The NHL and their big four!

Jason Strudwick
November 13 2012 07:03AM

Ever since the start of this crazy lockout I always felt there was more to the league's stance then just the hockey-related revenue. Although getting to a 50/50 split is a pretty big chuck of change that the players will go without, it is just dollars and cents. It isn't a systemic issue. The money can be divided up.

After sifting through the tea leaves of all the talk the past week from both sides it is clear to me there are systemic issues. Here are the NHL's big four.

1. Entry level contracts reduced from three to two years.

2. Unrestricted free agency pushed back a year from 27 to 28 or 7 years’ service to 8.

3. Arbitration pushed back to five years.

4. Five-year limit on contracts.

So what's the big deal for the players? Why don't they just accept all these slight adjustments to a new CBA? It won't make a big difference for them, will it?

I will agree that if the NHL was only asking for one of these of the four, maybe even two that the effect wouldn't as big for the players. But all four! Oh yeah, it will have a big impact!

The NHL wants all of these in place to cut down on second contracts. That is it, plain and simple. A consequence of the last lockout and the CBA done then was a big change in the numbers for second contracts. Gone were the days of smaller increases on one, two or three year deals. It was now all about big second deals to buy up years of unrestricted free agent years.

Why did teams do it? Players were now only four years away from unrestricted free agency. If they were given a two-year deal after their three-year entry level deal, they were only two years away from UFA status. Most players like to get to UFA status so unless you blew them away with a huge deal to catch their eye, which many teams have done, the player could walk away two years later.

Now the NHL is pushing back and if they get these new contract checks and balances in place the landscape will change quite a lot.

This is how it would work....

Player A is drafted and signs a two year entry level deal. Once the entry level deal is done he is still six years away from free agency, not four like the old CBA. He also is not eligible for arbitration for three more years. What leverage does he have? None. The maximum contract length is five years so a discussion that includes a length of contract that would eat into UFA seasons is impossible. The team owns him so the second deal will much smaller and shorter. That is what the NHL is after.

I can hear you all screaming at your computers that the players make too much already and they should just be happy with what they get. I won't argue with you one way or another on that. I am just explaining the reasons why the NHLPA is fighting these contract issues.

I am not a fan of big second contracts. I feel it is best to go shorter to keep the players hungry. Are all players affected by big second deals? No, but I have seen too many in my time that were.

OKC

I watched the OKC vs. Abbotsford game this weekend. Nice to see these kids play and start to develop my own opinion on them.

I was watching the defencemen closely. I was surprised by the way Schultz used his stick defensively. He used it to close off passing lanes and poke pucks away. I didn't expect that from him. Someone has taught him those skills well.

The flip side of that was the play of Teubert and Plante. They moved their feet better than the reports I read suggested but I am concerned with their stick play. Often both would go into the corners holding their stick in both hands at hip level. Useless. May as well leave the sticks on the bench. They make themselves smaller and it is much easier to pass around them.

Get those sticks on the ice boys with one hand on your stick! It will make life way easier for you.

Previously by Jason Strudwick

5cf6b487166aced0cd781e41bfef915e
Jason hosts the Jason Strudwick show from 9pm to 12am, weeknights on the team 1260. He is an instructor at Mount Carmel Hockey Academy and loves working with the kids. Having played over 650 games in the NHL, Jason has some great stories and unique takes on life in the NHL. He loves Slurpees and Blizzards. Dislikes baggy clothes and close talkers.
Avatar
#1 Muji
November 13 2012, 07:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
13
cheers

Ugh. Another blogger who thinks he knows everything about what it's like to play defence in the pro leagues!

Avatar
#2 sizedoesmatter
November 13 2012, 07:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

NHL owners don't care about hockey.

Avatar
#3 book¡e
November 13 2012, 09:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers
sizedoesmatter wrote:

NHL owners don't care about hockey.

NHL players don't care about hockey.

Both sides are in it as a business - no sense vilifying either. The reason I take the owner's 'side' in this whole thing is that controlling the rise of players salary is good for the fans. As NHL owner profits increase, they will have a more difficult time justifying demands for public subsidies. The players will play equally as hard for $500,000 as they do for $5,000,000. Also, I think the players have over-reached in their negotiations and are in for a rude awakening. The sooner they realize this, the better for them and for the fans.

Avatar
#4 Sanaa Montana
November 13 2012, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
2
cheers

#@$% the PA!

