Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by calgARI '07
Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 01:43PM
So this appears to be the frame work for a deal that the owners are tabling and the players are supposedly voting on today.
$40 million dollar soft cap with a dollar for dollar tax.
A hard cap will kick in at 50 million, which includes tax money (essentially a $45 million cap)
Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be except from the hard cap.
The UFA age will be lowered to 28 years old
The players 24% roll back is part of the deal.
Rookie cap $850k plus $850k in bonus. An unnamed amount will be available for exception numbers.
Arbitration is available only once per career. Teams can take one player to arbitration once a year.
Qualification of players at 100% of current salary.
Luxury tax funds will be split amongst teams under the cap (undisclosed at this time).
Everything is great except the franchise player part coupled with the 28 year UFA age which, as a fan of a small market team, would hurt them very badly with Iginla turning 28 on July 1st.
$40 million dollar soft cap with a dollar for dollar tax.
A hard cap will kick in at 50 million, which includes tax money (essentially a $45 million cap)
Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be except from the hard cap.
The UFA age will be lowered to 28 years old
The players 24% roll back is part of the deal.
Rookie cap $850k plus $850k in bonus. An unnamed amount will be available for exception numbers.
Arbitration is available only once per career. Teams can take one player to arbitration once a year.
Qualification of players at 100% of current salary.
Luxury tax funds will be split amongst teams under the cap (undisclosed at this time).
Everything is great except the franchise player part coupled with the 28 year UFA age which, as a fan of a small market team, would hurt them very badly with Iginla turning 28 on July 1st.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)
Date: January 27, 2005 01:50PM
Can you translate some for me? Also, what is the quality of this offer compared to other deals that have been passed around? How constrictive is the $40M or $50M?
Hard vs Soft salary caps
UFA age
Qualification
Hard vs Soft salary caps
UFA age
Qualification
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 01:59PM
From your post and your handle I take it you're from Calgary. If so I can understand why you have such in depth hockey knowledge as a sophomore. From what I've read about Iginla, he seems like the type of guy who will probably want to stay in Calgary, given that he never asked for a trade in spite of all the Flames' lean years up until now.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:00PM
UFA stands for Unrestricted Free Agency. Under the last CBA, the age was 31, so when you become a free agent (July 1st is when contracts expire) at or after that age, a player can sign anywhere he chooses without any compensation to his last team (except a draft pick awarded by the NHL).
When a player's contract expires prior to UFA age, he is a Restricted Free Agent. To retain the rights of a restricted free agent (under a certain salary threshold which was at 4 million in the last CBA I believe), a team must tender a qualifying offer to that player prior to July 1st. Players can either accept or reject that offer, but regardless, if the team makes the offer, then they retain that player's rights. Until the last two summers it was almost unheard of for teams not to tender qualifying offers. In 2003, Anaheim chose not to tender Paul Kariya a qualifying offer and he became a UFA and signed with Colorado. Under the last CBA, qualifying offers had to be a 10% raise on the previous base salary, thus guarunteeing all players raises even if they had been vastly underachieving.
The salary cap issue is clearly the biggest in this entire feud. A salary cap can go hand in hand with a luxury tax. At 40 million, there is sort of a cap, except teams can go over that cap and pay a tax to the league. If they go over by 5 million, then they owe another 5 million in taxes.
This is by far the most intensive offer put forward by either side. I really think there is a good chance of it flying. You can just see how unsubstantial the players' proposal of December was by asking for ONLY a 24% rollback in salaries. This has the rollback plus tons of mechanisms to generally keep those salaries at a managable level.
When a player's contract expires prior to UFA age, he is a Restricted Free Agent. To retain the rights of a restricted free agent (under a certain salary threshold which was at 4 million in the last CBA I believe), a team must tender a qualifying offer to that player prior to July 1st. Players can either accept or reject that offer, but regardless, if the team makes the offer, then they retain that player's rights. Until the last two summers it was almost unheard of for teams not to tender qualifying offers. In 2003, Anaheim chose not to tender Paul Kariya a qualifying offer and he became a UFA and signed with Colorado. Under the last CBA, qualifying offers had to be a 10% raise on the previous base salary, thus guarunteeing all players raises even if they had been vastly underachieving.
The salary cap issue is clearly the biggest in this entire feud. A salary cap can go hand in hand with a luxury tax. At 40 million, there is sort of a cap, except teams can go over that cap and pay a tax to the league. If they go over by 5 million, then they owe another 5 million in taxes.
