John Jaeckel: Hawk Prospects/Day 1, World Juniors

Hey there JJ! Just wanna say Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
And thanks for the update on boxing day! U r a class act!!

Did you see Allan Walsh's tweet?

@walsha: Will Bettman impose fine for comments? RT @Ledger_NJDevils Devils' Lou Lamoriello on NHL lockout: "I'm embarrassed for the game."

You think Lou gets fined? Love the fact that he spoke his mind!

Oh yeah...FIRST!!!!

OK so maybe it is just semantics but since the CBA expired isn't this "technically" not a lockout but a labor dispute or extended/failed contract negotiation.

Wouldn't a lockout constitute them having an agreement in place and then the owners no longer honoring said agreement? While a strike would be the players refusing to go to work if there was an agreement in place?

I feel like the way that certain words are being manipulated to make the fans/public more sympathetic to one group instead of the other is kind of misleading, especially when no one outside of those organizations or players groups knows exactly (or remotely) what the facts are.

Danault and McNeill were invisible out there today. McNeill had that terrible turnover. They were definitely the worst FW out there for Canada. Hopefully they pick it up

OK so maybe it is just semantics but since the CBA expired isn't this "technically" not a lockout but a labor dispute or extended/failed contract negotiation.

Wouldn't a lockout constitute them having an agreement in place and then the owners no longer honoring said agreement? While a strike would be the players refusing to go to work if there was an agreement in place?

I feel like the way that certain words are being manipulated to make the fans/public more sympathetic to one group instead of the other is kind of misleading, especially when no one outside of those organizations or players groups knows exactly (or remotely) what the facts are.
- fattybeef

From a practical application standpoint the players can't use team facilities....Thus the term lockout does make some sense.

John Jaeckel: Hawk Prospects/Day 1, World Juniors
neither Phillip Danault nor Mark McNeill made the scoresheet.
- John Jaeckel

McNeill did deserve an assist on Germany's third goal......

OK so maybe it is just semantics but since the CBA expired isn't this "technically" not a lockout but a labor dispute or extended/failed contract negotiation.

- fattybeef

You don't need a CBA to play a league. Players have contracts in place so there's nothing to stop a league from playing except the owners saying don't bother to show up and we're not paying you - that's pretty much a definition of a lock out.

Wouldn't a lockout constitute them having an agreement in place and then the owners no longer honoring said agreement?

Correct, the owners are presently not honoring all the contracts they signed the players to. There's nothing in the CBA that says the contracts are null after the CBA expires. But, this is where labor law takes over and why the owners want their lockout declared legal in the courts.

I feel like the way that certain words are being manipulated to make the fans/public more sympathetic to one group instead of the other is kind of misleading, especially when no one outside of those organizations or players groups knows exactly (or remotely) what the facts are.

I agree on the second part about who knows what's going on behind the scenes. And, for full disclosure, I'm anti-owner in all this anyway (not to be again over semantic, but I'm more anti-owner than pro-player).

You don't need a CBA to play a league. Players have contracts in place so there's nothing to stop a league from playing except the owners saying don't bother to show up and we're not paying you - that's pretty much a definition of a lock out.



Correct, the owners are presently not honoring all the contracts they signed the players to. There's nothing in the CBA that says the contracts are null after the CBA expires. But, this is where labor law takes over and why the owners want their lockout declared legal in the courts.



I agree on the second part about who knows what's going on behind the scenes. And, for full disclosure, I'm anti-owner in all this anyway (not to be again over semantic, but I'm more anti-owner than pro-player).
- shruew

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...

From a practical application standpoint the players can't use team facilities....Thus the term lockout does make some sense.
- Al

But if they aren't currently technically employed... What right do they have to use the facilities? They aren't locked out, they are citizens who don't want to go to work for what their boss is willing to pay. Is that not a correct statement?

You don't need a CBA to play a league. Players have contracts in place so there's nothing to stop a league from playing except the owners saying don't bother to show up and we're not paying you - that's pretty much a definition of a lock out.



Correct, the owners are presently not honoring all the contracts they signed the players to. There's nothing in the CBA that says the contracts are null after the CBA expires. But, this is where labor law takes over and why the owners want their lockout declared legal in the courts.



I agree on the second part about who knows what's going on behind the scenes. And, for full disclosure, I'm anti-owner in all this anyway (not to be again over semantic, but I'm more anti-owner than pro-player).
- shruew

Kind of disagree with that. If they all signed individual contracts to play for "X" amount of money then what do they need a union for? They have given up their individual rights to work to only go to work as a collective unit.

Therefore, if the union as a collective group cannot agree with the owners as a collective group then that should supersede the contracts those "individuals" signed because realistically they aren't individuals engaged in a "free contract" for service.

They are being paid as a collective with each getting a different piece depending on perceived skill level. So if there is no agreement to pay the "union" there is no agreement to pay the "individuals" meaning those contracts are meaningless pieces of paper unless a CBA is in place.

