Don't Buy the Drama

Two things seem abundantly clear.

As much as people want the NHL and NHLPA to be close to a deal on a new collective bargaining agreement, they're not. At least, there's no real information or evidence that should lead you to believe that an agreement is at hand. There's lots of guessing and media speculation, but little real information.

What about the fact they're still meeting in New York? Sure, that's good. But it doesn't mean they're agreeing on anything at all.

The second thing you have to avoid is believing that we are at a critical stage, or at the brink, or that D-Day is upon us, or any of the terms bandied about to suggest the talks are at a pivotal moment.

They're not.

The 1994-95 lockout was ended on Jan. 11. The 2004-05 season was cancelled (finally) on Feb. 16, and there were even talks after that.

We're not even in mid-November yet. Given history, how can anyone possibly say we're at a make-or-break point? That's just phony drama, mostly generated by the media, with little basis in fact.

Right now, both sides are bleeding, and both are assessing on a day-to-day basis how much more they want to bleed, and measuring their losses against the possible gains, and calculating how far they can push the other side for maximum advantage.

That's all this really is at this point. Math, with some poker thrown in. Some want to, as is always the case, turn this into a morality play, something about honour or hypocrisy or doing the right thing.

It's about math. How much has been lost compared to how much can be gained.

In practical terms, of course, the talks that have been going on this week should have been taking place in August, but for a variety of reasons have mostly to do with perceived bargaining strengths and weaknesses on both sides, they didn't.

All that can really be hoped for at this point is that the talks in recent days have clarified positions and started to sketch the outlines of a possible deal. This is complicated stuff. The "make whole" provision, for example, is really about taking a new CBA and then exempting a whack of contracts from that new deal. The concept is one thing, the implementation of such a concept is quite another.

All you can really say is that talks are better than no talks. Period, full stop.

 

 

 

Comments

[Mark]

Might be the worst suggestion you've ever made, and that is saying something.

The games are meant to be spectator events, not the draft, and not the draft lottery. 'Exciting' is irrelevant. Giving a shot at first overall to an already top team would be another word - 'unfair'.

If you want to expand the lottery so a non playoff team can jump more than 5 spots, and teams can fall more than one, that may have merit. But a Crosby type lottery is ridiculous. And using poor choices as examples of why its ok is beyond ridiculous.

[NHL Fan Boycott]

It SHOULD be about math ... but if I were a player, I don't see how I would have supported my union letting it get to this point ... because for MOST players, there has already been more lost than will be gained.

[moe green]

Damien,

Regarding the draft lottery. Wouldn't it better serve the game to, in a sense, reverse the draft lottery. Instead of rewarding the least of the teams, why not have the five best non-playoff teams have the chance at the first overall pick. It makes great sense to me and would have the added impact of removing "tanking" from the hockey lexicon. No more "fail for Nail" or "collapse-kos for Stamkos." I see better more meaningful play down the stretch especially for the non-playoff teams. Losing by a hair would turn into a win instead of a fail. What say ye?

[Paulie]

Hey Moe,

I'll go a step further: You finish first, you draft first. And so on down the line. Let's reward excellence, both from a team play and organizational stand.

This eliminates your concern about tanking while introducing the novel concept called "accountability".

I wonder: How would such a draft system affect the current CBA issues?

Cheers

[Paulie]

Damien,

"That's all this really is at this point. Math, with some poker thrown in. Some want to, as is always the case, turn this into a morality play, something about honour or hypocrisy or doing the right thing."

Who are you referring to when you write "Some.."

Yes, it is about math. 1 + 1 = 3, for the media and fans have to be taken into consideration. Basic Human Nature most always outtrumps math. GM's get to play in the poker game with other peoples money, but there is a cost to that.

In my opinion, that dynamic is completely missing from all these discussions.

Cheers

[Mike Z]

I'm just tired about about it all...Go away and come back when you have a deal...till then i don't want to hear about it anymore. What happened to the GAME...

Wake me when its over.... Mike