Brouwer's the one who's out of line. Just because someone is in a union does not mean that they have to agree with, or support every stance the union leadership takes. Someone should tell Brouwer that he's not the only one allowed to have an opinion, then tell him to hit the bricks.
- Ogilthorpe2

Agreed. Doubt he would have said anything if it was Karl Alzner or Andrew Ladd who had spoken out.

Anyone read Tim Sassone's tweet? The one where he answers a fan's question about Rocky Wirtz? Where Tim says Rocky is one of the hard liners and not a deal maker? Is he right? Don't get me wrong,but I thought Rocky would want the lockout to end asap, and didn't Toews have some comments about the blackhawks during the lockout that seemed more positive than negative?
- captainserious

He's a Wirtz... Said that a while ago and other people here have eluded to it.

My opinion is that unlike his old man, he will pay his players, pay them well and not alienate the ones he doesn't have to. However, I highly doubt he would be OK with giving money to a team in a market that shouldn't have a hockey team with a deal that kind of hamstrings his deep pockets in terms of being able to put the best team on the ice.

I think this is a pretty good analysis: http://www.hockeybuzz.com...s-Sunday-Results/45/47672

Brouwer's the one who's out of line. Just because someone is in a union does not mean that they have to agree with, or support every stance the union leadership takes. Someone should tell Brouwer that he's not the only one allowed to have an opinion, then tell him to hit the bricks.
- Ogilthorpe2

I think it is telling that there are players who are getting frustrated. Older guys like him in his last year, possibly last chance to make the playoffs or compete for a Cup (Washington's choking problems aside). And guys making the league minimum or close to it have to be getting irritated. Their salary and role doesn't change. It is guys like Suter, Crosby, or Hossa (similar long ridiculous contracts) who are going to feel the biggest pinch if any.

He's a Wirtz... Said that a while ago and other people here have eluded to it.

My opinion is that unlike his old man, he will pay his players, pay them well and not alienate the ones he doesn't have to. However, I highly doubt he would be OK with giving money to a team in a market that shouldn't have a hockey team with a deal that kind of hamstrings his deep pockets in terms of being able to put the best team on the ice.

I think this is a pretty good analysis: http://www.hockeybuzz.com...s-Sunday-Results/45/47672
- fattybeef

But he was OK with pocketing the franchise fees when those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with pocketing the additional national TV fees that came to be (supposedly) because those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with NOT SPENDING TO THE CAP last year, settling for a second straight low finish in the regular season and a second straight one-and-done in the play-offs.

But he was OK with pocketing the franchise fees when those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with pocketing the additional national TV fees that came to be (supposedly) because those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with NOT SPENDING TO THE CAP last year, settling for a second straight low finish in the regular season and a second straight one-and-done in the play-offs.
- StLBravesFan

To quote Fatty...."He's a Wirtz"

But he was OK with pocketing the franchise fees when those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with pocketing the additional national TV fees that came to be (supposedly) because those teams came into the league.

And he was OK with NOT SPENDING TO THE CAP last year, settling for a second straight low finish in the regular season and a second straight one-and-done in the play-offs.
- StLBravesFan

You don't spend to the cap just to spend to the cap. And if there is salary cap contraction having that space is going to keep a competitive team intact while other franchises will have to unload players. 10-15 years ago Sharp would never have gotten a raise like that to keep him in Chicago which was more the point I was making. Also having that extra space allows them to move any number of bit players or major players for large pieces if necessary mid-season. They are really in a good situation to reload after this year or improve if they have issues/injury whenever the next season starts.

Rocky wasn't running the organization when the NHL expanded in 2000. The old man was still in charge.

Kind of a big difference.

You don't spend to the cap just to spend to the cap. And if there is salary cap contraction having that space is going to keep a competitive team intact while other franchises will have to unload players. 10-15 years ago Sharp would never have gotten a raise like that to keep him in Chicago which was more the point I was making. Also having that extra space allows them to move any number of bit players or major players for large pieces if necessary mid-season. They are really in a good situation to reload after this year or improve if they have issues/injury whenever the next season starts.

Rocky wasn't running the organization when the NHL expanded in 2000. The old man was still in charge.

Kind of a big difference.
- fattybeef

Yes, I should have said "the organization was OK with taking the franchise fees", which were substantial over a 10-year period, but now they're not OK with supporting the teams in struggling markets, even tho contraction would probably mean a loss of some national TV revenue.

I think it is telling that there are players who are getting frustrated. Older guys like him in his last year, possibly last chance to make the playoffs or compete for a Cup (Washington's choking problems aside). And guys making the league minimum or close to it have to be getting irritated. Their salary and role doesn't change. It is guys like Suter, Crosby, or Hossa (similar long ridiculous contracts) who are going to feel the biggest pinch if any.
- fattybeef

The instructions form the beginning from Don Fehr should have been to not make comments about other players or concerning the negotiations...

