the beginning and the players knew it. The owners came back with a proposal which they knew would split the NHLPA amongst itself and kind of rocked their boat a little bit. Now they have players suing for compensation from the union. Pretty savvy move on the owners part.
 
2005-02-11 07:54:17 AM  
Karate Explosion, the players aren't demanding in the sense that they are not (and could not) force the team to pay an amount that is higher than they are willing to pay. Holding out is like a price increase -- something owners of sports teams are well familiar with. If you say players cannot *ask* for more money, then you also must say that owners cannot *ask* for higher ticket prices. If the Wings didn't think Serge was worth the price, they wouldn't have paid it. And if they did think he was worth the price, what's the problem?!?

Leeds37, you're probably right. The owners can last longer than the players. But I still say the NHL will not survive the process. To me, the most incriminating thing I can say is that farking *golf* gets more coverage than the hockey season. Major League Soccer will probably pass hockey too.

I still blame the owners.
 
2005-02-11 07:58:36 AM  
ederosia

Agreed, I don't see the NHL surviving this. I say, scrap the league, start from scratch. 20 teams in a 70 game season. And while we're wishing here, bring back the tag-up offsides rule!!
 
2005-02-11 08:01:49 AM  
Headline could have been better:

Like a hooker in the trunk of my car, the NHL season refuses to die without a lot of thrashing about and moaning
 
2005-02-11 08:04:42 AM  
They just need to end the charade and cancel the damn season already. It's been dead since at least this time last year, and if anyone doubted that the first meetings bak in October should have been proof enough that the puck wouldn't be dropping anytime.

Oh, well. The Elitserien here in Sweden has only gotten better thanks to the lock-out. Although Forsberg can't seem to stay healthy. He's the friggin' Ken Griffey, Jr. of hockey.

In related news, I thought it was awesome that Kerr, all-time leading scorer in the UHL, called Chelios, Hatcher and Draper hypocrites for choosing to play in that league, a league with a (gasp) salary cap. They don't want a cap in their own league, but see no problem playing under one in someone else's. Hypocrites, indeed. Goddamn Wings.
 
2005-02-11 08:09:41 AM  
CAR!!!!
 
2005-02-11 08:12:21 AM  
I miss hockey...FARKIN' BETTMAN and Gooednow!!



Oh well, I may not have my Blues, but I still have my Otters!!
 
2005-02-11 08:13:29 AM  
Leeds37:

I'm sorry, but you can't have hockey without the Canadian teams and still expect the league to survive.

Businesses that take in $.75 dollars and pay out $1.00 are going to get screwed in the long run. It's the franchise fees from those scorned southern teams that have kept the Calgaries and Edmontons in the league this long. Basically, if a team can win Cup after Cup and then have to let the best hockey player ever leave because of finances, as the Oilers did, that market is screwed.
 
lmb
2005-02-11 08:19:25 AM  
I'm not a big fan of the NHL. I was born and raised in SoCal so it wasn't really at the top of anyone's list. It became interresting in 1988 when half the Oilers came to play for the Kings. They had some good teams with Gretzky, McSorley & Coffey. But let's face it. the NHL would be better off without some teams. Maybe just have the original 6. Retract. No one cares about the Carolina Hurracanes.
 
2005-02-11 08:40:33 AM  
No one cares about the Carolina Hurracanes

That's what they get for moving THE WHALE!!
 
2005-02-11 08:41:15 AM  
nice headline

the NHL is done but hockey's not - all of the outdoor rinks near my house are full
 
2005-02-11 08:50:12 AM  
This sucks...plain and simple. Hockey is such a great sport, but I can't watch minor league (AHL) hockey because all the teams do is ice the puck every time they get in trouble. The pace is way to slow.

Well, here in philly we have indoor lacrosse, it isn't the same as hockey but I guess it will have to do
 
2005-02-11 08:52:17 AM  
The players whould start their own league.
 
2005-02-11 08:52:18 AM  
Step 1: Reduce the number of teams drastically. And I'm sorry, southern states, but NHL hockey does not belong in states that don't even have a winter season. Nor does it belong in Columbus, Ohio. Yeesh. Canada needs its teams because that's where the strongest love of the game is. It would be like moving all the MLB teams to Mexico. Who in America would stand for that?

Step 2: Larger ice rinks. More regulations to remove the "trap" system of hockey that makes the game look like an elephant squeezing into a Jetta. Sure, He might be able to do it, but by the time he does, who's watching?

Step 3: MARKET PROPERLY. In other words, no glowing pucks. Hire sportscasters who actually know something about hockey and can explain it properly. Use those "in-net" cameras sparingly.

Step 4: Learn to be humble. Hockey may someday be as big as football or baseball, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Like any good sportsman, know your limitations and use them to your advantage. Bettman's britches are waaaaaay to big. You can't take hockey to new markets in the south because they offer you a lot of money, and then just expect them to catch on because they're in America. Put hockey where hockey is popular. See Step 1.

Step 5: Profit?
 
2005-02-11 08:53:23 AM  
Great headline, BTW.
 
2005-02-11 08:59:43 AM  
Let's go Rangers, clap clap, clap clap clap!
 
2005-02-11 09:06:04 AM  
WoodyHayes

Wow... a Rangers fan who's apparently also a Buckeye fan.

If you were a hot chick with a nice rack (and I wasn't already married), I'd propose on the spot.

But I am married.

And I doubt that you're a hot chick with a nice rack.

So this post has no point. Just like Gary Bettman's sorry, pathetic existence.

Fark you, Gary Bettman.
 
2005-02-11 09:09:27 AM  
Yeah - nice headline. (dont care that much for hockey - sorry - oh crap, now i sound like Giambi.)
 
2005-02-11 09:11:02 AM  
Why not just completely dissolve the NHL and start a brand new professional league?
 
2005-02-11 09:17:01 AM  
Hockey Sucks. You Suck. Professional Athletes are over-paid wankers. We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world.

Oh yeah, I (along with everyone i know) couldn't give a rat's arse about Pro Hockey. we need a new sport. How about cat juggling?
 
2005-02-11 09:19:45 AM  
Hey, this means the Capitals are tied for first place!

/just sayin'
 
2005-02-11 09:22:16 AM  
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report