Here's a topic for conversation:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam.../2012/10/09/20270831.html

Here are the contracts of five underperforming forwards NHL owners would have probably liked to take back.

1. Vincent Lecavalier, Tampa Bay Lightning. The flagging forward was due to make $10 million in each of the next four seasons before the lockout descended (his deal declines in real dollars after the 2015-16 season). Since a career-high 52 goals in 2006-07, goal totals have declined steadily to just 22 last season.

2. Scott Gomez, Montreal Canadiens. The favourite whipping boy of Habs fans, he made $7.5 million last season and scored two goals in 38 games. The good news is he was only slated to make $10 million over the last two years of his deal ($5.5 million and $4.5 million) though his cap hit would remain at $7.35 million (and change), 13th highest in the league, according to capgeek.com.

3. Dustin Penner, Los Angeles Kings. He showed signs of turning things around in the playoffs under coach Darryl Sutter, but a cap hit of $3.25 million for seven goals and 10 assists in 65 games would have made him a candidate for the walkaway.

4. Dany Heatley, Minnesota Wild. The former 50-goal scorer, ranked 10th in highest cap hit last season ($7.5 million), was 60th in the NHL last season with 24 goals in 82 games. That's coming off a season of 26 with the San Jose Sharks. He's got $11 million left over the next two years of his deal.

5. Ville Leino, Buffalo Sabres. Leino pulled down $11 million last season ($6 million salary and $5 million signing bonus) and had eight goals and 17 assists. He was due $10 million this season ($6 million salary and $4 million signing bonus). Can't blame the guy for taking it. Can't blame the Sabres if they regret it and would like a do-over.

No Luongo or Phaneuf. Go figure...

I read that it takes only 8 votes from B.O.G for a deal to be accepted or proposed (someone correct me if it is wrong) and not by a majority vote, so if this is correct, it means in Bettman's NHL, the money losers like Nashville and others vote means more to the league than the money makers like Toronto, Montreal, Philly, Vancouver and New York, the ones who are keeping the league a float, yet imo, the money losers hold more power in the negotiations, something is terribly wrong with this picture but it is after all the NHL.

As for Bettman, name me one other commissioner in any league to have three work stoppages during the same amount of time Bettman has been running the league, it is an embarrassment to the game and the fans.

Yeah I'm pissed there is no NHL hockey, every one in charge needs to go, these fools can't run a league properly.

edit: Atomic Wedgie posted the article in Ek's blog.
- LeafMan

Do you have a source to confirm this?

If it is the case, it's defintely a backward way of doing business...but on the other hand, Bettman is only accountable to the owners...and since each work stoppage under his tenure has resulted in increased revenues and profitability to the owners and NHL, I'd say the league is running just fine - and Bettman is doing is job to a tea (from a business perspective at least).

Do you have a source to confirm this?

If it is the case, it's defintely a backward way of doing business...but on the other hand, Bettman is only accountable to the owners...and since each work stoppage under his tenure has resulted in increased revenues and profitability to the owners and NHL, I'd say the league is running just fine - and Bettman is doing is job to a tea (from a business perspective at least).
- Pen15

You can read this, Bettman covered his ass in negotiations, can't believe the owners were that dumb.

http://www.theglobeandmai...s-to-bear/article4595797/

You can read this, Bettman covered his ass in negotiations, can't believe the owners were that dumb.

http://www.theglobeandmai...s-to-bear/article4595797/
- LeafMan

I think you got it wrong. Bettman only needs 8 votes to REJECT an offer.

EDIT: He also sounds like a great guy to work for.

Mike Augello: Marlies Cut Seven From Roster
- mikeinbuffalo

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...eynightincanada/yourpick/

I voted for the first one.

remember watching this game live on tv too.

Here's a topic for conversation:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam.../2012/10/09/20270831.html

Here are the contracts of five underperforming forwards NHL owners would have probably liked to take back.

- bloatedmosquito

How about contracts the players would like to take back:

Danny Briere: scheduled to make $7 million this year.

$3 million in 13/14
$2 million in 14/15

You think he wants a new CBA as quickly as possible?

i'm calling horse puckee

HORSE PUCKEE

He is wrong, often. He isn't right nearly as often as he thinks he is and quite rarely he is the only person in an arguement who has any facts straight.
- NightTrain_AlMo

fixed that for you

stolen from another thread:

stolen from another thread:


- Feeling Glucky?

I read that it takes only 8 votes from B.O.G for a deal to be accepted or proposed (someone correct me if it is wrong) and not by a majority vote, so if this is correct, it means in Bettman's NHL, the money losers like Nashville and others vote means more to the league than the money makers like Toronto, Montreal, Philly, Vancouver and New York, the ones who are keeping the league a float, yet imo, the money losers hold more power in the negotiations, something is terribly wrong with this picture but it is after all the NHL.

As for Bettman, name me one other commissioner in any league to have three work stoppages during the same amount of time Bettman has been running the league, it is an embarrassment to the game and the fans.

Yeah I'm pissed there is no NHL hockey, every one in charge needs to go, these fools can't run a league properly.

edit: Atomic Wedgie posted the article in Ek's blog.
- LeafMan

According to some Jeremy JAcobs is included in there but it doesn't make sense.

