Congested 82 game schedule = lots of injuries.

Teams will be pulling players from their AHL teams on a regular basis.
- RickJ

Agreed.

I'm not sure that compressing the schedule is a good idea because of the injury factor. I think there were more than the average amount of injuries in the NBA last season. Secondly, the quality of the games suffered because of the fatigue factor as a result of the compressed schedule. The main thing is that they would be playing again. Would it really make a difference if they played 82 games or 74 games.

WHoa ??!! WTF ? Come on now JJ .....

- mrpaulish

He's right.

I tweeted this earlier today in response to the Hawks very own Steve Montador saying that maybe the real negotiations can begin now...

If real negotiation is just now beginning, there's more a chance of no snow in Chgo this winter than an 82 game schedule...
On Twitter@AlCimaglia
- Al

I agree Al, I still say games start about 30-40 days from now (if at all)

WHoa ??!! WTF ? Come on now JJ .....


Anyone hear anything on the players response to the latest offer from the Owners ??
- mrpaulish

I didn't name names.

Everyone keeps saying its the PA vs the Owners

How much of this is certain owners holding the players hostage to get other owners to bend to their will?

I have trouble believing Wirtz, Comcast/Snider, Canucks Sports and Entertainment, Maple Leaf Sports, the Molson family, Super Mario, Delaware North, MSG Inc or Ilitch have an issue dropping big money on star players as they can fill their stadiums every night, sell jerseys and in most cases own the building AND in some special cases own the rights for all the concessions as well.

In my opinion it is more of a have vs have more and the only group that is going to pay for the subsidy to make the unattainable nonsensical utopian dream come true are the players. This is not a "major" sport in the US and they need to come to that realization.

Also these bozos need to realize that hockey... like soccer... is not a very TV friendly sport unless you are familiar with the principles of the game and they need to focus on getting people IN THE DOOR not securing a major TV deal or burning money in places where they can't hit the attendance / interest numbers that they need to.

Yes...guilty as charged. I have been extremely cynical about this since the end of the season. Owner's have not operated in bad faith they have operated with no faith. Thats why I would posit this 82 game season carrot is PR...it really puts the onus on the players to take it or lose it.

I am agreement with Al on the pragmatic logistics of cramming in an 82 game season plus playoff with 3 lost weeks. NBA worked out a ridiculous 68 game season with teams playing 4 games in 5 nites 3 or 4 times. And they had sloppy play and alot of injuries for their stupidity. If the NHL tries this...wow...they are even more stupid than I thought.

For 11/1 start with 82 gms....they need to settle this thing tomorrow. Get everyone into camp for breif 10-14 days with maybe 1 or 2 pre-season games.

Not going to happen!!!
- bogiedoc

But the NBA actually lost half of their season before the lockout ended, the NHL hasn't come lose to losing half of the season yet. As I understand it, the 82game season wouldn't be crammed in either, but rather the early missed games would be tacked on at the end of the season.

I still don't see it happening, but it would be possible...the cup may be awarded in August though.

Does anyone understand how this would work? I mean what would happen to Hossa's and Lu's contract if the sign this new cba? And if the Cap is 59mil with just this first season up to 70, how would the Hawks for example get down to 59mil next season? Would they have to trade Hossa and Kane for example? I really don't get this

2 things that awokened me from my lockout slumber:

1. That anyone stashed in the minors WILL count against the cap moving forward. So we have 2 more years of Olesz doing....nothing.

2. Can somebody explain to me why the so called genius that is Stan Bowman felt he had to give a NTC to his potential 5th-7h D man n Michal Rozsival? So that makes 5 of the 7 d men with NMCs/NTCs all given out by Bowman. yet they will probably trade Hammer who they don't have a shot blocking replaement for.

This team is giving me nothing to get excited about even if they do agree before the season would be cancelled.

4 top 6 fs
small in size
a career AHL and mentally frale goalie
Mike Kitchen still employed...
Honestly, how does anyone think this team will compete for a top 4 spot and be a cup contender?

IF so...please pass whatever you are smoking...

With the proposed rule that contracts like Olesz's would count against the cap if the player is in the AHL, does that include if the player is loaned to a European team (a la Huet)?

50/50 is FAIR...let's play hockey

2 things that awokened me from my lockout slumber:

1. That anyone stashed in the minors WILL count against the cap moving forward. So we have 2 more years of Olesz doing....nothing.

2. Can somebody explain to me why the so called genius that is Stan Bowman felt he had to give a NTC to his potential 5th-7h D man n Michal Rozsival? So that makes 5 of the 7 d men with NMCs/NTCs all given out by Bowman. yet they will probably trade Hammer who they don't have a shot blocking replaement for.