Bunch of #@$%ing goofs. Those things dont apply to Parros and that one french "goon" on twitter: why the #@$% are they there behind Fehr? They'll be lucky to be playing in the NHL in the year or two. I would bet 99% of the players that are opposing things that dont even matter to them. Actually, they probably just do what Fehr tells them. They have problems following rules and looking out for one another on the ice so I cant see it being much different in those board rooms.

How does a franchise/owner protect them selves from manginas such as Heatley?

Man, #@$% NHLPA, as a staff, organization and as a crew. And if you want to be down with the PA, then #@$% you too. Donald Fehr #@$% you.

Avatar
#5 j
November 13 2012, 08:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

My following comments have been stated dozens of times by dozens of people smarter than me - it is the owners who set the stage for ludicrous contracts. Prior to the salary cap, it seemed that only a few teams handed out stupid contracts. Now it happens every year across the board. The owners have made this mess and are now trying to claw it back in one fell swoop at the expense of the players. Do I believe players are worth $8M per year? No. But if my employer offered me huge sums of money I would gladly take it. The current economic system in the NHL has resulted in a $3.3B industry which was on the rise. In other words, it wasn't broken. What is broken is having shady owners with poor business sense in poor hockey markets. This is what needs to be fixed - and not on the backs of the players. Sure some players will lose their jobs with contraction, but it is for the long term success of the industry. The rest of these concessions are just band-aids.

Avatar
#6 Dave
November 13 2012, 08:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

Jason, this league is about fans. It is about fans being able to watch THEIR team. The Oilers of the 80s, truthfully the Isles before them actually, were the last team that you could watch a team grow up & stay together. STAY together. The owners are wanting to bring some of that back. Develop, grow, and keep semblences of their core together. That would be wonderful for the FANS. There has to be a mechanism to do that.

Players want carte-blanche freedom to play and make as much as they can. That's great. It'd be wonderful for you to make as much as you ever could. BUT incredibly selfish and neglecting that their finances are tied to the fans' support.

So, given the owners know that the system needs to change to keep teams together and keep the business model stronger... what are the PLAYERS WILLING TO DO TO ENSURE TEAMS STAY TOGETHER FOR THEIR FANS?

Avatar
#7 Archaeologuy
November 13 2012, 09:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

1) The 2 year entry level contract might end up being one of those issues the NHL wished it had never thought of. Good players get paid, always. Reducing the amount of time before the Taylor Halls and RNHs hit RFA status is probably a bad way to save money. Those guys will start making their coin sooner. And I understand that there are other motivations behind this move, but the Owners and Managers cant help themselves but pay their players. I think in 3-4 years the NHL would regret this move.

2) As a fan I have no problem with teams being able to keep their players longer. This isnt the NFL where players are drafted as men and closer to finished products. The NHL puts a lot of time and effort on developing most players and it is painful to see guys go at such young ages. I understand from a player's perspective that it is a backwards move, but most of the best players have been signed to lucrative contracts before they reach the minimum age for free agency.

3) I'm not a big fan of arbitration as an option at all, but I understand why it's there. This one more than the 2 year entry levels is something I would push for as a member of the PA. Most players dont end up in arbitration, but the threat of it gets deals done.

4) This one would be the easiest for me to accept as a player. First and foremost, the percentage of NHLPA members who have a 5+ year deal has to be lower than 5% (just a guess). If Sam Gagner was given a 5 year deal he would be over the moon I'm sure. 5 years is a significant time still and most players would never be adversly affected. If anything this measure would help most NHLPA members. There wouldnt be any Luongos or Shea Webers making more money in year 1 of insanely front loaded deals which eat into the HRR share of the players and force higher escrow payments on the rest of the membership.

Avatar
#8 Dave`
November 13 2012, 12:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

What about revenue sharing between players?

Ain't it time Ovie, Sid, and the stars share some of their big contracts, promotional fees, ad sales, etc with the other players that don't make as much - though the stars wouldn't get the $ without the underlings?

Avatar
#9 Smokey
November 13 2012, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

I believe the players won't blink. The owners are decided to throw away the season awhile back, and if the players cave, whats next no guaranteed contracts, lower revenue share next time. I wish they would cancel the season already. Last lockout I cared, this one, I don't. I won't buy tickets when they come back, and maybe not for awhile. Fans come last, and I for one realize that I'm not valued.