This is by far the most intensive offer put forward by either side. I really think there is a good chance of it flying. You can just see how unsubstantial the players' proposal of December was by asking for ONLY a 24% rollback in salaries. This has the rollback plus tons of mechanisms to generally keep those salaries at a managable level.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:03PM
[Q]Steve M Wrote:
From your post and your handle I take it you're from Calgary. If so I can understand why you have such in depth hockey knowledge as a sophomore. From what I've read about Iginla, he seems like the type of guy who will probably want to stay in Calgary, given that he never asked for a trade in spite of all the Flames' lean years up until now.[/q]
I'm actually from Ithaca, but am a life long Flames fan and watch every game religiously for years. I like to think the same thing about Iginla but his agent is Don Meehan who has a history of always taking the most money he can find. Flames fans have been predicting - with sadness - Iginla's exit for a while. He is currently without a contract so whatever contract he gets in wake of a new CBA will certainly show how much he wants to be in Calgary.
Luckily, Calgary has a franchise player coming to town as soon as the NHL resumes again in Dion Phaneuf. Think Scott Stevens with much higher offensive upside. Most people thought that he was the best player in the world last year not playing in the NHL as a 19 year old.
From your post and your handle I take it you're from Calgary. If so I can understand why you have such in depth hockey knowledge as a sophomore. From what I've read about Iginla, he seems like the type of guy who will probably want to stay in Calgary, given that he never asked for a trade in spite of all the Flames' lean years up until now.[/q]
I'm actually from Ithaca, but am a life long Flames fan and watch every game religiously for years. I like to think the same thing about Iginla but his agent is Don Meehan who has a history of always taking the most money he can find. Flames fans have been predicting - with sadness - Iginla's exit for a while. He is currently without a contract so whatever contract he gets in wake of a new CBA will certainly show how much he wants to be in Calgary.
Luckily, Calgary has a franchise player coming to town as soon as the NHL resumes again in Dion Phaneuf. Think Scott Stevens with much higher offensive upside. Most people thought that he was the best player in the world last year not playing in the NHL as a 19 year old.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:06PM
Iginla has a Cornell connection, btw. He was the other key player in the trade that sent Nieuwendyk to Dallas.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:14PM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Iginla has a Cornell connection, btw. He was the other key player in the trade that sent Nieuwendyk to Dallas.[/q]
other key player???? who was the other one? Corey Millen? Iginla was THE key player in the deal. Al Coates (Flames GM when it happened) turned down some deals that looked a lot better at the time, most notably Mike Keenan's offer Chris Pronger and others for Nieuwendyk. I was infuriated when the deal went down because Nieuwendyk was my favorite player and the reason I liked the Flames in the first place, but I'm feeling pretty good about it now.
Iginla has a Cornell connection, btw. He was the other key player in the trade that sent Nieuwendyk to Dallas.[/q]
other key player???? who was the other one? Corey Millen? Iginla was THE key player in the deal. Al Coates (Flames GM when it happened) turned down some deals that looked a lot better at the time, most notably Mike Keenan's offer Chris Pronger and others for Nieuwendyk. I was infuriated when the deal went down because Nieuwendyk was my favorite player and the reason I liked the Flames in the first place, but I'm feeling pretty good about it now.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:16PM
Trying to compare the $40/$50 million to status quo. What are the current team payrolls? Highest? Lowest? Average?
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: pfibiger (---.dfafunds.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:18PM
I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: pfibiger (---.dfafunds.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:20PM
Ken,
here's a table w/ all the payrolls:
[www.hockeyzoneplus.com]
lowest is Nashville w/ 23.2 million, highest is Detroit w/ 77.8 million.
here's a table w/ all the payrolls:
[www.hockeyzoneplus.com]
lowest is Nashville w/ 23.2 million, highest is Detroit w/ 77.8 million.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:22PM
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]
O I get it now! Anyways, it was Nieuwendyk for Millen and Iginla. Iginla remained in juniors after the trade but was signed during the playoffs and he stepped in on the first line and got a goal and an assist in two playoff games. He wouldn't play another NHL playoff game until last spring.
I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]
O I get it now! Anyways, it was Nieuwendyk for Millen and Iginla. Iginla remained in juniors after the trade but was signed during the playoffs and he stepped in on the first line and got a goal and an assist in two playoff games. He wouldn't play another NHL playoff game until last spring.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.cust-rtr.swbell.net)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:25PM
[Q]pfibiger Wrote:
I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]
Correct.
