NHL Roundtable: This is the only time we talk about the Lockout Edition!
We are introducing a new feature of our NHL coverage here at the Daily Shootout this week. Every week we will be covering the pressing NHL issues of the last week with different staff writers so that our staff can give short, concise answers to questions that may not necessarily warrant a full article or column. This week we look at the inevitable NHL lockout (these questions were answered between September 11th and 13th) and how we are reacting to the fact that the players and owners are once again taking fans for granted. I’m hoping that starting next week we will not be covering the lockout and will move onto more fun questions like: “Would you want Gabriel Landeskog or Ryan Nugent-Hopkins for the next 7 years?” or “How many 40 year olds can Dallas sign in one offseason?” or “Can Calgary amnesty Dennis Wideman three months after signing him to that ridiculous contract?”
On to the questions!
With a lockout looking inevitable when do you think the lockout will end and why?
Lauren Burg – I think a lockout will last the full season because the owners, as well as the players, are standing firm on their most recent offer. Of course, I hope I'm wrong and we get at least part of a season.
Scott Bluni – I honestly believe that the lockout will take out a significant chunk of this season because of how radical the owners' CBA proposal was and, also, how one-sided commissioner Bettman is being. I mean, hopefully we can get some hockey in October/November, but I am still cynical. If there is nothing being done by then, in terms of some CBA agreement, then I really don't think that the owners or fans will pursue installing some subpar season. If the league can agree upon something by October there's hope, but I'm a cynic (just look at history, the 2004-2005 lockout) and I realistically think that it's not going to happen.
Jeff Lingard – I think the lockout will end around American Thanksgiving since I do not believe the NHL will lose the chance to have HBO 24/7 focus on the Wings and Leafs and there will be a proper build-up to the Winter Classic where the League, not Detroit gets most of the revenue from 106,000 people seeing the Leafs/Wings in Michigan Stadium. I also think the League won't suffer as much from a fan interest level since the NBA's lockout ended with the season starting at Christmas and it is as popular as ever.
Are you siding with the owners or players when it comes to these CBA negotiations?
Lauren Burg – I'm siding with the players because I feel like they tried to meet the owners halfway with their proposal. Unfortunately, the owners didn't even like that. Plus, the fans go to games to watch the players; the players are the ones that bust their butts; so I think a 50/50 split of revenue as the players recently proposed is a good deal. I mean, do you see owners on the ice sacrificing their body to win games? NO WAY!
Scott Bluni – I'm siding with the players, absolutely. The owners' proposal is radical, at best. The truth of the matter is, in the United States at least, hockey is easily the most underrated mainstream professional sport and the players don't get paid nearly as much (on average) as those MLB, NBA or NFL guys. I feel like the players are entitled to their fair share of the revenue. Also - while it's a NHLPA vs. NHL dispute, I'm going to go ahead and 'side' with the fans. Hell, we're easily some of the most passionate fans in America and I think we deserve an agreement. We're with our teams through thick and thin when it comes down to it. And the league is starting to get more popular and it'd be a terrible time for a lockout to occur.
Jeff Lingard – I tend to side with the players on most issues since the owners already have the system in place that cost us a season in 2004. The real threat of a lockout isn't because of Gary Bettman but it is because of Ed Snider and Jeremy Jacobs and a number of "hawk" owners are trying to keep their costs down while league revenues have increased by around 50% in 8 years. The only problem I have with the players is that while it is clear the salary cap floor is too high for some markets their "innovative" proposal only gives back the growth in revenues for three years and then the cap is back to 57% of hockey related revenue. I think the players have to make some concession that they make 57% of hockey related revenue which is more than the NFL and NBA. Of course no one knows what hockey related revenue is and how it compares to the revenue that the NFL and NBA players share with owners so I really have no idea what the right number is.
If an NBA amnesty clause is inserted into this CBA who do you think would be an intriguing amnesty player?
Lauren Burg – For me, an intriguing amnesty player would be the Tampa Bay Lightning's Vincent Lecavalier. He's signed through 2020 or 2021 and has a no trade clause but since 2007/2008 he's missed time almost every season with some type of injury and hasn't produced nearly the way he's expected to.
Scott Bluni – I feel like teams in need could really take advantage of the Amnesty Clause. Look at the Montreal Canadiens - you have Scott Gomez with his 7 year, $51.5 contract (he had 11 points and a -9 rating last year) and Brian Gionta (5 years, $25M) who hasn't had more than 46 points in a season for the Habs. He's their captain, he should be putting up better numbers, at least a 50 point scorer. It'd be a pretty useful tool for any team reconstructing.
Jeff Lingard – If there is an amnesty clause I'm hoping it's the NBA's model where a) it can be used on one player who is signed as of the date of the new CBA at any time in their original contract, and b) teams enter a blind auction to sign players who have been amnestied. There are some really interesting
players that could get amnestied (does Vancouver pay Luongo almost $40 million to walk out the door?) but one player that intrigues me is Brian Campbell of the Panthers. As a Panthers fan I know what he brings to the table but there is no reason for the Panthers to amnesty anyone right now as they are in good cap shape but if Campbell is injured or does not play as well in the next couple of years I could see his $7.1 million cap hit be amnestied.
players that could get amnestied (does Vancouver pay Luongo almost $40 million to walk out the door?) but one player that intrigues me is Brian Campbell of the Panthers. As a Panthers fan I know what he brings to the table but there is no reason for the Panthers to amnesty anyone right now as they are in good cap shape but if Campbell is injured or does not play as well in the next couple of years I could see his $7.1 million cap hit be amnestied.
0 comments:
Post a Comment