• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Equally Obnoxious Hockey Trash Talk Thread, eh?

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
See earlier post. By this logic, hotel maids would be millionaires.

No, wrong, completely wrong, erroneous on all charges! Hotel maids are a dime a dozen. The hotel chain can replace the maids and the night of rest doesn't change for the average traveler.

If you remove all the players and they go elsewhere to play, you know longer have a league to watch or at least the same quality of product on the ice, which is what drives a sports league, the players, not the beer/popcorn mongers in the stands.

The comparison would be if the hotels, the buildings, were all destroyed, you would not have a bedroom to rent on a nightly basis and as a result, your customers would book elsewhere. If the players aren't on the ice, or at least the best of the best, the fans will watch another sport or will go to another league.
 
If you remove all the players and they go elsewhere to play, you know longer have a league to watch or at least the same quality of product on the ice, which is what drives a sports league, the players, not the beer/popcorn mongers in the stands.


What??? You're getting more and more obtuse. I don't think anyone advocates getting rid of the players.

Also, if you only wanna watch the NHL, you're missing a ton of good hockey.
 
arturo7 said:
What??? You're getting more and more obtuse. I don't think anyone advocates getting rid of the players.

Also, if you only wanna watch the NHL, you're missing a ton of good hockey.

Pretty sure you're completely missing his point...

Not that I even agree with his overall argument, but the context part of your brain seems to be malfunctioning.
 
emjay said:
Pretty sure you're completely missing his point...

Not that I even agree with his overall argument, but the context part of your brain seems to be malfunctioning.

Unless I'm missing the point, he seems to believe that without the union there would be no elite players in the NHL. If this is not his stance, hopefully he will clarify.
 
Nother two points for the Rangers. Tough win but 2 points is 2 points.

On a side note. Gotta say, I love watchin 24/7 over and over. Especially the part were the Laviolette family takes their picture and instead of saying cheese, they say Rangers Suck!! Cracks me up everytime.....
 
Northjerzyg said:
Nother two points for the Rangers. Tough win but 2 points is 2 points.

On a side note. Gotta say, I love watchin 24/7 over and over. Especially the part were the Laviolette family takes their picture and instead of saying cheese, they say Rangers Suck!! Cracks me up everytime.....

I really want to see it. I should have been a dick and asked for an HBO trial for the month and then shut it off. Oh well. I'll find it online or something.

Flyers won last night as well, and a close one. I was pissed Comcast decided to air that silly basketball horse sh*t instead of the Flyers.

All I wanted to do after surgery was sit and watch the game and try not to fall asleep.
 
Did Toronto beat Buffalo last night? Wasn't sure if that was a dream or if hell actually froze over. Pretty sure if Toronto somehow wins IN Buffalo on Friday, the sun will explode.
 
What??? You're getting more and more obtuse. I don't think anyone advocates getting rid of the players.

Also, if you only wanna watch the NHL, you're missing a ton of good hockey.

I don't get much else for hockey on TV here. I wish junior and more collegiate hockey other than the frozen four were broadcast.

Unless I'm missing the point, he seems to believe that without the union there would be no elite players in the NHL. If this is not his stance, hopefully he will clarify.

It's not my stance. I'm saying the players are under contract, they work through a union to ensure they get their contracts upheld, a fair percentage of the revenue since the existence of the league and that revenue is based on their performance on the ice. If they choose to play else where, as in en masse, the league would be lacking the quality players that fans pay to see in NHL arenas across the two countries. If the owners and league management aren't going to even consider providing the players with details about schedule changes, travel changes, realignment, playoff format, etc, then they shouldn't be obligated to maintain the contracts they signed with their teams and can play elsewhere. If the majority of the league decided to take that position and play in the KHL, DEL, or elsewhere, I suspect the NHL would see a significant drop in attendance and revenue to watch replacement players fill those gaps.

Just like any other sports league, the existence of the league and the revenue created is because of the players on the field, nothing else. I'm not saying if the union were to go away, you'd be without a league of players. My point is that if the owners/league treat the players like property and playing pieces on a game board, the players do have the right to play elsewhere. The balance maintained between the league and the players is through the interaction of the league committee and the players' union. The individual players can't debate and compromise directly with the league on an individual basis, thus the existence of the players' union who performs that function as an elected official by the players.