I think he means that one player was Nieuwendyk, the other was Iginla.[/q]
Correct.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: KenP (---.abrfc.noaa.gov)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:37PM
Okay, so the average last year was $44.0 M. 12 teams were over, 18 teams were under. With the 24% rollback, 7 of those 12 teams would still be over the $40 soft cap, and 3 would still be over the $50 hard cap (Stars, Rangers, Red Wings).
[q]Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be excempt from the hard cap.[/q]Does this mean I could pay Iginla $40 million per year, and it wouldn't be factored in?
Also, I don't see anything about signing bonuses. What's to stop the top teams from offering outlandish signing bonuses, and sign them to long-term minimum contracts?
[q]Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be excempt from the hard cap.[/q]Does this mean I could pay Iginla $40 million per year, and it wouldn't be factored in?
Also, I don't see anything about signing bonuses. What's to stop the top teams from offering outlandish signing bonuses, and sign them to long-term minimum contracts?
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 02:41PM
[Q]KenP Wrote:
Okay, so the average last year was $44.0 M. 12 teams were over, 18 teams were under. With the 24% rollback, 7 of those 12 teams would still be over the $40 soft cap, and 3 would still be over the $50 hard cap (Stars, Rangers, Red Wings).
Okay, so the average last year was $44.0 M. 12 teams were over, 18 teams were under. With the 24% rollback, 7 of those 12 teams would still be over the $40 soft cap, and 3 would still be over the $50 hard cap (Stars, Rangers, Red Wings).
Each team will be able to nominate one franchise player to be excempt from the hard cap.[/Q]
Does this mean I could pay Iginla $40 million per year, and it wouldn't be factored in?
Also, I don't see anything about signing bonuses. What's to stop the top teams from offering outlandish signing bonuses, and sign them to long-term minimum contracts?
[/q]
This is a gray area. Nobody knows how the Franchise Players will fit into the luxury tax. Most people seem to think after $50 million, they are included in the tax threshold.
Off the top of my head I don't know what players are free agents from Dallas, NYR, and Detroit, but I would imagine they are below $50 million when factoring that in.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: CUlater 89 (64.244.223.---)
Date: January 27, 2005 04:26PM
As an aside, from what I can tell from the postings here, "soft cap" is not the correct term. It sounds like that is the level above which a luxury tax is to be imposed. A soft cap is what the NBA had -- a salary cap that a team can go over in order to re-sign its own players. A hard cap is what the NFL has -- no going over it.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: K-Swiss (---.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 04:39PM
Source for this rumor is?
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: jy3 (---.buff.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 27, 2005 04:44PM
please let them accept this - being away from cornell hockey and seeing one game this year PLUS no nhl is killing me i have to be able to watching something good on tv. of course being in buffalo means nothing but sabres games - although i think we get a good spread of nyc/nj stations so i can see the devils
downtown buffalo is hurting without the sabres in town
downtown buffalo is hurting without the sabres in town
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 04:51PM
Right now, I've heard from very reliable sources passing on rumors they have heard from almost all relatively large radio stations in Canada. A couple people have told me they come from people in the NHL office. The people that passed these rumors on to me do not blow smoke. They are very reliable. They themselves all admit that it could be a bogus rumor, but there's no point in ignoring it, especially with people from both sides totally keeping the media in the dark. Take it for what's worth, hence why the title has the word Rumored in it. I like to think that where there is smoke, there is fire, but again, take it for what it's worth.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:02PM
[Q]jy3 Wrote:
please let them accept this - being away from cornell hockey and seeing one game this year PLUS no nhl is killing me i have to be able to watching something good on tv. of course being in buffalo means nothing but sabres games - although i think we get a good spread of nyc/nj stations so i can see the devils
downtown buffalo is hurting without the sabres in town[/q]
Given how it looked a couple years back, downtown Buffalo is hurting with or without the Sabres.
please let them accept this - being away from cornell hockey and seeing one game this year PLUS no nhl is killing me i have to be able to watching something good on tv. of course being in buffalo means nothing but sabres games - although i think we get a good spread of nyc/nj stations so i can see the devils
downtown buffalo is hurting without the sabres in town[/q]
Given how it looked a couple years back, downtown Buffalo is hurting with or without the Sabres.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:06PM
By the way, the two sides are meeting tonight somewhere in NYC.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:09PM
Ooh, I'm totally gonna go crash that, I bet they have good beer at those meetings.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:30PM
Good luck finding the hotel. All they said was they are meeting at a hotel in NYC.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:51PM
I like it. This is pretty much what I've suggested to people I've talked to about it - well, except the artibration/UFA/rookie stuff, which I never bothered to think about
The only thing I'd prefer is an extreme luxury tax at the second tier, instead of a hard cap. I.e. say a 5 to 1, or even 10 to 1 luxury tax penalty for going over it. This makes it pretty much a hard cap, except there's the potential to generate a few million extra for smaller market teams, and also does give the team the flexibilty to exceed it by tens or thousand or hundreds of thousands of dollars, if necessary to keep a group together.