Shalunov did take that horrendous penalty that nearly cost his team a sure win...but upon watching the replay of the game, he absolutely BLEW UP some unlucky Slovak during the first period. Do we finally have a Russian prospect that enjoys full contact hockey ?

From a practical application standpoint the players can't use team facilities....Thus the term lockout does make some sense.
- Al

So dysfunctional Washington heads for the "cliff" they legislated 16 months ago and did nothing during that time othe than negotiate in bad faith and blame the other guys and the NHL follows the same dysfunctional script. Bad faith negotiating from the beginning as they stare down their second loss season in a decade because of managment's own bludering idiocy.

I am convinced if they managed to salvage a 48 game season the attendance and interest would plummet by 25%....they will take a huge hit for this foray into complete stupidity and hubris. I for one will not purchase a Hawks ticket or be interested in a 48 game season filled with sloppy play and whole bunch of injuries. He!! Columbus or Edmonton might sneak through and win 1/2 the cup!!

Shalunov did take that horrendous penalty that nearly cost his team a sure win...but upon watching the replay of the game, he absolutely BLEW UP some unlucky Slovak during the first period. Do we finally have a Russian prospect that enjoys full contact hockey ?
- philco28

It looks like that hit earned Shalunov a one-game suspension.


http://ca.sports.yahoo.co...d-one-game-121133814.html

It looks like that hit earned Shalunov a one-game suspension.


http://ca.sports.yahoo.co...d-one-game-121133814.html
- DarthKane

Vlad Konstantinov made a career delivering shots like that one...maybe he's a fan?

So dysfunctional Washington heads for the "cliff" they legislated 16 months ago and did nothing during that time othe than negotiate in bad faith and blame the other guys and the NHL follows the same dysfunctional script. Bad faith negotiating from the beginning as they stare down their second loss season in a decade because of managment's own bludering idiocy.

I am convinced if they managed to salvage a 48 game season the attendance and interest would plummet by 25%....they will take a huge hit for this foray into complete stupidity and hubris. I for one will not purchase a Hawks ticket or be interested in a 48 game season filled with sloppy play and whole bunch of injuries. He!! Columbus or Edmonton might sneak through and win 1/2 the cup!!
- bogiedoc

The cliff is irrelevant political posturing. 200 billion - 1.1 trillion = 900 billion in the hole this year regardless of whose plan is followed. In the end the debt ceiling will get raised, everyone will call foul but they will get the breaks and subsidies they want and we will continue down the spiral.


Ownership and the PA have been pretty obvious about what they want. The NHL has clearly stated what they wanted and moved on a number of issues. The NHLPA has offered nothing in return but "make a better deal that isn't good enough". Which is fine, they don't have to play and the owners don't have to pay them. It isn't bad faith, just two groups that can't agree and two head negotiators that seem to have a personal vendetta against each other. It happens. The company that owns the Panthers is making more money as they don't have any NHL payroll and can reap the benefits of hosting large scale entertainment events only.

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

And, for example, signing two players to $98M deals, then trying to change the economics involved in order to not have to honor these deals, is sound business? It's obvious you are pro-owner, but why should the owners not honor deals they made in good faith? Because they are hemorraging money? Maybe if the league as a whole reigned in the collective owners and didn't hand out ridiculous deals they would be in better shape. How much in contracts were given out right at the end of the CBA? Somewhere in the $300M range? Last lockout, I understood the need for a salary cap. In this one, the owners lost me after they got their 50/50 split of revenues. I am done with this league until Bettman is fired.

The cliff is irrelevant political posturing. 200 billion - 1.1 trillion = 900 billion in the hole this year regardless of whose plan is followed. In the end the debt ceiling will get raised, everyone will call foul but they will get the breaks and subsidies they want and we will continue down the spiral.


Ownership and the PA have been pretty obvious about what they want. The NHL has clearly stated what they wanted and moved on a number of issues. The NHLPA has offered nothing in return but "make a better deal that isn't good enough". Which is fine, they don't have to play and the owners don't have to pay them. It isn't bad faith, just two groups that can't agree and two head negotiators that seem to have a personal vendetta against each other. It happens. The company that owns the Panthers is making more money as they don't have any NHL payroll and can reap the benefits of hosting large scale entertainment events only.
- fattybeef

It IS bad faith because neither side is negotiating - just waiting for the other side to cave.

You may say that that is good bargaining; I say it is short-sighted, bad-faith, destructive....

It looks like that hit earned Shalunov a one-game suspension.


http://ca.sports.yahoo.co...d-one-game-121133814.html
- DarthKane

Sorry Darth...the hit i was referring to was in the first period..and totally clean. The high stick he was suspended for was a totally different play, but the suspension is legit IMHO.