Avatar
#10 nunyour
November 13 2012, 04:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
1
cheers

time for a big correction in the nhl ,it is just to expensive to go see a game for the average family.

Avatar
#11 mike
November 13 2012, 07:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Good read.

Avatar
#12 Manfly
November 13 2012, 07:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

not feeling the love for the fans right now from either side...it's like we are an after thought or something?

Avatar
#13 They're $hittie
November 13 2012, 08:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

IF the players agree to 50 - 50 than they get 50 percent. These other conditions keep the owners from making big contracts and will in no way effect the money the players get. Remember 50 - 50.

This is the owners form of player revenue sharing and checks and balances. It is the same thing the players are asking for with greater franchise revenue sharing.

Avatar
#14 book¡e
November 13 2012, 09:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I think the argument that the Players make too much because they make significantly more than the average person don't make sense in a relatively free market economy. NHL caliber players are rare and in demand, so they should make lots of money.

However, when you have two groups seeking to make a deal and one group has very little to lose (some owners probably lose less money in a lockout year than actually playing the game) and another group with loads to lose (Players don't carry any financial risk, they have limited career length, and will never recapture the lost income as individuals) then you have a asymmetric negotiation in terms of bargaining power. It would take 2-3 years to break the league and/or to establish a new 'players league' at any meaningful level. If a player's league were to be established, the players would almost certainly make far less and have far more risk than they do now. At present, the players take the bulk of the profits (probably about 80-90%)and carry none of the risk - that's a pretty sweet deal. The owners (and the communities that subsidize them) have developed a pretty comprehensive institutional structure in the NHL and they deserve some of the profits for doing so.

In the end, the revenue sharing issue is all that matters. Once you have accepted 50/50 or any other split, then the rest are semantics. The result of the NHL demands will just mean that players make more in their senior years and less in the early years of their careers. However, giving the teams more control of players in their first 7-8 years will mean that there will be a little less chaos in terms of contract negotiations. As a fan, I think that is a good thing.

Avatar
#15 Where's Your Towel
November 13 2012, 09:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

The owners will not save money on the contract restrictions they are pushing for. Why? Two words: salary cap.

Every team in the league will spend somewhere between the salary floor and the cap. The amount of money that ends up in the pockets of the union membership is fixed between an upper and lower limit.

To my eye, it seems like putting UFA status out of reach on second contracts will more evenly distribute salary among the players.

Teams will spend what they spend. I understand the need for skilled players to maximize their earnings because careers are short and can end prematurely. What I don't understand is why a union would be so intent on maximizing the earning disparity between its members.

I am not being facetious. I really don't understand. There are more plugs playing in the league than stars. Why would the plugs support contracts that eat up huge chunks of the pools they are paid from?

Avatar
#16 Kurt
November 13 2012, 09:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Struds - I understand why Crosby/Ovi/Hall/Ebs types would hate the new rules and term limits, but why wouldn't the majority of the players support the new model? My take is that would GREATLY a substantial majority of the NHLPA. If the pie is set at 50%, then all we are talking about here is splitting the money amongst the players. If these 2nd contracts are greatly reduced, it isn't going to reduce the cap. It will just reduce how much is spent on 22-24 year old superstars, therefore spreading around more cash for the rest.

End of the day, that leaves more cap space for the rest. You'd think that these rules would help the VAST majority of the players. A stop gap type 4th liner, or journeyman 3rd liner who gets squeezed an extra couple hundred grand because the team blew their entire budget on a couple 22 year old superstars. I see why those 2 superstars wouldn't like the new rules, but you'd think that the other 23 guys on the team would appreciate having more cap space for them to fight over.

Unless you are suggesting this new system will allow teams to spend way under the cap?

Avatar
#17 Jaw17
November 13 2012, 09:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I love having a former NHL D-man writing articles here, it gives an inside voice of how the NHL works and no one can evaluate defence like a defenceman can!

Avatar
#18 vetinari
November 13 2012, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Good article, Struds. I understand why players loathe having their second contracts capped but there has to be some middle ground here.

