lol i did laugh, lame yes, but chuckle worthy.
- big_dion

Thanks big_d

There is nothing I hate more than the love/hate fest my fellow fans do to all the Leaf players. Amazing how Schenn goes from the most untouchable player ever to the most tradable player ever. The same will happen to Gardiner. People just want to ship off Kulemin now after his off season, even though he was a favourite after his 30 goal season.
- dionschenn

Only a few years ago schenn was untouchable too, so yeah, i guess you have a point. At some point the honeymoon between Gardiner and leafs nation will be over, a few mistakes, a little regression, a bad year etc.
- eihcnerf

It can be explained using Einstein's theory of relativity. If you have a talented player surrounded by untalented players, the talented player will stand out much more than normal. Schenn, at one time, was the lone bright spot and people gravitated towards him as such. Now, that has begun to happen with Gardiner. But the second you compare him to others across the league, the gem losses a little bit of it's luster because the relativity changes.

Thanks big_d
- Pecafan Fan

we chirp back n fourth, but deep down i have

I'm just going with what the Devils fans are chatting about...figure they know a heck of a lot more about the politics within that team then we do.
- Juice

Elias has been with that organization for 18 years. Unless he turns it down, he would probably be the first choice.

It can be explained using Einstein's theory of relativity. If you have a talented player surrounded by untalented players, the talented player will stand out much more than normal. Schenn, at one time, was the lone bright spot and people gravitated towards him as such. Now, that has begun to happen with Gardiner. But the second you compare him to others across the league, the gem losses a little bit of it's luster because the relativity changes.
- Two_For_Truth

cept gardiner can shoot, skate, play D and has a silver stick

A lost season is good for those franchises because they won't lose any money.
- Two_For_Truth

This makes no sense. Of course they will lose money.

They will have no revenue (or very little). They will still have expenses.

Not to mention that in the aftermath, they will lose fans and further weaken their revenue raising capability.

But please stop this non-sense about how teams that currently lose money will suddenly become profitable when they lose their main source of income.

It really makes no sense if you think about it for 4 seconds or more.

- eihcnerf

See the hot one on the right, wearing a shirt 6 sizes too big for her and a belt?

And now they wear yoga pants and spandex shirts.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 80s, but sometimes I think I was born too early.

Elias has been with that organization for 18 years. Unless he turns it down, he would probably be the first choice.
- Two_For_Truth

Not 100% sure about what I'm gonna say here, but I think he turned it down before they gave it to Parise.

- eihcnerf

Eddie, what have you done for me lately?

Not 100% sure about what I'm gonna say here, but I think he turned it down before they gave it to Parise.
- Pecafan Fan

A few more years and Henrique will wear the C, meh what do I care, lol.

- eihcnerf

Oh dear, Zeppelin, stat!

This makes no sense. Of course they will lose money.

They will have no revenue (or very little). They will still have expenses.

Not to mention that in the aftermath, they will lose fans and further weaken their revenue raising capability.

But please stop this non-sense about how teams that currently lose money will suddenly become profitable when they lose their main source of income.

It really makes no sense if you think about it for 4 seconds or more.
- Leeman4Gilmour

They will have very limited expenses. The first thing they do is lay off all non-essential staff.

And if there is one thing that emboldens the owners, it's that the lost season didn't hurt them too much - revenues bounced back almost immediately, and continued to rise (if you don't believe me, just look at the salary cap).

So it actually does make sense for teams losing tens of millions of dollars.

Especially if they can come back with an economic model that is friendlier to owners.

See the hot one on the right, wearing a shirt 6 sizes too big for her and a belt?

And now they wear yoga pants and spandex shirts.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 80s, but sometimes I think I was born too early.
- Atomic Wedgie

And at the time, we thought that was sexy... how gullible...

This makes no sense. Of course they will lose money.

They will have no revenue (or very little). They will still have expenses.

Not to mention that in the aftermath, they will lose fans and further weaken their revenue raising capability.

But please stop this non-sense about how teams that currently lose money will suddenly become profitable when they lose their main source of income.

It really makes no sense if you think about it for 4 seconds or more.
- Leeman4Gilmour

A lockout saves those teams millions of dollars. They won't have to pay their players. That alone saves them tens of millions of dollars in losses. I never said they would be profitable.