I think you got it wrong. Bettman only needs 8 votes to REJECT an offer.

EDIT: He also sounds like a great guy to work for.
- Pen15

And that's the problem. 8 shouldn't be able to stop what the other 22 want. total garbage.

Do you have a source to confirm this?

If it is the case, it's defintely a backward way of doing business...but on the other hand, Bettman is only accountable to the owners...and since each work stoppage under his tenure has resulted in increased revenues and profitability to the owners and NHL, I'd say the league is running just fine - and Bettman is doing is job to a tea (from a business perspective at least).
- Pen15

Couldn't be further from the truth. If he was doing his job to a T we'd be watching hockey. If he was doing his job to a T then the owners wouldn't be bellyaching about their finances.

>> I think that the Owners do think he's doing a good job and that's why he's still around, but my point is why are they complaining about finances and still keeping him around?? The math does not compute.

Couldn't be further from the truth. If he was doing his job to a T we'd be watching hockey. If he was doing his job to a T then the owners wouldn't be bellyaching about their finances.

>> I think that the Owners do think he's doing a good job and that's why he's still around, but my point is why are they complaining about finances and still keeping him around?? The math does not compute.
- burn

The math does compute. It's quite simple - they've generated record revenues since the last lockout.

Yes. 5-10 teams are losing money...but that's peanuts to what the league makes as a whole.

And his job isn't having the fans watching hockey...that's secondary to him making sure the league is run in a viable and profitable manner to make money for his shareholders (i.e., owners). He's done that to a T.

And that's the problem. 8 shouldn't be able to stop what the other 22 want. total garbage.
- burn

That's about 25-27% of owners. A pretty reasonable number if you ask me. If you look at BOG structures in most major corporations and how they operate, you'll notice those numbers are very in line.

The math does compute. It's quite simple - they've generated record revenues since the last lockout.

Yes. 5-10 teams are losing money...but that's peanuts to what the league makes as a whole.

And his job isn't having the fans watching hockey...that's secondary to him making sure the league is run in a viable and profitable manner to make money for his shareholders (i.e., owners). He's done that to a T.
- Pen15

You just contradicted yourself.... it doesn't compute when they made record revenue but the owners are female doging about the finances.



You just contradicted yourself again in your last paragraph. They cannot be run profitably if the fans aren't watching the games.

If he's made money for the owners to a T, then why are they are complaining about the finances?

That's about 25-27% of owners. A pretty reasonable number if you ask me. If you look at BOG structures in most major corporations and how they operate, you'll notice those numbers are very in line.
- Pen15

one quarter can decide what's good for the other 3 quarters? and that's reasonable?

That last line is false..... on where will you find 25% can outvote 75%.

You just contradicted yourself.... it doesn't compute when they made record revenue but the owners are female doging about the finances.



You just contradicted yourself again in your last paragraph. They cannot be run profitably if the fans aren't watching the games.

If he's made money for the owners to a T, then why are they are complaining about the finances?
- burn

Yep why didn't the owners just extend the existing CBA...Seems player where happy with it...

You just contradicted yourself.... it doesn't compute when they made record revenue but the owners are female doging about the finances.



You just contradicted yourself again in your last paragraph. They cannot be run profitably if the fans aren't watching the games.

If he's made money for the owners to a T, then why are they are complaining about the finances?
- burn

I think you're confused about the finances owners are not happy with. Primarily, owners are not happy with:

A) their share of revenue that was agreed upon in the last CBA
B) rising costs (which is a heavy contributor to their bottom line every year)

Now I suppose you can spin this by saying that Bettman put the first CBA together, so he should be canned for revenue % oversight. But at the same time, irrespective of that ONE factor, his negotiating in 04 put a lot of money in the owners pockets, and for that he's done his job to a T. He's also about to do his job to a T again with these negotiations.

And you're right about not being able to run profits without watching games...but that's a very small price to pay in the short term in order to achieve long term gains. The fans will come back no matter what happens....or what we all tell ourselves.

one quarter can decide what's good for the other 3 quarters? and that's reasonable?

That last line is false..... on where will you find 25% can outvote 75%.
- burn

You can tell yourself that. I urge you to take a look at how BOGs work in most major corporations in Canada and the US.

Yep why didn't the owners just extend the existing CBA...Seems player where happy with it...
- Fruitcakenipple

Because of rising costs. Their profits are being squeezed by the economy, and by the players share.

Of course the players are happy with it...who wouldn't be happy to pocket the majority of the revenue generated by the business.

Retired. Focusing on his music career.
- Two_For_Truth

Weirdoh will be devastated Mark in da Park retired.

He is wrong, sometimes. He isn't wrong nearly as often as people accuse him of being wrong and quite often he is the only person in an arguement who has any facts straight.
- NightTrain_AlMo

No poop...

Yep why didn't the owners just extend the existing CBA...Seems player where happy with it...
- Fruitcakenipple

Because they are greedy and have no interest in negotiating.

http://www.theglobeandmai...f-balance/article4599997/

http://www.sportsnet.ca/h...ing/#.UHWi0MW9ons.twitter

and at any time if I want I could put 3 months, 6 months or 1 year or more after his user name in the penalty box.
- LeafMan