If I was arbitrating the dispute, I'd:

1.) limit the term of contracts (after the entry level period) to no more than five years;

2.) change entry level length contracts to an optional two or three year period (this, in theory, could also work in favour of a gifted prospect like RNH or Hall who could negotiate at fair market value earlier if they received two year contracts);

3.) give arbitration rights to both sides one year after a player completes his entry level contract, which can only be used once by each side-- the catch would be if arbitration rights are exercised by a player or a team within three years of the player reaching UFA status, then the contract awarded must be for the balance of years to reach UFA status. Arbitrators could award any sum between the team's and the player's positions based upon comparable players; and,

4.) leave years to UFA status alone if a player signs a two year entry level contract but increase it by one if a three year entry level contract is signed. This would be conditional upon the player's rights remaining with their original drafting team, otherwise, the more favourable term would apply to a player.

I would expect that most first and second rounders would get offered a three year entry level contract, but the trade off would be an extra year of service until UFA status.

Avatar
#19 Rick
November 13 2012, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I am not suggesting that the 4 items are good or bad for the players but where this rationale goes off the rails for me is that there seems to be an automatic assumption that just because the owners picture controlling a players career through one set of rules or conditions, the script will play out exactly as expected.

They never have before so why would they do it now? It's a continuation of the same failings the league has always fallen victim to, they ignore the notion that once the CBA is signed and delivered the players association, the agents, the GM's and the Owners all immediately go to work on finding ways to not cooperate in the spirit the conditions were intended to operate.

Considering you are a former player I would like to ask, is it your sense of the players mindset that they tend to actually believe the bull they spit out in the press about this being all Bettman's doing, about their logic of negotiating while teh season is being played, about their plea to the fans that unlike they owners they care about the game, that any damage being done to the brand is solely on the owners and the best of all that - apparently unlike the players - if the league has any comments on the proceedings they should keep it in the nogotiations instead of going to the press?

Avatar
#20 mayorpoop
November 13 2012, 10:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

quite interesting that the NHL is holding firm on the contract rights issues. i think due to the desparity of players whom these issues affect is a way to possible cause a friction amongst the NHLPA and its players. we shall see.

the players that are in it for the long haul better have some money banked cause i don't see them winning the war. for right or for wrong you choose.

when do we see either side have members speak out publicly?

both sides have no idea what they already lost in terms of loyalty and respect from the people who ARE the revenue.

Avatar
#21 Kurt
November 13 2012, 11:09AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Sanaa Montana wrote:

#@$% the PA!

Bunch of #@$%ing goofs. Those things dont apply to Parros and that one french "goon" on twitter: why the #@$% are they there behind Fehr? They'll be lucky to be playing in the NHL in the year or two. I would bet 99% of the players that are opposing things that dont even matter to them. Actually, they probably just do what Fehr tells them. They have problems following rules and looking out for one another on the ice so I cant see it being much different in those board rooms.

How does a franchise/owner protect them selves from manginas such as Heatley?

Man, #@$% NHLPA, as a staff, organization and as a crew. And if you want to be down with the PA, then #@$% you too. Donald Fehr #@$% you.

Roid raging today?

Your rant does bring up a good point. How is Fehr keeping this together when it would appear that the issues he is fighting for only impact 5% of the players.

I agree with you, it is puzzling "the french goon on twitter" is so behind this, when he is a textbook example of a guy losing out money he and years of service he will never get back no matter what.

I'm sure they'll never allow an open vote, but it would be interesting to see. I bet 95% of the players (Strudwick included) couldn't care less about 5 year contract limits and 2 year ECL. And if anything it helps these 95% of the players because teams won't blow their budget on 1 or 2 players.

Avatar
#22 michael
November 13 2012, 11:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Instead of arguing back and forth like idiots on term length and entry level contracts why can't the NHLPA and the NHL put a ceiling cap on the amount of money a player can make in his second contract. This way teams wouldn't overbid themselves. A fixed amount would give the owners the stability they desire and the players would see a return to some sensibility in terms of who is getting max value contracts.

The other thing I would like to see is the "Franchise Player" tag that would allow teams to pay a player on their roster 10 million dollars or whatever without that salary going against the cap. For example.Crosby would get 8 million and not have his salary count against the cap.I think the league needs an avenue to reward their superstars that recognizes their important not only to their respective teams but to the league as a whole. We need to able to hold onto these players without the fear of predation from other teams. For example. Had this been the case the New Jersey Devils would have been able to franchise Parise and not have had to lose him to FA because of the numbers crunch.