Not 100% sure about what I'm gonna say here, but I think he turned it down before they gave it to Parise.
- Pecafan Fan

Maybe because he thought Parise was more worthy of the captaincy? I'd think at the very least they would offer it to him again after 18 years of service. Just seems like the right fit if he's willing to accept.

They will have very limited expenses. The first thing they do is lay off all non-essential staff.

And if there is one thing that emboldens the owners, it's that the lost season didn't hurt them too much - revenues bounced back almost immediately, and continued to rise (if you don't believe me, just look at the salary cap).

So it actually does make sense for teams losing tens of millions of dollars.

Especially if they can come back with an economic model that is friendlier to owners.
- Atomic Wedgie

Imagine a team that loses 20 million dollars per year. Suppose there is a lockout and they lose only 2 million dollars. That's 18 million dollars they didn't lose. It's not profit but it's not debt either.

Now imagine a new economic model that has them losing 10 million dollars instead of 20 million. Then they lose 5 million dollars the next year before finally turning a small profit of 1 million the next year.

That's either 80 million dollars lost or 16 million dollars lost over four years.

Pretty easy to see that the teams bleeding money would have little to no problem with a lockout.

And at the time, we thought that was sexy... how gullible...
- Pecafan Fan

Not sure it's attributed to gullibility. More like our wangs. female doges are female doges no matter what they look like...even those hairy ones back in the day.

They will have very limited expenses. The first thing they do is lay off all non-essential staff.

And if there is one thing that emboldens the owners, it's that the lost season didn't hurt them too much - revenues bounced back almost immediately, and continued to rise (if you don't believe me, just look at the salary cap).

So it actually does make sense for teams losing tens of millions of dollars.

Especially if they can come back with an economic model that is friendlier to owners.
- Atomic Wedgie

Yes, they may lose less money, but they certainly won't stop losing money. There are still several big-ticket expenses on the books during a lock-out (coaches, management under contract, trainers and quality staff you don't want to lose permanently, the lease on the building, interest due on loans, etc.)

And the prospect of becoming profitable in the future under a more favorable model has to be weighed against the long-term damage to your brand.

I can't see hockey surviving in the deep south with a second lost season in 8 years. It would solidify the NHL's reputation down there as being on par with the XFL or other novelty leagues.

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

That $10-M bonus payable now is protected from any possible rollback or lockout...

That means it does roll back if there is a roll back.

If there is a roll back they are screwed (depending on the size of the roll back)

Imagine a team that loses 20 million dollars per year. Suppose there is a lockout and they lose only 2 million dollars. That's 18 million dollars they didn't lose. It's not profit but it's not debt either.

Now imagine a new economic model that has them losing 10 million dollars instead of 20 million. Then they lose 5 million dollars the next year before finally turning a small profit of 1 million the next year.

That's either 80 million dollars lost or 32 million dollars lost over four years.

Pretty easy to see that the teams bleeding money would have little to no problem with a lockout.
- Two_For_Truth

thanks UG but i bet rent alone is 20 million dollars

Gord Miller ‏@GMillerTSN

The NHL has vowed to close that loophole, and warned teams that the transition rules would be harsh, but 14 teams have at least one of them.

Maybe Burke is being smart here?

That means it does roll back if there is a roll back.

If there is a roll back they are screwed (depending on the size of the roll back)
- Cfser

This makes no sense. Of course they will lose money.

They will have no revenue (or very little). They will still have expenses.

Not to mention that in the aftermath, they will lose fans and further weaken their revenue raising capability.

But please stop this non-sense about how teams that currently lose money will suddenly become profitable when they lose their main source of income.

It really makes no sense if you think about it for 4 seconds or more.
- Leeman4Gilmour

not really, a team that loses $40M a year is only likely to lose a fraction of that when there is no hockey...

Gord Miller ‏@GMillerTSN

The NHL has vowed to close that loophole, and warned teams that the transition rules would be harsh, but 14 teams have at least one of them.

Maybe Burke is being smart here?
- Cfser

It would be something else if it came back on the teams in a harsh way. But how would it? They couldn't just cancel the deals, they've been made already. Though I guess they did roll back the money after the 1st one. I don't know what will happen, unfortunately I'm not a hockey agent lawyer capologist.