This team is giving me nothing to get excited about even if they do agree before the season would be cancelled.

4 top 6 fs
small in size
a career AHL and mentally frale goalie
Mike Kitchen still employed...
Honestly, how does anyone think this team will compete for a top 4 spot and be a cup contender?

IF so...please pass whatever you are smoking...
- SteveRain

No fears. Hammer will be moved so that the Hawks can have cap space to make a move...for (a) 2nd line center (b) PP "QB" (c) lower the payroll

Olesz, like Wade Redden and probably a few other guys who have NHL contracts won't be playing in the AHL. If I'm not mistaken, their NHL contracts make them part of the union, and they won't be allowed to play for their NHL club, or any of their affiliates.
- EKolb13

Just to clear up the rules. The NHL and PA made a temporary agreement while the lockout is in place. Players with NHL two way contracts are eligible to play in the A during the lockout.

Two way contracts that need to pass through waivers (like Hutton) are only required to pass through the initial waivers. They are NOT required to go through re-entry waivers even if re-entry waivers are still part of the new CBA.

Olesz with a one way contract is NOT part of this agreement. He can't play in the A until after the lockout ends. And players like Olesz and Huet are going to be addressed in the new CBA so he probably won't play in the A next year anyway.

One other thing. Being a Black Ace has nothing to do with waivers for the following year. A Black Ace is an honorary position that has nothing to do with anything. Hutton because of his age needed to pass through waivers this year. Basically you have to pass through waivers when you are 26 even if you have a two way EL contract.

50/50 is FAIR...let's play hockey
- philco28

On the surface 50/50 is fair, but it the pie they're sharing (HRR) is smaller then the players will end up with less than 50% of what they currently have. I still think we're a long way away from watching NHL hockey, but this offer has gained the owners some goodwill in the eyes of the average hockey fan.

On the surface 50/50 is fair, but it the pie they're sharing (HRR) is smaller then the players will end up with less than 50% of what they currently have. I still think we're a long way away from watching NHL hockey, but this offer has gained the owners some goodwill in the eyes of the average hockey fan.
- DarthKane

57/43 was certainly not fair....though that's the deal that was agreed to....still the haggling is TIRED...let's drop the puck.

57/43 was certainly not fair....though that's the deal that was agreed to....still the haggling is TIRED...let's drop the puck.
- philco28

Agreed. Neither side is innocent in this and I'm tired of reading my twitter feed with irate journalists always slamming one side, or reading agents whining. It just looks childish and silly.

Honestly, what the hell is taking so long? This isn't a shake up of epic proportions. More like a fine tune. They want to compare themselves to the NBA and NFL and they are further away from either league then they care to admit.

You have a niche sport, with a niche fan base, and every day hockey isn't played the pseudo interested hockey fan will start to gravitate towards another sport.

Anyone who doesn't think try to explain why the NHL is locked out to a non die hard fan. Those are the people that drove revenues upwards. yet, the NHLPA and NHL are about to lose a vast majority of them due to be greedy.

It's maddening, frustrating, pathetic, but mostly...it's sad. You'd think after losing a partial season, a complete season, all within the last 18 years...that if ANY of the big 4 would never have another work stoppage it'd be the NHL.

Agreed. Neither side is innocent in this and I'm tired of reading my twitter feed with irate journalists always slamming one side, or reading agents whining. It just looks childish and silly.

Honestly, what the hell is taking so long? This isn't a shake up of epic proportions. More like a fine tune. They want to compare themselves to the NBA and NFL and they are further away from either league then they care to admit.

You have a niche sport, with a niche fan base, and every day hockey isn't played the pseudo interested hockey fan will start to gravitate towards another sport.

Anyone who doesn't think try to explain why the NHL is locked out to a non die hard fan. Those are the people that drove revenues upwards. yet, the NHLPA and NHL are about to lose a vast majority of them due to be greedy.

It's maddening, frustrating, pathetic, but mostly...it's sad. You'd think after losing a partial season, a complete season, all within the last 18 years...that if ANY of the big 4 would never have another work stoppage it'd be the NHL.
- SteveRain

Well said Rain Man

57/43 was certainly not fair....though that's the deal that was agreed to....still the haggling is TIRED...let's drop the puck.
- philco28

You know what isn't fair - the player who signs a big contract and then dog's it for a few seasons until it is running out. That is not fair - to the fans, owners, and the player himself.

I would love to see the owners demand 1 year contracts only. Can you imagine how well the players would perform knowing they could lose salary next season for dogging? Now that would be fair to everyone.

You know what isn't fair - the player who signs a big contract and then dog's it for a few seasons until it is running out. That is not fair - to the fans, owners, and the player himself.

