Optimism (NHL)

[Jordan 04]

At least they're generating some good PR while on break.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2095862

[David Harding]

I'll take it as a sign they think there will be some action:  Chicago is shaking up its organization - GM and coach.  Anywhere else?

[Tub(a)]

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp?id=129330

A big list of likely changes to the NHL game.

A couple notable ones are the tag-up offsides rule, elimination of the red line, and (potentially) automatic icing.

[Josh '99]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:A couple notable ones are the tag-up offsides rule, elimination of the red line, and (potentially) automatic icing.[/q]And the shootout.  Yuck.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]It could be no icing allowed on the penalty kill, or no line change for the team that iced the puck.[/Q]

Aaaah!
 ::help::

[calgARI '07]

Deal imminent.  

[Tub(a)]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=129734&hubName=nhl

My favorite line is "we underestimated how rich the owners were."

[cornelldavy]

LA Times reporting this morning that the league and the players agreed in principle to a new CBA.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nhl7jul07,0,742506.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I'll believe it when the puck drops.

[Trotsky]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:
My favorite line is "we underestimated how rich the owners were."[/q]
LOL.  How about "we underestimated the ambivalence if there was no season."

[peterg]

[Q]cornelldavy Wrote:

 LA Times reporting this morning that the league and the players agreed in principle to a new CBA.

I'll believe it when the puck drops.[/q]

More reports.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=afp-ihockeynhllabour&prov=afp&type=lgns

[Tub(a)]

One day away?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news?slug=knight-_WWW_12103701&prov=knight&type=lgns

[Trotsky]

I keep reading that the players got "nothing." Is it not true that the player got a salary floor per team that didn't exist before, and wasn't that one of their principle demands?

No, I don't think that was worth torching a season.  But I thought they did get at least that one major structural change that they've sought for a while.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

 I keep reading that the players got "nothing." Is it not true that the player got a salary floor per team that didn't exist before, and wasn't that one of their principle demands?

No, I don't think that was worth torching a season.  But I thought they did get at least that one major structural change that they've sought for a while.[/q]

The floor is really low, something like 24 million dollars. There were just a few teams below that last season. The only other significant thing they got was Free Agency at 28.

Of course, these are all rumours.

[Trotsky]

And they got linkage.  54% of revenue, so if revenue goes up the cap goes up.

[DeltaOne81]

Well, linkage was something the owners wanted for the opposite reason, so that's a loss more than a victory.

But, depending on the final details, it seems they did get a luxury tax starting well before the cap, and yes, this *was* something the players wanted and the owners did not. Why? Well it takes the money that the higher revenue teams can no longer spend, and distributes it to the lower teams who can indeed spend it, rather than sitting in the bank account of the NYR, etc.

Moreover, if the reported-dollar-for-dollar luxury tax prevents any, or maybe no more than 1 or 2 teams from nearing the cap anyway, then the players union can stand up and say 'look, the luxury tax that we pushed for is prevent most/all teams from even hitting the cap, so the league threw away a season for no benefit', and give them leverage in the next negotiations. And if a buncha teams hit the cap anyway, well, they still certainly have the first reason.

All that said, monetary reserves or not, the downright stubborness exhibited by Bettman and the owners was truly impressive, although not necessarily in a good way.