Equally Obnoxious Hockey Trash Talk Thread, eh?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I was so optimistic yesterday I pulled up "Good old hockey game" on Youtube. I also asked my son (2 1/2) if he wanted to watch some hockey. Of course he says yes. The first thing I show him is the scene from Slap Shot when the Hanson brothers finally get to play for the first time. Then followed by the national anthem scene with the ref yelling at them, then highlights from the Junior WC's with Canda vs. Russia. We're also taking him skating for the first time this Saturday.
 
I, also, was optimistic when I heard the league's latest offer.

To quibble over a few percentage points of their 7-figure salaries is ridiculous. In fact, there should actually be a not-insignificant portion of players who actually stand to lose more in the long run by only making strike pay for the year (EVEN IF they manage to keep it at 57%, which they won't), rather than accepting a few percentage points less. Granted, the more highly-paid players would at first glance be the players in this group, so it might not initially seem to really matter all that much. But salary is only one half of the equation, the other half being the number of years left in a player's career. And the lower-salaried grinders tend to have much shorter careers than the highly-paid superstars, so in actuality I'd imagine that the *least* paid players are actually the *most* affected by this.

Of course, while there are undoubtedly SOME number of players who will end up overall making less by missing the year, the size and composition of this group as described is largely conjecture. But it would be interesting to see an actual, in-depth, statistical analysis, and it could maybe possibly even provide somewhat of a reality check for a chunk of the players. And a reality check is exactly what these ******** need - they're screwing over a lot of people (and not even really the owners!) by bitching about a few percentage points when many of them will regardless make more in a year than most people make in a lifetime. They really have to get their heads out of their asses.

For a bit of perspective, Stamkos went to my high school, a freshman while I was in my senior year. The kid worked hard to get where he is. But so did dozens (if not hundreds) of the other kids that were in the same building that year, and it's unlikely that even a single one of them is making even a tenth of what he is. That's not to knock on Stamkos specifically, as he's a pretty down to earth guy (a total geek, really). I'm just pointing out how these players should really be counting their blessings rather than throwing this whole collective entitlement-tantrum.
 
emjay said:
I, also, was optimistic when I heard the league's latest offer.

To quibble over a few percentage points of their 7-figure salaries is ridiculous. In fact, there should actually be a not-insignificant portion of players who actually stand to lose more in the long run by only making strike pay for the year (EVEN IF they manage to keep it at 57%, which they won't), rather than accepting a few percentage points less. Granted, the more highly-paid players would at first glance be the players in this group, so it might not initially seem to really matter all that much. But salary is only one half of the equation, the other half being the number of years left in a player's career. And the lower-salaried grinders tend to have much shorter careers than the highly-paid superstars, so in actuality I'd imagine that the *least* paid players are actually the *most* affected by this.

Of course, while there are undoubtedly SOME number of players who will end up overall making less by missing the year, the size and composition of this group as described is largely conjecture. But it would be interesting to see an actual, in-depth, statistical analysis, and it could maybe possibly even provide somewhat of a reality check for a chunk of the players. And a reality check is exactly what these ******** need - they're screwing over a lot of people (and not even really the owners!) by bitching about a few percentage points when many of them will regardless make more in a year than most people make in a lifetime. They really have to get their heads out of their asses.

For a bit of perspective, Stamkos went to my high school, a freshman while I was in my senior year. The kid worked hard to get where he is. But so did dozens (if not hundreds) of the other kids that were in the same building that year, and it's unlikely that even a single one of them is making even a tenth of what he is. That's not to knock on Stamkos specifically, as he's a pretty down to earth guy (a total geek, really). I'm just pointing out how these players should really be counting their blessings rather than throwing this whole collective entitlement-tantrum.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your points. But I have to say the owners locked the players out, so it's the owners screwing people. Also a few % points is a lot of money. I think they could have taken the last deal, although it was a huge decrease in cash. At this point I dont like either sides.... Depending on the hour I hate Betman more or I hate Fehr more.
 
I'm just sick of the fact the teams continued to sign these contracts within months, days, and hours of when the CBA expired and now they want the players to take salary rollbacks and 5-year max contract lengths.

Three lockouts in one commish's tenure is three too many.

If the players take the deal, they should rescind all contracts and start fresh like a fantasy league since these deals prior to the CBA are effectively null and void since the terms and conditions are changed. Put that on the table that the owners could lose their talent and see what happens.
 
No kidding, I would be pissed if I was Parise. Well I would be happy cause I no longer play or the stupid ass devils. But you sign a huge contract and 2 months later they want to cut it in half. That's stupid
 
Lumpy16 said:
I agree with most of your points. But I have to say the owners locked the players out, so it's the owners screwing people.
Click to expand...

No. You can't let the players dictate when a work stoppage will happen. The last time they had that opportunity they went on strike right before the playoffs.
The PA showed it has no desire to negotiate before a meaningful number of games have been cancelled. The owners had to lock them out to try to get them to the table.

But I agree, greed on all sides and it makes me sick. ****ing disgraceful.
 
