NHL Blog Beat (Countdown to Lockout Edition) – September 15, 2012.

Here’s the latest from around the hockey blogosphere on the eve of yet another NHL lockout.

PUCK DADDY: Ryan Lambert asks (tongue in cheek), “Won’t somebody please think of the poor owners” in this NHL lockout.

INSIDE HOCKEY: Kevin Greenstein believes the NHL owners position is defined solely by greed.

CBS SPORTS EYE ON HOCKEY: Eric Macramalla weighs in on the Quebec Labor Board rejecting the NHLPA’s injunction to block the NHL lockout in Quebec.

Bettman claims rising costs of jet fuel among reasons owners wants to cut players salaries.

ON THE FORECHECK: Dirk Hoag looks into NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman’s claim rising jet fuel prices are one reasons for cutting players salaries.

RAW CHARGE: John Fontana on how pettiness began to rear its ugly head in the 24 hours prior to the NHL lockout.

IN LOU WE TRUST: Jerry Tierney on which young New Jersey Devils could benefit from a lockout by playing in the minors.

JEWELS FROM THE CROWN: “Living With The Lockout (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The AHL)”.

FIVE FOR HOWLING: Ben Shroyer with twenty-five alternative reasons why Shane Doan spurned the Vancouver Canucks to re-sign with the Phoenix Coyotes.

 GREATEST HOCKEY LEGENDS: Joe Pelletier examined how politicians attempted to use the 1972 Summit Series to their advantage.

1 Comment

  1. Yes this whole situation is ridiculous to some degree for us Joe Average fans to accept and understand. What makes things even more ridiculous is the idea that either with a lockout or without or with a strike or without, history has proven that the players “will eventually agree” to an agreement that is actually worse than the one offered on Friday. Last CBA, when the NHL made it’s “take it or leave it offer to the players”, the players didn’t budge. Every offer made by the NHL after that cost the players more and more until they finally signed an offer significantly worse than the original offer. This past winter, the NBA gave its players a “take it or leave it offer”, the players didn’t budge, and they eventually signed a much worse agreement lowering their share of revenue to 50%. Once again, the league has offered the players its “take it or leave it” offer on Friday. History has proven that the league will not offer any thing close from here on in, so that leaves the question, what do the players actually expect to gain from dragging things out longer, and what kind of advice are they really getting. As it is with the existing offer, the rollback will be about $220K for the average player (much higher obviously for the big boys $900K for a $6 million contract). That’s a month pay, for the average NHL player. A significant hit, without a doubt, but as so many like to say, you can’t compare an NHL player to Joe Average, and they are right, when you still have over $1 million in income after taxes on an average contract, that $220k hit doesn’t compare to someone making $60K a year. I find it hard to sympathize with someone who can still pay cash for a brand new house every year after taking a pay cut. And seriously, what about the advice they are getting. You have players (Heatley and Phillips) suing their financial manager, a man they trusted completely with their money, who happens to work as a landscape labourer? I am not making this stuff up, seriously, can we honestly expect the players to make intelligent decisions based on that? Do they even really know what they have to lose in the long run?