Again, what you are failing to understand is that after the last debacle, when players and moderate owners got together, and then after the owners conceded a few points, namely the make whole, and felt like they were getting close to an agreement. Then after all the good will, Fehr throws out the same half deal proposal ignoring all the good will that had been generated in the two days prior.

It does not take a smart business man to realize that every time you concede anything and then your opponent makes the concession a new beginning point for more demands, that you are in fact negotiating with yourself. While we know what has been proposed and we know what the key issues are for the owners, we know NOTHING of what the players ultimately want. This far into the process, this speaks volumes to anyone who has ever negotiated anything in their lives before.
- TrueGrit

Johnny Rocco: There's only one Johnny Rocco.
James Temple: How do you account for it?
Frank McCloud: He knows what he wants. Don't you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Sure.
James Temple: What's that?
Frank McCloud: Tell him, Rocco.
Johnny Rocco: Well, I want uh ...
Frank McCloud: He wants more, don't you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Yeah. That's it. More. That's right! I want more!
James Temple: Will you ever get enough?
Frank McCloud: Will you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Well, I never have. No, I guess I won't....

Both sides want the same: more.

It is not semantics, but simple math. The lockout is to prevent the league owners from hemorrhaging more money. You do not lose a little money on every transaction and then expect to make it up with volume.

Buddy if you have not gathered these facts by now.....then you are not anti owner, but anti logic...
- TrueGrit

I don't think I get your point. What point of mine are you trying to respond to?

I don't fault the owners for locking out the players, that's their prerogative. I do fault them for not being able to run their league well.

The players rejected the owners last offer.

Bettman and a bunch of highly successful business men aren't going to negotiate against themselves.

Evidently someone told Don Fehr and Co. that time was his allie....
- Al

I heard Barry Rozner say on the Score today that the two sides were close to a deal a couple of weeks ago when they were negotiating without Bettman and Fehr. The players wanted to have their lawyer (Fehr) look over the deal and that's when the whole thing broke down. The owners expected the players to sign on the deal without talking to their representitive. Would they do a business deal without consulting their attorneys?

I don't think I get your point. What point of mine are you trying to respond to?

I don't fault the owners for locking out the players, that's their prerogative. I do fault them for not being able to run their league well.
- shruew

Fair point, but like any business, it has to work...sustain itself or it dies. It is in the players best interest to have it work, or there is no league. That is my main point. If Shea Weber only gets 8 mill a year instead of 10 and it helps the league...then lets not split hairs.

I am not saying the league has not made mistakes and dumb moves...what I am saying is at the end of the day, players have to figure out where the fine line is....

I heard Barry Rozner say on the Score today that the two sides were close to a deal a couple of weeks ago when they were negotiating without Bettman and Fehr. The players wanted to have their lawyer (Fehr) look over the deal and that's when the whole thing broke down. The owners expected the players to sign on the deal without talking to their representitive. Would they do a business deal without consulting their attorneys?
- jhawk159

That is fine, but when their attorney moves the goal posts you have a problem. I said back in September, every negotiation has 3 to 5 issues that matter to each side. The key is to hone in on them and determine what is most important to each side...you negotiate...concede and move on. Each side knows best case and where things are acceptable. If you do not begin a negotiation that way..you lose every time.

Anyhow, both sides have a handful of people with a mental matrix of the moving parts. These things are never as complicated as many make them out to be. Conflicts like this only occur when there is disagreement on the premiss of the whole argument. If that is the case...jeez....

I heard Barry Rozner say on the Score today that the two sides were close to a deal a couple of weeks ago when they were negotiating without Bettman and Fehr. The players wanted to have their lawyer (Fehr) look over the deal and that's when the whole thing broke down. The owners expected the players to sign on the deal without talking to their representitive. Would they do a business deal without consulting their attorneys?
- jhawk159

I think everyone has their own slant...Barry knows the game but I disagree with his thinking that Bettman will be gone and Fehr survives.

Also the items that are left to be settled are big ones...

The bottom line is the players have been and will be in a submissive position so it is a tricky task for Fehr and so far hasn't done very well imo.

The players will break first and if something crazy happens, like this season and next are canceled, it won't matter who gave in first...

The sport will set itself back years and no one will make as much money.

On Twitter@Al Cimaglia

Watching the Czech/Fin game via a Finnish link. I'm not sure which is better, no sound or listening to the Finnish broadcast team. Nothing personal mind you, just can't speak speak the language.

EDIT: TT just lit the lamp.

Sounds like it is time to start getting excited about a possible end to Lockout.

Owners gave in some more as Eklund reported overnight and was confirmed by Bob McKenzie and others.

Term limit and variance changes which are significant.....

On Twitter@AlCimaglia

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...-short-player-source-says

If this is accurate, that is a significant concession by the owners. Will Fehr allow the membership to vote on it or look for more?

At the risk of death by flaming, would He Who Won't Be Named be a tempting add for a one year/short season run at the cup if they can get out from under that contract before next season?

At the risk of death by flaming, would He Who Won't Be Named be a tempting add for a one year/short season run at the cup if they can get out from under that contract before next season?
- NewToHockey

Who is this mystery player you speak of ?

Sounds like it is time to start getting excited about a possible end to Lockout.

Owners gave in some more as Eklund reported overnight and was confirmed by Bob McKenzie and others.

Term limit and variance changes which are significant.....

On Twitter@AlCimaglia
- Al

I cannot (and won't) get excited until the puck drops for the first game of the new season. During this process we've got our hopes up a couple times only to have them crushed. I think it's quite reasonable to expect Fehr to now come back and ask for more, it's what he does. I am still standing by the expectation that hockey won't resume until the fall of 2013.