The league seeks cost certainty. The players seek a greater share of the revenue.Escalating salaries are killing this league. The cap has been an unmitigated disaster for the owners. The formula does not work for over 2/3 s of the league. The players need to rethink their longterm strategy in terms of revenue growth. The economics are plain to see. If the players continue to escalate the cap thier will be contraction and by default a net loss of jobs. Phoenix already sits on the precipice of insolubility. Only through the determination of Bettman and 29 other owners has Phoenix survived this long. How long till Florida and Columbus fall? Atlanta was a prime example of the economics of the current NHL.No one stepped up to buy the team because they new that the business model of the NHL is dramatically flawed.

Fehr better rethink this current strategy or in 5-6 years there will be less players to represent. The growth of the game is reliant on arses in the seats. When does to much become to much? Ask Atlanta?Ask New Jersey? Ask Florida? Ask San Jose? Ask Phoenix?. The time for hard stances is over. The players have received and earned a wealth that 99.9% of can never conceive of ever in a lifetime. Its to bring back the players down to Earth and accept that men playing a boys game at an average of 1.5 million dollars is not a slap in the face.

Avatar
#23 NewAgeSys
November 13 2012, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Thanks for the insights on the Barons,it is nice to hear a professional commenting on the basic core value details of the game.I also noticed the tendency for sticks to be held in less than optimum positions and I noticed quite a few more names than that.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the d-men stressing the importance of the upright strength based posture because they are required to display that strength more often than not??And does this have anything to do with their skating style and stride selection??When you played you used your stick a lot and were constantly working it into a best position,it was all over the place,as it should be along with your full body adjustments,it is much faster and less energy draining to reposition your stick more than your entire body to influence the play.A sticks purpose is projecting its power as an extension of yourself at all times.

So the question remains,is it defensive posture,skating,or an unwillingness to lose their heads being caught stretching,or a combonation of these factors??Maybe the focus has been on working on their footspeed and they are keeping the sticks in tight to force themselves to see the play differently and adjust their timing so they close on the puck with greater efficiency.

I never played hockey but it seems to me that the stick would be used as a snake like weapon when you are in pursuit of the puck and the rest of your body is maxed out,your strides should be timed so that you are on a reach back on the second last step before contact --then you snap the stick forward as you stretch and eliminate your last stride taking your opponents timing off,UNCOIL the stick at the last second as a definate tactical choice,yes keep your speed at max,but be aware you can use that stabbing stretch to catch the puck carrier or opponent off guard.You know either keep the stick in close for a stab or keep it fully extended and force the opponent to immediatly prepare for contact.I also wonder if it has anything to do with the need to maintain lateral coverage so much,maybe the habit is to focus more on the east/ west perspective and it just becomes a priority mindset.

I use a basketball example in my own thinking,when you do a layup you gain more height in your verticle jump when you reach across your body ,lift off your right foot and reach with your left hand.This sounds simple and basic,but I am trying to make a critical point and if there is a hands on way to do it,I might use that method.Just line em up and let em give their best verticle mark lifting off the right/left foot and touching the bar with their right/left hand,same side reach.Let everyone make their best same side mark,then encourage interest in who will win the jumpoff when it is repeated but in a crossover reaching motion.Get a competative thing going,make it fun and memorable.DONT tell everyone exactly why you are doing the drill till everyone has done it together and experienced the results together,so there is a consensus perspective that is RESULTS based--very important,same page perspective---that you gain greater height by crossing over when you jump.No one is going to change this fact ,jumping is jumping man,and that to me is called a baseline,no one can tweak or twiddle it--and how can you not understand it???Its jumping man,a bean understands it and we all have 10-12lb baenbags on our shoulders,right??The stick can be better utilised based on this concept.

Even if this drill is done for one or two guys without singleing them out it needs to be done for a myriad of dynamic reasons.

There is a NewAge Hockey System tactic that applies here,it is called "Viral Cueing",it is a data integration method--exactly as i just described.

Think of the mind as a computer,that has top of the line virus protection,it is iron-clad in its methods.How do you force new and unwanted or voluminous data into that system??Can it be done??Of course,with what??A virus--and when you are trying to teach hard-headed stubborn alpha males new things it aint easy--you need something as tough as a virus!!1You arent busting down the door to change those mindsets thats for sure and consider that it may not even be possible because maybe the fella is already cerebrally maxed out,we all have different numbers and types of beans in the old beanbag right?