But if they aren't currently technically employed... What right do they have to use the facilities? They aren't locked out, they are citizens who don't want to go to work for what their boss is willing to pay. Is that not a correct statement?
- fattybeef

I could easily write 2500 words trying to address your statements....

I'm still working off the wine I consumed on Christmas day so for now I will just say the players are not allowed to use team facilities....Thus locked out.

So dysfunctional Washington heads for the "cliff" they legislated 16 months ago and did nothing during that time othe than negotiate in bad faith and blame the other guys and the NHL follows the same dysfunctional script. Bad faith negotiating from the beginning as they stare down their second loss season in a decade because of managment's own bludering idiocy.

I am convinced if they managed to salvage a 48 game season the attendance and interest would plummet by 25%....they will take a huge hit for this foray into complete stupidity and hubris. I for one will not purchase a Hawks ticket or be interested in a 48 game season filled with sloppy play and whole bunch of injuries. He!! Columbus or Edmonton might sneak through and win 1/2 the cup!!
- bogiedoc

Bogie,

Unfortunately I think attendance won't drop 25% although I am not hyped up about a 48 game schedule...Actually per game it probably won't drop at all.

Realize the opportunity for a lot of weak sisters to hang around in a shortened season increases a lot.

I just saw a comment on Twitter which imo opinion is stupid about increasing the amount of playoff teams to 20, which would be a farce.

On Twitter@AlCimaglia

It IS bad faith because neither side is negotiating - just waiting for the other side to cave.

You may say that that is good bargaining; I say it is short-sighted, bad-faith, destructive....
- StLBravesFan

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....

And, for example, signing two players to $98M deals, then trying to change the economics involved in order to not have to honor these deals, is sound business? It's obvious you are pro-owner, but why should the owners not honor deals they made in good faith? Because they are hemorraging money? Maybe if the league as a whole reigned in the collective owners and didn't hand out ridiculous deals they would be in better shape. How much in contracts were given out right at the end of the CBA? Somewhere in the $300M range? Last lockout, I understood the need for a salary cap. In this one, the owners lost me after they got their 50/50 split of revenues. I am done with this league until Bettman is fired.
- hawks2010

Owners hire people to assemble teams. Those people play by the rules they know of at that time. During the economic debacle from 2009 and continueing, many businesses, my employer included, took measures of austerity. That is we were furloughed 2 weeks a year for 3 years. That is one paycheck we had to forsake for the purpose of keeping our business and jobs viable.

It is a bit short sighted to say that owners sign deals so they don't have to honor them. Or that there is any bad faith going on. I am pro owner as far as common sense goes. I have no beef with any player/worker/union asking for what they want. However, it is clear from the evolution of this whole debacle that the players are not interested in negotiating a deal, just shifting demands at every owner concession. That gets tiring and annoying.

And I am not of the mind that the owners are perfect at all...I am indifferent. My mindset is along the lines of players, having gotten to a fair area a month ago and then forsaked that and now are simply losing paychecks. More importantly, they are losing earnings years and wasting their talent, for what? What marginal gains can be made to offset what is being lost each and every day? If somebody can lay out some metrics that show otherwise, I would love to see them.

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

And this "bunch of highly successful business men" throw an offer out there and say, "take it or leave it - no negotiating". Why should the players negotiate against themselves?

I've said it before - if this were the way the owners negotiate business agreements in their real businesses, they wouldn't be able to afford owning hockey teams.

Bettman, Fehr - no difference except for whose constituents have lost more so far and whose will lose more if the season is cancelled.

Winning in this no-win situation is more important to both sides than coming to an agreement.

And this "bunch of highly successful business men" throw an offer out there and say, "take it or leave it - no negotiating". Why should the players negotiate against themselves?

I've said it before - if this were the way the owners negotiate business agreements in their real businesses, they wouldn't be able to afford owning hockey teams.

Bettman, Fehr - no difference except for whose constituents have lost more so far and whose will lose more if the season is cancelled.

Winning in this no-win situation is more important to both sides than coming to an agreement.
- StLBravesFan

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.

And this "bunch of highly successful business men" throw an offer out there and say, "take it or leave it - no negotiating". Why should the players negotiate against themselves?

I've said it before - if this were the way the owners negotiate business agreements in their real businesses, they wouldn't be able to afford owning hockey teams.

Bettman, Fehr - no difference except for whose constituents have lost more so far and whose will lose more if the season is cancelled.

Winning in this no-win situation is more important to both sides than coming to an agreement.
- StLBravesFan

Winning in this no-win situation is more important to both sides than coming to an agreement.

I can understand your thinking on this one if so fans are being treated as chumps.

As far as negotiating....From what I understand the owners gave in to players demands on the last go around and then Fehr wanted more...

The players have been basically negotiating against themselves for the most part and I don't think the owners are going to bend much more than they did a couple of weeks ago.

Fehr has misplayed this from the standpoint that as time goes by his position gets worse not better.