Players who step out will ostracize themselves but when players fight with each other...It shows weakness as the yarn ball unravels.

Nothing like a little CBA talk to kill a good hockey conversation.

Thanks JJ! Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!

In your opinion,will there be an NHL season this year? Have any news on the lockout? How about Kruger's play in the AHL, he is looking good, I have read that it seems likr he got a biy bigger, and that his skating has improved, have you been keeping up with the Hogs?
- captainserious

Thanks Cap, it was a good Thanksgiving break overall.

I think it is 50/50 whether there will any kind of season this year. Maybe 60-40 against. On that topic, I have no more news than anyone and less than some.

Kruger is having a nice year down there but that is what you should expect for a guy with over a year of quality NHL experience. I thought I noticed that Kruger looked a bit bigger in street clothes from something I saw.

I have been somewhat keeping up with Rockford and as any hope of an NHL season fades, I will likely get a lot more involved on the AHL level.

Brouwer's the one who's out of line. Just because someone is in a union does not mean that they have to agree with, or support every stance the union leadership takes. Someone should tell Brouwer that he's not the only one allowed to have an opinion, then tell him to hit the bricks.
- Ogilthorpe2

Maybe Bowman could reverse a huge mistake and trade Frolik to the Caps for Brouwer. Wait, no one's that stupid. (sarcasm intended)

Thanks Cap, it was a good Thanksgiving break overall.

I think it is 50/50 whether there will any kind of season this year. Maybe 60-40 against. On that topic, I have no more news than anyone and less than some.

Kruger is having a nice year down there but that is what you should expect for a guy with over a year of quality NHL experience. I thought I noticed that Kruger looked a bit bigger in street clothes from something I saw.

I have been somewhat keeping up with Rockford and as any hope of an NHL season fades, I will likely get a lot more involved on the AHL level.
- John Jaeckel

Do you think that there is a better chance of getting this settled now that they are geting a federal mediator involved?

Do you think that there is a better chance of getting this settled now that they are geting a federal mediator involved?
- jhawk159

The goal for each side is to bring in a mediator to show the other side how wrong they actually are. Once the mediator is done both sides will stick to their guns believing they are the only ones being fair and the lock-out will continue.

The goal for each side is to bring in a mediator to show the other side how wrong they actually are. Once the mediator is done both sides will stick to their guns believing they are the only ones being fair and the lock-out will continue.
- DarthKane

After the incredibly insulting/arrogant slap in the face initial offer from the owners....the tone of these....ahem...negotiations was set. For the players it got personal. Should have decertified at that point. The owners were not going to bargain in good faith.

I am with DK...mediation will not resolve this. My guess they have about a week to salvage a 60 game season. After that why bother!

After the incredibly insulting/arrogant slap in the face initial offer from the owners....the tone of these....ahem...negotiations was set. For the players it got personal. Should have decertified at that point. The owners were not going to bargain in good faith.

I am with DK...mediation will not resolve this. My guess they have about a week to salvage a 60 game season. After that why bother!
- bogiedoc

Kind of what I thought too. The time for mediation was a month ago. Unless both sides agree to binding arbritration which they probably wouldn't mediation doesn't sound like it will help in the short term.

Maybe Bowman could reverse a huge mistake and trade Frolik to the Caps for Brouwer. Wait, no one's that stupid. (sarcasm intended)
- John Jaeckel

What is the implied mistake? Trading Brouwer for Danault? Trading Skille for Frolik? Or extending Frolik?.... or other?

EDIT: or, I suppose, all of the above?

Kind of what I thought too. The time for mediation was a month ago. Unless both sides agree to binding arbritration which they probably wouldn't mediation doesn't sound like it will help in the short term.
- jhawk159

Different take: they seem to be not that far apart on any of the issues - maybe mediation can get them to do what they haven't been able to even discuss yet: compromise and trade-off.

I think this is a positive step - the danger for each side is not moving with the mediators while the other side does - Eklund had a good column about this yesterday (the first where he actually provided information) - in 2004, it was a "yes-no" situation - cap or no cap - mediation wasn't going to help there.

This time they are all negotiable and compromisable differences.

What is the implied mistake? Trading Brouwer for Danault? Trading Skille for Frolik? Or extending Frolik?.... or other?

EDIT: or, I suppose, all of the above?
- nathanjf

This.

What is the implied mistake? Trading Brouwer for Danault? Trading Skille for Frolik? Or extending Frolik?.... or other?