Maybe many coaches and pros think that the door busting method is best for teaching--just keep banging it in and they will eventually get it,ha ha ha.Its best for the horsetrader but not the Stagecoach company.If you refer back to the historical coaching methods that are really pretty iron-clad and sport-wide,it is easier to find creative ways to teach adult men to assimilate new data to learn new things,what a lot of people forget is that these men evolve on every level as they mature,but the teaching process is the same till they hit the pro level and the whips come out and the kid gloves come off,thats a pretty big tutorial adjustment to factor in when you consider the tremendous individual personal growth that these guys experience at almost the exact same time the teaching method rug is pulled from under their feet.

Their mental computers are locked and loaded and they are virtually immune to data acceptance in any way other than repetition and banging the data in to their beanbags with punative action looming in terms of the old pine bench.This method evolved sucessfully because if forces the sardines into the can,I think you can fit just ONE or TWO more sardines the can in if you ask them nicely to make room for each other,maybe some can exhale and relax at the right time or whatever.This is a one size fits all mentality from an NHL teaching perspective,and it just isnt enough in many cases.Assets are under-utilised and straight up lost because of this learning dynamic.

Enter the NHS method of "Viral Cueing"---a majic way to fit an extra handful of beans into the bag,a few more sardines into the tin,a way to sneak through the firewall if you will--a RESULTS BASED method of teaching something to the entire system unilaterally.

Is this simply waaaay to much work to do to simply tell a few guys to watch their stick positioning and be a little more responsible??You dam well better believe it is worth the time,because if we dont address the teaching methods then we MUST attribute the inconsistancies to the PLAYER---and IMHO this isnt fair,it is called passing the buck.No one is going to tell me a hockey player with ultr-intensive coaching since he was a wee kid is going to have mental lapses like that in that area,not a chance pal,I will not accept that--these guys are not lazy,or stupid,or mistake prone.They are motivated,smart,and have learned to pay attention to detail since pee-wee.So what dragon are we really hunting here??I just showed us didnt I??We are up against a powerful firewall and we sometimes need to introduce "viral cues" to our men to maintain seamless and effective communication which allows us to adjust our entire system in a congruent manner at all times both on and off the ice.Is anyone offended by the word brainwashing--I personally prefer the straight up approach and refer to it as just that??Or should we call it pro-active competative dynamic imprinting??Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Sorry for the long post there Strudds but if i had the men in a room for a few minutes I could get this all across and implemented in very short order,way faster than it took me to two-finger-tap this horrendously long post.I wouldnt have to explain using anywhere near this volume of text unless one of them{tricky ones} asked me to. Ha ha ha ha,and if I just said teach them to stretch it out I really dont believe it would be the most effective way of permanently changing the dynamic--and I always aim for terminal resolution,,even if it takes a lot of time.God I coached some teams in high school and NEVER had to repeat this type of stuff more than once,I just used "Viral Cueing"and was done with it,there was never time for meetings and video reviews and long explanations,just timely short small viral cues that got through to everyone at once.In reality if you consider the dynamic action i just showed you,it is one of the sure fire ways to create a baseline from which to get through to Everyman--every time.There is NO ESCAPE or Excuse for not absorbing "Viral Cueing"because its stuff we all know and cant deny of negotiate or personalise.And this is all supported by the most powerful tool in the world ,pressure,peer pressure,no one really wants to be a Zebra in a room of horses.I cant think of a better way to "encourage"everyone to willingly step onto the same page.No one can stop a virus forever,evenif you have a healthy and strong immune system,you will be assimilated,ha ha ha.

Credit for the Viral Cueing tactic goes to the Two Girls teams I coached in high school,if you think its hard or challenging to coach men you are nuts,its a piece of cake,wait till you coach all females who are driven to be critical factors by nature,in a competative dynamic i personally flush the Alpha-male idea,because it is BS,once you experience a room full of women hyped up and ready to roll ,brother you are in deeper than you can ever imagine if you are trying to coach them.

In my very limited coaching experiences i discovered females dont have an Alpha--Beta mindset, each one is an island unto themselves,they are all ready and willing to manifest as leaders at all times,they do not know how to fall into a pecking order based on politics,they all want a piece of the action all the time.Thank god their communication finetuning is so good they can come to a results driven consensus faster than males who I believe must maintain a slightly imaginative perspective of themselves and the moment, after all if you are the one going out to fight the real Dragons you better be able to imagine a win to visualise yourself as invincible. If you do an informal count of how many players come from homes with divorce that had powerful female role models[any woman with kids who is a survivor of divorce is powerful no matter how the divorce was catalysed} you will understand why this experience with the female competative mindset is so critical when teaching men---the men today have a very female mindset if there is divorce in their familites,and this--is common--although i would venture to guess that not many single moms can afford to take their kids through a program as expensive and time consuming as organised hockey so we might have a skewed stat there to be aware of{explains a lagtime in this change in hockey},but the dynamic reality is still the same.Traditional mindsets are gone baby gone,we are dealing with more and more hybrid perspectives all the time.If you have exposure to both male and female coaching dynamics you can better understand the reality and implications of what I say.

