CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 If a deal can be struck before the do or die deadline which will be next Monday or Tuesday, the league as 3 possibilities for an shortened season. 28, 30 or 32 games. IF they can, which I doubt, reach an agreement, I think a short season would be great. Every game would be do or die. It would give a much needed NFL feel to NHL games. Just my 2 cents.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 No cap=no NHL. I don't see the players getting smart and accepting a cap anytime soon. Without agreeing to one, no shortened season this year and next year the NHL probably uses replacements, which means even MORE lost money for the players. It's extremely short-sighted on the players' parts, which is expected to a degree, but really stupid in this case.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 This season is over anyways so why bother. By the time the European scabs get back over here and everyone gets to training camp, there won't be time for a season. What do you do about all of the minor league players who are normally in an NHL training camp. That will make other fans real happy when you decimate the AHL, European leagues, etc, so that these overpaid ass holes can get back to work.
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I bet it gets resolved. It makes no sense, and nothing makes $en$e with the NHL anymore...so it does make sense that it will get resolved.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 9, 2005 Author Posted February 9, 2005 I bet it gets resolved. It makes no sense, and nothing makes $en$e with the NHL anymore...so it does make sense that it will get resolved. 233601[/snapback] I like your thought process. You are absolutely correct.
BF_in_Indiana Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Well if the reports were true about last week being the deadline I would say that they might be making progress and extended that deadline until Monday or Tuesday of next week.
sfladave Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I bet it gets resolved. It makes no sense, and nothing makes $en$e with the NHL anymore...so it does make sense that it will get resolved. 233601[/snapback] I bet it doesn't get resolved. The owners will not go forward without a salary cap, which is good business. It is also good for the smaller market teams. The players seem adamant about having no restrictions on the salaries, which is good for the players but bad for teams, especially small market teams. Hockey is a great sport but the NHL is NOT a great or even good league. It needs to be revamped from head to toe. I personally hope the player’s union folds and we can get a reasonable salary cap in place. Perhaps small market teams like Buffalo would have the chance to compete year in and year out. Parity in the NHL would bring back that game we all used to enjoy watching.
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Hockey is a great sport but the NHL is NOT a great or even good league. It needs to be revamped from head to toe. I personally hope the player’s union folds and we can get a reasonable salary cap in place. Perhaps small market teams like Buffalo would have the chance to compete year in and year out. Parity in the NHL would bring back that game we all used to enjoy watching. 233625[/snapback] I agree with you that there needs to be a lot of revamping in the NHL on many different levels, and the money issue has to be addressed so teams can avoid bankrupcy. A salary cap that allows smaller teams to prosper as well as give some advantages to teams that make more $ is the best solution. About being competitive: That is where I do not toally agree, I only agree in part. Ottawa has been a legitimate Cup contender now for quite a good stretch, and they are a small market. Tampa Bay and Calgary both made the Finals last year with low payrolls. Minnesota is another team that has enjoyed success without having much of a payroll. And caps do not guarantee parity: NFL, New England has won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls, Eagles in the Super Bowl and the Final 4 4 years in a row; NBA: the Lakers recently 3-peated and then reached the Finals this year. There will always be some haves and have-nots for certian stretches of time.
stevestojan Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Question: Any reason they couldn't play the full season and just start it at a different time? I mean, everyone says "this season is DONE". Can't they just start this season in April? Have the entire season in the calander year of 2005?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I bet it doesn't get resolved. The owners will not go forward without a salary cap, which is good business. It is also good for the smaller market teams. The players seem adamant about having no restrictions on the salaries, which is good for the players but bad for teams, especially small market teams. The players are rapidly approaching the point where it's good for them to continue rejecting a cap and forcing a lockout. They have lost and stand to lose MORE money by being locked-out than had they accepted a cap in the first place. And without a fiscally responsible NHL, their salaries in a few years aren't that secure. Not everyone can be paid by and playing for the top teams. Hockey is a great sport but the NHL is NOT a great or even good league. It needs to be revamped from head to toe. I personally hope the player’s union folds and we can get a reasonable salary cap in place. Perhaps small market teams like Buffalo would have the chance to compete year in and year out. Parity in the NHL would bring back that game we all used to enjoy watching. Exactly. I'm not a big NHL fan, but I want the Sabres to remain in Buffalo and be competitive, and a cap would do just that. It might even make me more of an NHL fan, knowing that more than half the teams in the NHL CANNOT outspend the Sabres by a good margin, and thus give them just as good a chance at winning.
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Question: Any reason they couldn't play the full season and just start it at a different time? I mean, everyone says "this season is DONE". Can't they just start this season in April? Have the entire season in the calander year of 2005? 233640[/snapback] I do not think that could work only because a lot of teams play in arenas with other NBA teams and so many other things going on, would probably become a scheduling nightmare.
Bob4Bills Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I do not think that could work only because a lot of teams play in arenas with other NBA teams and so many other things going on, would probably become a scheduling nightmare. 233647[/snapback] The biggest obstacle is that October is when the next season starts.. at least that was the case..
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Scrap a short season.....waste of time.....who is going to watch these primadonnas in a 20 game season? Friggin joke...... Iron out your financial problems......shoot for keeping the June entry draft alive..... And fix the on-ice product......it's awful. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 This is a bad sign for the NHL: Poll Canadian Press 2/9/2005 OTTAWA (CP) - Almost 40 per cent of the NHL's Canadian fan base said they don't miss the pro game, according to a new poll that spells further trouble for warring National Hockey League partners. The national survey suggests that five months into a labour lockout that has darkened NHL rinks since September, "opinion seems to be drifting towards indifference," Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said Wednesday.
Tux of Borg Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 It's already too late... by the time the NHL season started, it would be time for Pitchers and Catchers to report to MLB camp.
Like A Mofo Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Another update: tsn.ca Not only did the NHL make a new proposal to the NHL Players' Association today, it has already been rejected. TSN has learned the league and NHL Players' Association met Wednesday in Toronto and sources say the league presented a new proposal only to have it turned down. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has called a news conference at 6:30pm et/3:30pm pt to discuss the league's progress.
Recommended Posts