Lumpy16 said:
No kidding, I would be pissed if I was Parise. Well I would be happy cause I no longer play or the stupid ass devils. But you sign a huge contract and 2 months later they want to cut it in half. That's stupid
Click to expand...

What? Nobody suggested to cut any contract on half. Have you been listening to the Fehr conference calls?
 
paulster2626 said:
What? Nobody suggested to cut any contract on half. Have you been listening to the Fehr conference calls?
Click to expand...

My bad I didn't mean cut it in half. But they are talking about cutting contracts.
 
Lumpy16 said:
My bad I didn't mean cut it in half. But they are talking about cutting contracts.
Click to expand...

So Parise might make $80M instead of $90M. To play hockey. Until he's 40. I'm sorry but I cannot feel sorry for this man.
 
Honestly, I was pissed off at first. I have moved on. I have accepted that Greed is causing my favorite sport to go away. Its sad that we as fans have absolutely no control over the situation. I mean seriously, lockouts solve everything. Lost revenue....i mean who really wants to make money these days anyway? Without us fans, there is no sport. Both sides seem to forget that.
 
Meh. NHLPA is trying to get screwed as little as possible. For a "few percentage points" could be applied to the owners as well as the players.

I think they are closer than Buttman is letting on. No, he didn't have the players roll over and sign his contract, and I very much doubt he expected them to. His statements are all about how badly the players are negotiating, and the reality is that there has been NO offer that did not take something away from the players. This whole business is about cutting their salaries so the team owners can piss their money away as usual.

Trust me, there will be teams losing money no matter what. Markets that can't support a team, or owners who can't spend wisely. It's just the way they are.
 
I thought that the league's latest offer included little, if any real "roll back" in salary? Mind you, I didn't read every single letter of the offer. Whatever, it's balls any way you cut it. bless taking sides really, this $hit's serious. I like watching NHL games.
 
NordeastBrewer77 said:
I thought that the league's latest offer included little, if any real "roll back" in salary? Mind you, I didn't read every single letter of the offer. Whatever, it's balls any way you cut it. bless taking sides really, this $hit's serious. I like watching NHL games.
Click to expand...

The NHL's latest offer had concessions from the players on everything, and no real incentive for them to use it to bargain with. But they're still going to lose this battle.

I do think they're closer than we think though. There's a deal to be had, and there's still time to get it done. If this goes past the Oct 25 deadline though, then I'm going to really worry. But eventually it'll get fixed. I would LOVE to see empty arenas in the 'iffy' markets afterwards though - this would all but guarantee this crap doesn't happen again.
 
paulster2626 said:
So Parise might make $80M instead of $90M. To play hockey. Until he's 40. I'm sorry but I cannot feel sorry for this man.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem is the principle that the players playing games are the reason for all hockey related revenues. People don't go to games because they want to pay 7 dollars for a bottle of Bud Lite. To try and push them from 57% of hockey related revenues to below half is atrocious. It's a big screw-you. Imagine if your job was the sole reason your company had any revenue and if you left they'd fail, and they say "Hey, we're getting a lot of growth but we'd like you to take not only a cut in pay but a cut in how much you can ever make compared to total revenue". I know I'd be outraged. I mean I know there are two sides to every coin and the point of negotiation is so that the two sides can agree on something. But the owners are playing serious hardball.

paulster2626 said:
The NHL's latest offer had concessions from the players on everything, and no real incentive for them to use it to bargain with. But they're still going to lose this battle.

I do think they're closer than we think though. There's a deal to be had, and there's still time to get it done. If this goes past the Oct 25 deadline though, then I'm going to really worry. But eventually it'll get fixed. I would LOVE to see empty arenas in the 'iffy' markets afterwards though - this would all but guarantee this crap doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

Personally I wish there would be empty rinks due to this. I know it'd be painful to the players and they'd rather play and get screwed than not play at all. But the lockouts in pro sports are awful and I'd really like to see an end to it.
 
MeatyPortion said:
Kind of a meandering article.
Click to expand...

To me it seemed like a blog post by someone who doesn't exactly believe in capitalism. Personally, I think it's stupid to complain about how a hockey player can make so much. If he is "deemed worthy", he'll be paid that much. And if he doesn't really bring that much value to the team, then he got off easy and the team owner got the short end of the stick. Rather than trying to say "pay him less and pay others more", it should be "pay people what they'll take and if they won't take it don't pay it and if they want to go elsewhere they can". The reason the "free market" isn't working is because it isn't a really free market.
 
Goofynewfie said:
Staight and to the point. The nhlpa lost a lot of support in the past couple days. This guy makes sense
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335159
Click to expand...

That guy's a commie. And probably hypocritical. I doubt he take a smaller salary than he could have and gives the proceeds to other suckier writers.