Just think about how effective a traditional dad is going to be trying to teach anything at all to a boy from a home of divorce??Dont BS,tell the truth,the boy from the divorced home will be an entirely different animal,probably eat regular dads son for lunch.An Island unto Himself as his powerful female role model taught him to be.Regular dad will soon feel he is fighting with his bloody wife and give up on the kid,it is what it is.I have encountered the dynamic a great deal and NEVER hear it discussed.Just think how sucessfull a traditional hockey coach will be at teaching these young men with powerful female role models anything at all??You push a competative female mindset the wrong way and it will smash you EVERY time longer and harder than any naturally catalysed male mindset is even capable of contemplating.There is a glass ceiling there and it cannot be easily removed,certainly not with traditional methods and thinking.With "Viral Cueing'you have a chance to override this firewall.I see rejected superstars everywhere that just dont get handled properly,period.

I was once asked by a pro hockey person exactly how I could expect the volume of my posts to be communicated in a short players meeting ,which is apparently the norm,my reply was simple,let me in the room and the meeting will get shorter.I didnt explain Viral Cueing because i didnt want to share the data then ,damn scalpers,why not invite me over for a cup of coffee---it is not a compliment to utilise someones data and not credit the source--like this guy was going to go into the room and say moma2 thinks we should all go into the hotel hallway right now with a sharpie-take our dress shoes off--jump up and down and make permanent marks all over the walls so we can remember to keep our sticks active and engaged or on the ice,right???You see there is a lack of integrity there. I could have explained Viral Cueing then and shown an excellent way to condense the data to accomodate those meetings when dealing with sports thinkers--had I believed I would be aknowledged with some integrity,however it was on a different site with an Oildrop logo all over it{no names} and the atmosphere was really a mess,suppression and userage abounded truly a bad representation of the word team at every level,and I decided to stop contributing data there.

If we get right down to it integrity is what drives the championship machine,the sooner an organisation finds this catalyst the sooner the individual player learns to use integrity in his self-valuations and in his assesments of his coaches and peers the sooner that man matures and becomes capable of contributing to a Championship System.The shorthand version of integrity is honesty.This entire evolution can be completed in one moment--as soon as a man decides to embrace integrity he is already there,ready to be a winner.!9 and 20 yr olds can mature immediatly if the environment is right and they make this decision,thats the reason you need veterans--to wait patiently for the kids to become honest about themselves and their games and to develop enough integrity to learn from them with 100% focus.What good are veterans if players arent evolving and learning to develop integrity?? The Vets themselves cannot nurture and guide this entire process,they are just stationary in the process waiting for the grasshoppers to find them.This is why I believe defensemen or anyone can make the jump right into the NHL if they have a minimum of average NHL physical abilitys in all depts. and are prepared to learn immediatly and adjust immediatly.Age is the LEAST important factor unless the guy is a late bloomer and is still growing a lot.--you dont want him vulnerable until his core growth spurt is complete.

My god ,look what happened,we were only talking about keeping your stick on the ice!!Mybad.

Avatar
#24 Clyde Frog
November 13 2012, 11:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Its not about contract limits affecting less than 10% of the playerbase.

It is about what concessions you can get for agreeing to it, Fehr wants a truck load of guaranteed ownership money to "make whole" current contracts over the course of the CBA; the NHL is only offering part of the total Fehr wants.

Truthfully once the "make whole" money starts flowing everything else will be moot. These contract points are the last bargaining chips remaining in the deal and I'm not fully convinced either side cares about them nearly as much as they care about the 200-700 mil the owners could be on the hook for in "making whole" current contracts.

Avatar
#25 Sanaa Montana
November 13 2012, 12:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Kurt

To be honest and civilized with you-I never bought into what Fehr and the players were selling from the get go. Nor did I ever sympathize with the players or understand their stand.