Who is this mystery player you speak of ?
- jhawk159

Western Conference goalie who lost his starting position within the last year and comes with a looooooong term contract.

I cannot (and won't) get excited until the puck drops for the first game of the new season. During this process we've got our hopes up a couple times only to have them crushed. I think it's quite reasonable to expect Fehr to now come back and ask for more, it's what he does. I am still standing by the expectation that hockey won't resume until the fall of 2013.
- DarthKane

Went with Eli and saw the Hogs beat the Wolves last night in Rockford. I've been to about half a dozen Steel games this year. One benefit of the lockout is I've become more of a hockey fan instead of just an NHL fan.

At the risk of death by flaming, would He Who Won't Be Named be a tempting add for a one year/short season run at the cup if they can get out from under that contract before next season?
- NewToHockey

Stranger things have happened. I'm told the two clubs have talked (although some refuse to believe it), but I suspect it was more just listening by the Hawks.

Loading up for a quick run, or going all in, is not/has not been the Bowman style.

The fact remains, by just about any metric, Luongo is going to be a better netminder than Corey Crawford. The other issue is a long, expensive contract that could be very problematic under a new CBA.

My belief is the Hawks would jump at the chance to improve the goaltending. OIn spite of the "we like our team" rhetoric that you always hear, anecdotal (but strong) evidence suggests they would like to upgrade the position. In reality, you have a team with terrific forwards, a very good, and (now) deep defense and average (at best) goaltending.

The 2-3 areas for improvement are center depth and size/nastiness upfront—and goalie.

If this CBA gets resolved (fingers crossed), and there is clarity as well as "room" for teams to make moves, teams will likely revisit bookmarked trade discussions.

For the Hawks, that could include: Montreal and Ottawa, among other teams they spoke with last summer.

Make no mistake: the regular season stats will bear asterisks, but the 2013 Stanley Cup won't. This is one more season in the "window" the Hawks have with their current core, and all fans should judge Stan Bowman and the front office on their ability to make the necessary moves to go from a first round playoff team to a legit Cup contender.

If the CBA is resolved and games start, say, 1/15, but the roster remains as is and you hear Bowman talking about how Sheldon Brookbank and improvement by Nick Leddy is all this team needed, be prepared for a short, but disappointing season.

Western Conference goalie who lost his starting position within the last year and comes with a looooooong term contract.
- NewToHockey

Gotcha!

It would be nice to start talking about things like that instead of CBA'S make wholes and the rest of that nonsense.

If they can get that guy for the right price they should look into it.

Western Conference goalie who lost his starting position within the last year and comes with a looooooong term contract.
- NewToHockey

Isn't there a buyout clause in the owners new offer? I'm sure the Canucks will buy out Luongo, then we can sign him as a free agent.

Went with Eli and saw the Hogs beat the Wolves last night in Rockford. I've been to about half a dozen Steel games this year. One benefit of the lockout is I've become more of a hockey fan instead of just an NHL fan.
- NewToHockey

That's awesome, I have a blog coming on just this subject. I believe the more you watch hockey in general—and not just Hawk games with all the propaganda on CSN—the more knowledgeable a hockey fan you become.

Sorta like eating a balanced diet versus trying to live on koolaid.

Isn't there a buyout clause in the owners new offer? I'm sure the Canucks will buy out Luongo, then we can sign him as a free agent.
- DarthKane

Lots of teams will talk to him as a free agent.

Isn't there a buyout clause in the owners new offer? I'm sure the Canucks will buy out Luongo, then we can sign him as a free agent.
- DarthKane

What I read had the buyout period during the 2013 offseason. I was thinking get him for this coming season and go for it, but this hasn't been anywhere near Bowman's style, as JJ pointed out.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8786610/nhl-presents-new-offer-time-runs-short-player-source-says

If this is accurate, that is a significant concession by the owners. Will Fehr allow the membership to vote on it or look for more?
- NewToHockey

I just tweeted this....

Negotiations often end when both sides feel like they won. This seems like the PA now has an opportunity to feel like they have won.

Maybe the PA can squeeze a little more but this is the time to act.

What I read had the buyout period during the 2013 offseason. I was thinking get him for this coming season and go for it, but this hasn't been anywhere near Bowman's style, as JJ pointed out.
- NewToHockey

GM's won't take a player with a lot of term left, like Luongo, for a 48 game season with the intention of buying him out.

On Twitter@AlCimaglia

Lots of teams will talk to him as a free agent.
- John Jaeckel

I have no doubt about that, but Luongo will be very picky about where he goes. While he might be willing to accept a trade to Toronto (due to lack of any other viable options) I doubt he'd sign there as a free agent. I'm sure Luongo would love to stick it to the Canucks (on the ice) and what better place to do that than Chicago. I'm not suggesting that Stan pull out all the stops to get Luongo, but if Luo becomes a free agent then it's something to be pursued.

I cannot (and won't) get excited until the puck drops for the first game of the new season. During this process we've got our hopes up a couple times only to have them crushed. I think it's quite reasonable to expect Fehr to now come back and ask for more, it's what he does. I am still standing by the expectation that hockey won't resume until the fall of 2013.
- DarthKane

For me this is about it...

If this doesn't end within the next few days you will be correct.

I just tweeted this....

Negotiations often end when both sides feel like they won. This seems like the PA now has an opportunity to feel like they have won.

Maybe the PA can squeeze a little more but this is the time to act.
- Al

I would hope that Fehr's ego will allow this to end here. Vote over the weekend and camps can start on the second. Will Kane be sobered up from New Year's by then?