Because of how we've seen the league and owners treat players over the last 20 years or so, the existence of a players' union is vital to ensure the players get a fair deal because they are the foundation of why the league exists in the first place.

Maybe my Percocet-altered posts have not been clear, hopefully, even though the Percocet is still present, this one makes more sense.
 
A)If they choose to play else where, as in en masse, the league would be lacking the quality players that fans pay to see in NHL arenas across the two countries.

B) the existence of a players' union is vital to ensure the players get a fair deal


A) They don't need a union to do this.

B) I disagree 100%.


If you're happy paying outrageous ticket prices so multi-millionaires get a "fair deal" as you put it, you're a much better man than I am.
 
Did Toronto beat Buffalo last night? Wasn't sure if that was a dream or if hell actually froze over. Pretty sure if Toronto somehow wins IN Buffalo on Friday, the sun will explode.

They will win, to get their 5 game win streak! They're on fire right now, espescially Gutavsson. I've been waiting to see the Leafs play like this for a long time..
 
Props to the Habs fans who gave Halak a warm ovation last night after he shut out their team.

What a game, two years ago Halak was the Crowd favorite and it it was from him he would have never left the habs, great goalender, great attitute, nice guy! I'm happy he had the comeback to Montreal he deserve!
 
Happy to say I will be in attendance tommorow while the Blueshirts take on the Sens. Lookin forward to exploring the New Madison Square Garden. Then after dinner a few drinks, its gonna be a big game, especially with all those "All Stars" on Ottawa, hhahahahaahahahahahah!!!!
 
Happy to say I will be in attendance tommorow while the Blueshirts take on the Sens. Lookin forward to exploring the New Madison Square Garden. Then after dinner a few drinks, its gonna be a big game, especially with all those "All Stars" on Ottawa, hhahahahaahahahahahah!!!!

Bring it b1tches....

Karlsson gets 2 goals and 2 helpers, Alfie scores within the first 3 minutes, and Torterella has a schizoid embellism on the bench partway through the second...book it.
 
A) They don't need a union to do this.

B) I disagree 100%.

If you're happy paying outrageous ticket prices so multi-millionaires get a "fair deal" as you put it, you're a much better man than I am.

A) They don't need a union to play elsewhere, but if there isn't a union and the league thinks it can treat the players like property, they won't play here. Every other professional league has a union. I just find it odd that you don't seem to grasp the concept that the league and the revenue it creates revolves around the talent on the playing surface.

B) The league tried to pull this stunt of realignment without providing schedules, travel details, or playoff structure to the players before enacting it. Obviously that's not a fair deal, that's a one-sided edict.

Ticket prices have nothing to do with the union. It was the league who was adamant that the salary cap would result in lower ticket prices by controlling costs. Haven't seen that happen yet. In fact, it seems most ticket prices continue to go up.

It's obvious we're not going to be able to even come close to seeing eye to eye on this. Not a big deal, just seems like a waste of time to continue this any further.
 
Shawn Thornton is a big dummy with no skill

Did you see how he fought off 6 Vancouver fairies?

Did you see him respond to Weise's challenge, before Weise hid behind a linesman?

Did you happen to see his "skills" on the penalty shot against Winnipeg?

I hope Vancouver still has some of the city to left burn from the riots last June, after the Bruins destroy the Canucks in the finals.
 
Sorry jtkratzer, you are wrong. I'm with Arturo7 on this one. The NHL does not need unions to have the best players. The best players are going to go the league that gets them the most money. Union or not. When the Swedish elite league can afford to pay the Sedin twins their $6.1 million/year each, Crosby and Malkin their $8.7 mil/year, Ovie his $9.5 mil/year then maybe more "elite" players would play in the league. The players are going to go where the most money is period. If the league decides to take a sh!t on the players and treat them like property then it's the players choice to change to a different league or suck it up. It's hockey not push puck.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top