First, I didn't understand the nerve to ask for more share revenue than the people who write them cheques, knowing that some of the teams and owners that they play for don't make money and can't get people into the arenas. Coming from the NHLPA it was arrogant, asinine and disrespectful. The players them selves, for most part, are not marketable, as well there isn't a market for them(outside of the 3 CND stations there isn't much coverage for the NHL) so only thing they do to earn pay cheques and generate money is play hockey.

No one cares for hockey outside of their home teams(unlike NFL, NBA), and most fans care and cheer for the team and rarely for the superstar/s on it. I, my self, am a Oiler fan through and through, so I will cheer for Hall or Cogliano as long as they play for the Oilers- players don't matter to me and I would say it is like that for most CND fans.

The players them selves are not good ambassadors for the NHL or them selves. I really can't understand what their big concern and/or stand is during this "lock-out". The things they are fighting for don't affect most of the current players, especially the ones standing behind Fehr. So, they can't be standing up for themselves. They are not fighting for the NHL, that much is obvious. If they are not fighting for themselves or their league: what the #@% are they doing?

Most of them have booked it overseas to play, and that is OK(by me). It is good for the KHL and the other leagues, and of course the fans of hockey there that get to see the increase in quality. Some have stayed in NA and while losing money not playing are renting private arenas and playing recreationally, weird. They say they just want to play hockey and then they do it privately for fun, I guess they don't care for the people they play for or the people they play in front of, they just want to play hockey and have fun. Oh, and of course try to mik the most money out of the two parties when ever they get back to playing hockey for fun and money.

I would assume players like the french goon on twitter and guys like calamari(?) are behind Fehr for no other reasons but to be on TV and in NY to party on flights taken care of by the NHLPA.

To me the NHLPA and their stands are a joke, and it is a shame that people have to suffer with no hockey for the sake of bunch of spoiled whinny manginas.

Avatar
#26 Kurt
November 13 2012, 12:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Dave` wrote:

What about revenue sharing between players?

Ain't it time Ovie, Sid, and the stars share some of their big contracts, promotional fees, ad sales, etc with the other players that don't make as much - though the stars wouldn't get the $ without the underlings?

Isn't what the league is proposing in terms of 5 year max contracts, and no crazy cap tricking front loaded contracts essentially exactly that? It IS revenue sharing among players.

It just means NYR or Philly or whatever rich team won't be able to offer $300 million offer sheets or sign 50 year contracts, and instead will have a bit more cap space to sign 3rd and 4th liners.

The average NHL salary won't change 1 bit, but the bottom 75% of the players will get more.

Am I missing something? I guess they'll say that teams with less $$ will stick to the cap floor, but thats BS (see NJ, Dallas etc)

I really don't get it.

PS (@Roid Freud - your last few sentences made me laugh out loud. Nice work)

Avatar
#27 EHH Team
November 13 2012, 03:43PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Smokey

so why do you care enough to follow this site?

Avatar
#28 OIL4LIFE
November 14 2012, 10:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

I agree with you Struds. The sum of adding these little concessions together is exponentially worse than any of the concessions them selves. Let alone losing 7% of a 3.3 Billion dollar pie. The owners want to win on every thing. I am starting to get so frustrated with this whole scenario. The players cant give in on every thing!!!! Could the league make even one concession, please. And don't tell me coming down from there original laughable proposals is a concession!

Avatar
#29 Pucker
November 14 2012, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

We need Ben Haskins and Bill Hunter !!

Avatar
#30 Spydyr
November 14 2012, 05:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
nunyour wrote:

time for a big correction in the nhl ,it is just to expensive to go see a game for the average family.

It is the law of supply and demand.When season tickets get cancelled league wide attendance drops.Then prices will fall.Until that happens prices will continue to rise. There is still a market(mostly corporate for the best seats)and most Canadian cities have season ticket waiting lists

They are not going to lower prices because Bettman feels sorry that you cannot take your kid to the game.That is ludicrous.

No more economic kool-aid for you.

Avatar
#31 nunyour
November 17 2012, 11:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Spydyr wrote:

It is the law of supply and demand.When season tickets get cancelled league wide attendance drops.Then prices will fall.Until that happens prices will continue to rise. There is still a market(mostly corporate for the best seats)and most Canadian cities have season ticket waiting lists

They are not going to lower prices because Bettman feels sorry that you cannot take your kid to the game.That is ludicrous.

No more economic kool-aid for you.

in canada yes ,but look at many teams in the states,losing money,low attendance.

Comments are closed for this article.