I would love to see the owners demand 1 year contracts only. Can you imagine how well the players would perform knowing they could lose salary next season for dogging? Now that would be fair to everyone.
- powerenforcer

Names, sir, names.

Which Blackhawks have done that? Which players on other teams?

Not been bad - that's a bad owner's decision - but are actually dogging it, meaning (I assume) not trying.

Agreed. Neither side is innocent in this and I'm tired of reading my twitter feed with irate journalists always slamming one side, or reading agents whining. It just looks childish and silly.

Honestly, what the hell is taking so long? This isn't a shake up of epic proportions. More like a fine tune. They want to compare themselves to the NBA and NFL and they are further away from either league then they care to admit.

You have a niche sport, with a niche fan base, and every day hockey isn't played the pseudo interested hockey fan will start to gravitate towards another sport.

Anyone who doesn't think try to explain why the NHL is locked out to a non die hard fan. Those are the people that drove revenues upwards. yet, the NHLPA and NHL are about to lose a vast majority of them due to be greedy.

It's maddening, frustrating, pathetic, but mostly...it's sad. You'd think after losing a partial season, a complete season, all within the last 18 years...that if ANY of the big 4 would never have another work stoppage it'd be the NHL.
- SteveRain

As bad as the Chicago Teachers Union strike was, at least, shortly after the strike began, the two sides had marathon negotiating sessions to get a deal done.

Highland Park teachers were on strike for one day: then, after a full day's negotiations, they got it done.

That's what the league and the PA should be doing: negotiating points based on the new league proposal, not for an hour and then break up the meeting.

If tomorrow's meeting is ended without any kind of negotiating going on, then I fear for the season.

First, I do not believe it is a compressed schedule. It is adding games the end of season that have been missed. So schedule not compressed.

Second, as a hockey fan, we will know within a week if we start in November or if he season is lost. At least there is a clear mark in the sand. Remember owners deal conditional on Nov 2 start.

You know what isn't fair - the player who signs a big contract and then dog's it for a few seasons until it is running out. That is not fair - to the fans, owners, and the player himself.

I would love to see the owners demand 1 year contracts only. Can you imagine how well the players would perform knowing they could lose salary next season for dogging? Now that would be fair to everyone.
- powerenforcer

Agreed...but without a certain level of security...there'd be a lot more holdouts.

You know what isn't fair - the player who signs a big contract and then dog's it for a few seasons until it is running out. That is not fair - to the fans, owners, and the player himself.

I would love to see the owners demand 1 year contracts only. Can you imagine how well the players would perform knowing they could lose salary next season for dogging? Now that would be fair to everyone.
- powerenforcer

You'll never get that...You are asking for what the NFL has...non guaranteed contracts. Problem is are you as an owner willing to pony up HUGE money for 1 year deals OR signing bonuses to offset this factor? The NHL doesn't have the funds to make a system like that work.

if you want to be pisssed about those deals blame the owners who handed them out. No professional athlete in any sport should be signed for more then 5 years. Ask a Wild fan in about 6 years how they are likng that Suter deal.

You'll never get that...You are asking for what the NFL has...non guaranteed contracts. Problem is are you as an owner willing to pony up HUGE money for 1 year deals OR signing bonuses to offset this factor? The NHL doesn't have the funds to make a system like that work.

if you want to be pisssed about those deals blame the owners who handed them out. No professional athlete in any sport should be signed for more then 5 years. Ask a Wild fan in about 6 years how they are likng that Suter deal.
- SteveRain

Word up. Doesn't the NBA have Max deals ? For example the most a player can make is 100m over 5 years ? So if a superstar hit free agency then the most he could get would be 5/100m ?

Word up. Doesn't the NBA have Max deals ? For example the most a player can make is 100m over 5 years ? So if a superstar hit free agency then the most he could get would be 5/100m ?
- mrpaulish

I dont' follow the NBA at all, but I think you're right on the max deals.

I see major issues with the NHL's latest proposal regarding the handling of existing SPCs > 5 years, where the team that signed the player bears the burden of the cap hit for the length of the contract if the player retires early.

1) I can't see how the NHLPA would support this. The player who retires is no longer being paid, yet the team that signed him can't spend that money on other players, effectively reducing the pool of money that can be spent on player contracts for teams that routinely spend to the cap.

2) Let's suppose Luongo suffers a career-ending injury this year, or, closer to home, assume Marian Hossa is unable to return and decides to retire this year after the injuries he suffered in last year's playoffs. Do they actually expect Chicago to sacrifice $5.2M, or whatever it is, of cap space for the next 9 years?

Someone explain it to me, makes no sense.