And lets be honest, there are no Yankees in hockey - not even the Rangers (note I am not commenting on the Yankees here, just saying there no one who will blow through luxury taxes and not care). No one is going to sign a guy for $1 million if it means they have to pay $10 million in luxury taxes - or hell, even $1 million in luxury taxes, not very often. Besides, the Rangers are perfect proof, time and time again, that high spending doesn't help anyway.
Heck, if the owners don't really even trust... well, themselves, they could put a clause that if teams exceed the $50 million secondary cap by more than a total of $5 million in any given year (total of al the spending above $50, not including taxes), then its automatically replaced with a hard cap.
That said, who knows is this is for real, but it'd be nice if it was.
I have one question: Bettman initially said the cap should be set at 53% of revenue, and then "generously" raised his offer to 54%. What kind of cap would that have translated to? By his numbers, anyway.
The only thing I'd prefer is an extreme luxury tax at the second tier, instead of a hard cap. I.e. say a 5 to 1, or even 10 to 1 luxury tax penalty for going over it. This makes it pretty much a hard cap, except there's the potential to generate a few million extra for smaller market teams, and also does give the team the flexibilty to exceed it by tens or thousand or hundreds of thousands of dollars, if necessary to keep a group together.
And lets be honest, there are no Yankees in hockey - not even the Rangers (note I am not commenting on the Yankees here, just saying there no one who will blow through luxury taxes and not care). No one is going to sign a guy for $1 million if it means they have to pay $10 million in luxury taxes - or hell, even $1 million in luxury taxes, not very often. Besides, the Rangers are perfect proof, time and time again, that high spending doesn't help anyway.
Heck, if the owners don't really even trust... well, themselves, they could put a clause that if teams exceed the $50 million secondary cap by more than a total of $5 million in any given year (total of al the spending above $50, not including taxes), then its automatically replaced with a hard cap.
That said, who knows is this is for real, but it'd be nice if it was.
I have one question: Bettman initially said the cap should be set at 53% of revenue, and then "generously" raised his offer to 54%. What kind of cap would that have translated to? By his numbers, anyway.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 05:59PM
Well it depends, but it would be in the upper 50's at the very least.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 06:02PM
You're saying the 54% cap would have been upper $50 millions? So this is actually a better deal for the league than their original offer?
Or are you saying the $50 million cap correlates to upper 50-percentages?
Or are you saying the $50 million cap correlates to upper 50-percentages?
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 06:42PM
An economist buddy of mine did all the math and he concluded that with this proposal, including everything, based on similar revenue percentages from the last couple years, it would give the players about 60%.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: mjh89 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: January 27, 2005 07:11PM
Why would you ever want to watch the Devils? They're the most boring team in hockey.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---)
Date: January 27, 2005 07:33PM
More positive news coming from an Austrian website, [www.hockeyfans.at]. I took the liberty of translating it into English:
Calgary Flames To Order All Players Back
"It does which in things Lockout. If one regards the last hours and the developments of Europe, then the impossible could become nevertheless still possible: a NHL season! Already in the today's afternoon reported Hockeyfans.at over rumors from Sweden, according to which the NHL of associations would have ordered their teams for 3 February to North America. Now there is a second source, which confirms this. Therefore the Calgary Flames zurueckbeordert today all their players to Canada - normal way a clear indication for the fact that one stands before a beginning of season! The information originates from very well informed circles, which have direct contacts to NHL associations and partly even than Scouts in Europe to function. The NHL and the player trade union NHLPA will meet meanwhile tonight again in New York to discussions. Contents are not well-known yet, the fans remain hope that one gets to see nevertheless still another NHL season, even if this will have effects on the European leagues and also the WM in Austria! Meanwhile there are first messages also in US radios, whereafter the NHL season start is to be imminent! The date: Saturday, 5 February!"
