NHL Lockout Morning Coffee Headlines – October 28, 2012.

Locked-out NHL players must take the long view, NHL fans deserve better, Islanders could be poised to cash in, and a passionate plea from a veteran NHLer to reach a resolution on a new CBA.


Despite playing under a restrictive CBA, Briere did very well financially

PHILLY.COM: Sam Carchidi believes NHL players aren’t taking the long view, pointing out how several current members of the Philadelphia Flyers (Daniel Briere, Kimmo Timonen, and Scott Hartnell, to name three) saw their salaries increase during the previous CBA (which saw players salaries considerably slashed at its beginning), and likely will again under the next one.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: Team owners just can’t help themselves. No matter how restrictive the next CBA could be, teams will find loopholes to exploit, and they will also overpay for talent. I’m not suggesting the players should just take what the league is offering sight unseen, and understand the need to negotiate, but as Carchidi points out, they’re going to do well over the long run, just as they did under the previous two CBAs.

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Adam L. Jahns believes NHL fans will return after this lockout, just as they did in 1995 and 2005, but believes those fans deserve better for their loyalty.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: Agreed. The league is testing the patience of its fans by constantly lockout out the players following each CBA. At some point, it will pay a price to taking advantage of its fans loyalty.

NEWSDAY: Arthur Staple suggests the NY Islanders move to Barclays Center in 2015, combined with their maintaining low payrolls in recent years, could have the club poised to take advantage of other clubs’ payroll mistakes and overpayments, as well as make it a more attractive destination for NHL players.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: If the Islanders, which has “rebuilt on the cheap” in recent years, should finally blossom into a perennial playoff contender, that (along with their new digs) could indeed make them a prime destination for UFA players looking to play for a post-season contender (not named the Rangers) in the New York area. 

STARTRIBUNE.COM: Minnesota Wild veteran forward Matt Cullen is calling upon the negotiators of both sides to get together and reach a resolution toward a new CBA, pointing out how close they are to reaching agreement on a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: I’m sure he’s not the only NHL player to feel this way, and I daresay there’s more than one NHL owner who shares that view, although we’ll never know because of the gag order on the latter.


  1. So if all is holding up returning to hockey is the long contracts like 10 to 12 years. Then the owners are the the ones to blame. Who gave them these large and long contracts. Or who gives players large money to come play for them and the other team needs to cough up the money to get the player back as a restricted. This could of been delt with a long time ago if all owners would of got to getther and only have short years and money.

    • Long term contracts are not the only issue. Big issue is revenue sharing. Players think its obviously more than fair that they are recieving 57% and the owners only get 43%. The players have lost touch with reality. In what industry does the employees make more than the owner or company and the company has to pay all the expenses on less than half of the revenue???? Are the players on crack??? Gretzky always says he owes everything he has to the game of hockey and the NHL….maybe players should think about that when the greatest player ever says that and these 3rd line player are making more a year than he did. Owners are stupid for giving out these contrats and that is why Bettman is trying to put a system into place that will fix these problems. Blame the players not the NHL.

  2. I understand that the League’s original offer was garbage, and that the PA’s original offer was equally garbage in the other direction. I also get that they’re kind of getting closer to where they need to be. What I don’t get is the need for both the League and the PA to posture like school kids before a fight on the playground at 3pm. It’s petty and childish. Make some good offers and save the season instead of being a bunch of babies for three months.

  3. Scott,

    Owners cannot get together and do that or the NHLPA will sue them for collusion and win millions just like what happened in baseball.
    Kind of funny tho that players have no problem talking and getting together to work out deals so they can play on certain teams.

  4. It is fantasy at best to think that certain owners or even all of the owners do not sit together and discuss how best to run their league. To do this is not collusion but just good business practise but to agree to engage in underhanded bargaining practises would be collusion. The difference between the two can be pretty finite and almost impossible to discern.
    With the players and the league as close as they are to a 50/50 split I believe that one of the main sticking points must be agreeing to honour all signed contracts at full face value. To me this should not be anything but a no-brainer. The owners were the ones who agreed with their GM’s to go after these players and it was the owners that had the final yes or no on signing them. So to honour these contracts is the honorable thing to do. Unless of course if your me and see conspiracies just about everywhere I look and wonder if these same owners who either offered or signed huge and long term contracts to certain players have sat in a room with other owners and Bettman and decided that part of the upcoming CBA negotiations would be including a clause about not honouring previously signed contracts at full face value. Of course we know that this would never happen because the league always operates and does everything above board and would never do anything to screw the players out of a few million or so.

    • I would imagine players would never sign big contracts promising to be the face of the team and then demand to be traded soon after sigining.
      I would imagine players with big contracts traded to a team they do not want to play hard for will coast or seem injured a lot but when get traded again play well is nothing but a fluke.
      I would imagine the big chunk of players that go all out the first few years and tail off right after signing the big contract but somehow find their game again in the final year of that contract is a fluke.
      If any of those things ever happened,god forbid,it could be viewed as not really honouring your big buck contract.
      But since those contracts are guaranteed and they get the cash whether they score 5 goals or 50 we all know they feel honour and integrity to get the 50.
      And of course god forbid any player says all year in his final contract year he has every intention of signing with his present club and would never let the fans or the city down but somehow never quite gets around to it and amazingly always seems to sign elsewhere citing he always wanted to play there.
      We cannot have owners not being honourable and doing stuff considered disloyal or sneaky when we all know the players would never fall so far as to do something like that.
      And player agents would never think of anything like that either.

      • Oops,forgot that players would never talk with fellow players while negotiating to end up playing on the same team for the exact contracts while telling other teams they are having a very hard time deciding who to play for.

  5. While TRC predictably came out in defense of the owners I must give him his due and say that any player who would sign a contract for a huge sum of money or in fact sign a contract no matter how much money and then basically tank on that owner deserves to be treated with scorn, and if there was a way to punish that kind of player I would support it 100%. There is no room in hockey for that kind of individual. With that being said what can be said or about all thirty owners, if, and as it looks like, they all sat in a room and agreed that one of the bargaining points Bettman was to propose on the new collective agreement was a clause so that they could dishonor the agreed upon terms of contracts that the players signed on good faith?
    How repugnant would that be? How could the players ever get to the point where they could trust one word coming out of that kind of owners mouth?
    I’m not saying that this actually happened but if the owners sat around and smoked $100 cigars after eating incredibly expensive food washed down by astronomically priced alcohol, which was all charged to hockey related expenses on their teams American Express Card, and plotted on how to go back on their word and renege on the deals signed in good faith by the players, what does that make them?
    Years ago owners such as Harold Ballard of the Toronto Maple Leafs used to do such deapicable things to his players that he destroyed any trust the players had in the organization and it is only recently that some of the alumni are forgiving the damage done by Ballard and his minnions and are returning to the Leafs alumni fold, although a few players have not and look as though they will not ever forgive what he did to them. If these modern day owners have in fact designed this lockout so that they could go back on their word then they are no better than the afore mentioned Ballard and deserve to have the players tank on them. If this is indeed the case, then the only saving grace for the fans and the NHL is that the majority of players have too much pride to do something this loathsome. I am hoping that the same could be said of the owners.