EDIT: or, I suppose, all of the above?
- nathanjf

Trading Brouwer instead of Frolik (+) for the pick that got us Danault was a mistake. In the short term this deal hurt, but in the long term Brouwer for Danault could a great deal for us if Danault lives up to his potential.

What is the implied mistake? Trading Brouwer for Danault? Trading Skille for Frolik? Or extending Frolik?.... or other?

EDIT: or, I suppose, all of the above?
- nathanjf

Trading Brouwer in order to avoid having to pay him $2M+ per year and then turning around and extending Frolik at the $2m+ per.

Do you think that there is a better chance of getting this settled now that they are geting a federal mediator involved?
- jhawk159

On the surface, you would think so.

That said, a lot of this has been about public face-saving for both sides. And I don't know if bringing the mediator in isn't just one side or both being able to say: "we tried everything."

I don't have a good feeling about this.

Gary Bettman is not a shrewd marketer, and I believe a pro sport commissioner needs to be; his expansion plan in the 90s was a mistake and a failure. Now, we, the fans, are paying for it again (because we did in the last lockout/lost season) as the owners try to prop up his ill-conceived expansions.

Donald Fehr basically ruined baseball for me and I dare say millions of others in the early 90s. He only knows how to scorch the earth on behalf of exorbitant salaries. Who can afford to take their family to a baseball game anymore and sit anywhere but the nosebleeds? Not many people.

Fehr does not care about baseball fans, nor does he care about hockey fans. Bettman might just a whit more, because of the nature of his job.

Both of these guys are toxic.

After the incredibly insulting/arrogant slap in the face initial offer from the owners....the tone of these....ahem...negotiations was set. For the players it got personal. Should have decertified at that point. The owners were not going to bargain in good faith.

I am with DK...mediation will not resolve this. My guess they have about a week to salvage a 60 game season. After that why bother!
- bogiedoc

I don't disagree, but I can also make the argument that the tone was set when the PA chose not to ratify re-alignment—which was in everyone's best interests—including the players.

I'm not sure, after that, if I were the owners/Bettman, if I wouldn't have decided to play hardball from Jump Street on the CBA. Fehr fired the first shot.

I did read the blog entirely.

Just thought the title was misleading. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Danault, but I'm not quite sure a draft without any game-breaking talent should be labeled as "One for the ages".
- QuebecPride

Saad is the best one out of that group. And I'd say he easily has first line talent.

On the surface, you would think so.

That said, a lot of this has been about public face-saving for both sides. And I don't know if bringing the mediator in isn't just one side or both being able to say: "we tried everything."

I don't have a good feeling about this.

Gary Bettman is not a shrewd marketer, and I believe a pro sport commissioner needs to be; his expansion plan in the 90s was a mistake and a failure. Now, we, the fans, are paying for it again (because we did in the last lockout/lost season) as the owners try to prop up his ill-conceived expansions.

Donald Fehr basically ruined baseball for me and I dare say millions of others in the early 90s. He only knows how to scorch the earth on behalf of exorbitant salaries. Who can afford to take their family to a baseball game anymore and sit anywhere but the nosebleeds? Not many people.

Fehr does not care about baseball fans, nor does he care about hockey fans. Bettman might just a whit more, because of the nature of his job.

Both of these guys are toxic.
- John Jaeckel

Who decided to pay Soriano $19MM last year? Wasn't Fehr.
Who decided to pay Vernon Wells (a .218 hitter last year) $24MM? Wasn't Fehr.
Who decided to pay ARod $30MM - and then not play him in the play-offs? Wasn't Fehr.

Baseball salaries got so high because Marvin Miller (much to his surprise - didn't think the owners would go for it) got salary arbitration, with the arbitrator only able to award based on club offer vs. player offer, many years before Fehr.

Baseball has had no work stoppages since 1994 - can't say that about hockey.

And - if players' salaries were cut in half, ticket prices wouldn't go down very much (if at all): supply and demand. Might as well blame Harry Carey for the high price of Cubs' tickets (second highest (?) in baseball).

I don't like Fehr: I don't think he's done a good job in getting a CBA this year, and is not doing right by his constituents. But can't blame him for everything.

I don't disagree, but I can also make the argument that the tone was set when the PA chose not to ratify re-alignment—which was in everyone's best interests—including the players.

I'm not sure, after that, if I were the owners/Bettman, if I wouldn't have decided to play hardball from Jump Street on the CBA. Fehr fired the first shot.
- John Jaeckel

So - how did that work out for Bettman / Owners - a very potential lost season.

Cutting off their noses, as it were, instead of actually trying to get a deal done.

Certainly, same with Fehr / players.