Calgary Flames To Order All Players Back
"It does which in things Lockout. If one regards the last hours and the developments of Europe, then the impossible could become nevertheless still possible: a NHL season! Already in the today's afternoon reported Hockeyfans.at over rumors from Sweden, according to which the NHL of associations would have ordered their teams for 3 February to North America. Now there is a second source, which confirms this. Therefore the Calgary Flames zurueckbeordert today all their players to Canada - normal way a clear indication for the fact that one stands before a beginning of season! The information originates from very well informed circles, which have direct contacts to NHL associations and partly even than Scouts in Europe to function. The NHL and the player trade union NHLPA will meet meanwhile tonight again in New York to discussions. Contents are not well-known yet, the fans remain hope that one gets to see nevertheless still another NHL season, even if this will have effects on the European leagues and also the WM in Austria! Meanwhile there are first messages also in US radios, whereafter the NHL season start is to be imminent! The date: Saturday, 5 February!"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2005 07:42PM by calgARI '07.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 07:47PM
Hopefully that 's Babblefish's translation (or similar0 and not your's Ari....
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Mike Hedrick 01 (---.arlngt01.va.comcast.net)
Date: January 27, 2005 07:58PM
I think my Rangers would actually be under that cap. (The numbers in the chart above are from well before the 2004 trade deadline.)
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: calgARI '07 (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: January 27, 2005 10:27PM
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.bos.east.verizon.net)
Date: January 27, 2005 11:06PM
[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Meeting adjourned; PA rejects offer it seems. Glimmer of hope now gone.
[/q]
Sounds to me like that wasn't an offer really - at least not a new one. Sounds like the same exact thing they've been saying all along, and nothing close to what was mentioned on this thread. If the NHL thinks they can say the same thing 15 times and get a different answer, they're crazy. Isn't that the mark of insanity? Doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different outcomes?
Reading that article, does anyone actually think that a different cap for each team is a good idea? You're forcing the smaller market teams to not be able to sign as much talent. Isn't making a good team a way to actually raise attendence, viewers, and revenue. So you're damning the small market teams to survive, but to be inherently at a disadvantage.
Now salary isn't everything in the NHL, but is a defined, enforced, unbreakable uneven playing field really how things should be?
The NHL is off its rocker. Bring on the WHA.
Meeting adjourned; PA rejects offer it seems. Glimmer of hope now gone.
[/q]
Sounds to me like that wasn't an offer really - at least not a new one. Sounds like the same exact thing they've been saying all along, and nothing close to what was mentioned on this thread. If the NHL thinks they can say the same thing 15 times and get a different answer, they're crazy. Isn't that the mark of insanity? Doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different outcomes?
Reading that article, does anyone actually think that a different cap for each team is a good idea? You're forcing the smaller market teams to not be able to sign as much talent. Isn't making a good team a way to actually raise attendence, viewers, and revenue. So you're damning the small market teams to survive, but to be inherently at a disadvantage.
Now salary isn't everything in the NHL, but is a defined, enforced, unbreakable uneven playing field really how things should be?
The NHL is off its rocker. Bring on the WHA.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Greg Berge (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: January 28, 2005 06:50AM
[Q]Isn't that the mark of insanity? Doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different outcomes?[/Q]That's the mark of the DNC.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: bigredtrumpet (---.fds.com)
Date: January 28, 2005 08:57AM
[Q]mjh89 Wrote:
Why would you ever want to watch the Devils? They're the most boring team in hockey.[/q]
Yeah I was very bored watching them win 3 Stanley cups since 1995.
Why would you ever want to watch the Devils? They're the most boring team in hockey.[/q]
Yeah I was very bored watching them win 3 Stanley cups since 1995.
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.raytheon.com)
Date: January 28, 2005 11:32AM
[Q]Greg Berge Wrote:
Isn't that the mark of insanity? Doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different outcomes?[/Q]
That's the mark of the DNC. [/q]
Same difference
Re: Rumored Proposal to Save Season
Posted by: Lauren '06 (---.twcny.rr.com)
Date: January 28, 2005 02:53PM
[Q]bigredtrumpet Wrote:
mjh89 Wrote:
Why would you ever want to watch the Devils? They're the most boring team in hockey.[/Q]
Yeah I was very bored watching them win 3 Stanley cups since 1995.[/q]
I went to their rink last February. Rather tomb-like until the third period when a handful of men in Brodeur jerseys started yelling at their own team (to be fair, they were spanked 4-0). Not only that, but the walls were lined with Nets banners and other squeakball trappings, with barely any Devils stuff at all... pretty sad for the defending national champions.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.