DeuceUNO said:
In the past six weeks, after the players' stunning offer of 24 percent salary rollbacks...
PitkanenPower said:I got this far before feeling nauseous:
MagnusJondus said:Far too idealistic and fundamentally flawed to be taken as serious journalism.
ESPN should either hire more informed hockey writers or just leave it to the Canadian press.
Me, too. But then Terry Frei has been writing for the local fishwrap for years. And for all those years, he has been highly critical of management...no matter which sport he is writing about. He really delikes Pierre Lacroix because Lacroix basically ignores the media. The Avs owner, Stan Kroenke, also likes to keep a low profile. He is the type that would welcome Bettman's gag order and gladly use it as an excuse not to talk to reporters. Besides, from the time he bought the team, he has been in favor of 'cost certainty'. Kroenke also owns the Nugget and a minority share in a NHL team...both of which have caps.Hockeyfan02 said:I've read worse.
Pielsman said:...even if its ESPN with Bill Clements flapping his jaw about the Flyers, etc.
"a stunning 24% rollback"??? LOL. a one time rollback. a rollback for a partial season only. a rollback that only effects players currently with NHL contracts, which currently about 50% of the players in the league last season.
Pielsman said:That said, I'd still rather see NHL hockey on any tv station right about now...even if its ESPN with Bill Clements flapping his jaw about the Flyers, etc.
DeuceUNO said:clement coupled with thorne is a good tv duo when it comes to games tho...
clement coupled with thorne is a good tv duo when it comes to games tho...
Levitate said:the rollback was on all player salaries for the length of the contracts, not just for this year
It did not address salary escalation after the current contracts expired, etc.
Levitate said:this argument is useless however. no one ever pretended that it would fix salary escalation and all of that. that's what the rest of the players proposal was for (with the luxery taxes and all of that). yes the rest of their proposal needed to be toughened up, i won't argue that, but i just hate it when people say say "oh the 24% wouldn't fix the next wave of contracts" because it was never meant to.
it was a "ok we'll cut almost 1/4 of your costs RIGHT NOW and then we'll give you a framework to keep those costs down in the future" type of thing.
and as for the players without contracts, of course it doesn't affect them but considering all those players would have to sign contracts once play began, i think you'd see all of them sign contracts that were in line with the new economic climate introduced with the 24% rollback.
yes it'd be the years down the road when contracts expired, etc, that you'd have to worry about, but again, that's what the rest of the proposal was about
DeuceUNO said:http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1977778
a nice read, a bit venom laced tho...
Did the poster say it was?????Wetcoaster said:And how is this any different from columnists who write opinion pieces supporting the NHL owners?????
PitkanenPower said:Ok, but the crux of my argument was that the owners get labeled with roundly rejecting the rollback when that is most definitely NOT what happened.