The owners own the businesses and take the risks. They should be able to pay whatever, or as little, salary they can get someone to accept. But they signed those guys to contracts, no matter how ridiculous, and they should have to honor them. I work on contract, and if my boss one day said forget the contract, you actually get 24% less than we agreed to, I would find a new job as soon as I could.
 
dudius said:
"pay people what they'll take and if they won't take it don't pay it and if they want to go elsewhere they can". The reason the "free market" isn't working is because it isn't a really free market.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
dudius said:
To me it seemed like a blog post by someone who doesn't exactly believe in capitalism. Personally, I think it's stupid to complain about how a hockey player can make so much. If he is "deemed worthy", he'll be paid that much. And if he doesn't really bring that much value to the team, then he got off easy and the team owner got the short end of the stick. Rather than trying to say "pay him less and pay others more", it should be "pay people what they'll take and if they won't take it don't pay it and if they want to go elsewhere they can". The reason the "free market" isn't working is because it isn't a really free market.
Click to expand...

It is free and the players are doing just that right now...players aren't getting their contracts and what they want, so a lockout is in place, and guess what...some of the players are playing in other leagues around the world, making more than lockout pay.
 
dudius said:
To me it seemed like a blog post by someone who doesn't exactly believe in capitalism. Personally, I think it's stupid to complain about how a hockey player can make so much. If he is "deemed worthy", he'll be paid that much. And if he doesn't really bring that much value to the team, then he got off easy and the team owner got the short end of the stick. Rather than trying to say "pay him less and pay others more", it should be "pay people what they'll take and if they won't take it don't pay it and if they want to go elsewhere they can". The reason the "free market" isn't working is because it isn't a really free market.
Click to expand...

Flycal6 said:
That guy's a commie. And probably hypocritical. I doubt he take a smaller salary than he could have and gives the proceeds to other suckier writers.

The owners own the businesses and take the risks. They should be able to pay whatever, or as little, salary they can get someone to accept. But they signed those guys to contracts, no matter how ridiculous, and they should have to honor them. I work on contract, and if my boss one day said forget the contract, you actually get 24% less than we agreed to, I would find a new job as soon as I could.
Click to expand...

Keep the KoolAid in the debate forum, mmkay?
 
jtkratzer said:
It is free and the players are doing just that right now...players aren't getting their contracts and what they want, so a lockout is in place, and guess what...some of the players are playing in other leagues around the world, making more than lockout pay.
Click to expand...

But as it has been stated before, teams have made contracts with players and the league is basically trying to say "break those contracts because they'll be above pay cap". And other offers from the owners offered to keep all contracts but then when the contracts expired new ones would need to fall under the pay cap.

My whole issue with it is this: If business is growing, why should the people who the league absolutely relies on be taking pay cuts? I mean, can't they at least work something out where the players take a certain percentage of NHL revenue that keeps them from going down in pay due to caps but keeps them from gaining as quickly as they have been? To me that seems like the logical middle ground.
 
Since every contract signed by a player says that it is subject to increase/decrease based on the current CBA, this constant spewing of "full contract value" makes no sense.

Don't want you salary to change? Don't sign a contract longer than the current CBA that says it can change based on new economic rules.

Greedy idiots vs greedy smart businessmen. Who's gonna win?
 
The NHL rejected the player's offer to new talks without any preconditions. It's going to be a long winter.
 
arturo7 said:
bring on the scabs
Click to expand...

Or just pay a ****ton less money for tickets to see the same (would-be scab) players in a league that isn't on strike.
 
I'm going to more Duluth college games, simple as that. Just diverts my hockey dollars to an equally entertaining game.

I fail to see the logic in any of this CBA nonsense. Many players are going to end up with less money in their pockets than if they had been reasonable and came to the table with actual counter offers. I can see how it might not be completely fair to the players, but the owners hold most of the leverage here. In the end, the league will move farther to the back of the pack of big 4 professional sports.
 
schmoe said:
I am going to the Griffins on the 9th. Cheap crappy beer and crappy hot dogs for even more fun.
Click to expand...

I tried convincing the wife to go to the Griffins on Friday. We could have stopped there on the way down to her mom's house to stay the night then a 15 minutes drive to the kid's dorm for the football game on Sat.

Ken and Mickey will be calling the game on Friday, and FSD will be showing the game.

Griffins are just about as cheap as Ferris tickets and they have the beer and everything. It's actually a HELL of a deal over NHL prices.
 
Homercidal said:
I tried convincing the wife to go to the Griffins on Friday. We could have stopped there on the way down to her mom's house to stay the night then a 15 minutes drive to the kid's dorm for the football game on Sat.

Ken and Mickey will be calling the game on Friday, and FSD will be showing the game.

Griffins are just about as cheap as Ferris tickets and they have the beer and everything. It's actually a HELL of a deal over NHL prices.
Click to expand...

I might have to skip work on a Friday night for a FSU game. I normally can only make weekend games but my friends all say that a packed rink on a Friday make for a funner experience.

I'm also considering a couple of Griffins games, as you said tickets are rather inexpensive.
 
I got seats for me and two kids a few rows behind the bench for like $11 two years ago. They were having a special. It's $18 for VIP edge seats. (Edge of the upper bowl.) $1 dogs, $1 beer this Friday.
 
CornyKegs 300

Latest posts

Back
Top