I was shocked when I heard yesterday that the NHL Players Association had decided to put its collective bargaining leverage above the good of the game. And then as I read on, I was angry, because Donald Fehr's reasons for vetoing realignment sound so false, so pretextual, so mealy-mouthed, so artificial, and so wrong.
I decided that if the NHLPA was going to veto a realignment that everyone agrees is necessary, then the players themselves ought to face up to it. Which was convenient timing, because today I had tickets for what is likely the only hockey game I'll see in person all year. So I rounded up a couple of friends (the estimable Mark D'Arrigo and Dave Arnold-Fernandez), made a sign (thanks Alex and Betsy), and headed down to ice level at the Shark Tank.
We were at the glass at the end of the first intermission, with the players taking warmup skate for the second period. Brad Winchester was the first to spot the sign, and he gave us a sour face. Karl Alzner was next, and his expression went from blank to blanker, but his face always looks pretty expressionless out there. Jason Chimera gave me a long, cold icy stare. PPP, I've never felt so much empathy.
And then Ovechkin spotted it. There was no mistaking his reaction. He saw a lone Caps fan holding a sign at ice level (Mark and Dave had split). And for a split second, his eyes lit up. And then they narrowed when he saw what it said, and he skated away. It was an instant, but there was no question. And I felt a little bad, because the last thing I needed to do was distract my own team. But there are important issues at stake. They're putting the Patrick Division back together. Winnipeg will be truly screwed without realignment. Dallas, Detroit, and so many others will benefit from this change.
So Alex and Jason and Karl, I'm sorry to have disappointed. But tonight, being a fan of the NHL was more important than being a fan of the Washington Capitals. And the Caps are just one of many teams that will benefit greatly from realignment. Come on NHLPA, do the right thing.
5 months ago
Gould Old Days
41 comments
5 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Here we are at ice level:
As for the logos, I had space for 8. We were wearing three of them. There was some chance that we might be joined by someone in a Habs or Wings jersey. And for the remaining three, I went with Dallas and especially Winnipeg, because they stand to gain the most from realignment. And the Leafs because, well, I don’t know — they’re the Leafs.
"Fais gros comme moi!" - Alex Ovechkin
Got to say
I feel like the NHL is dominating the message and the fans aren’t realized that the NHLPA did completely the right thing.
2 reasons:
1) They didn’t veto it because they didn’t like the idea in entirety, they said “no for now” because the NHL was completely unwilling to work with the most simple requests. Basically, the NHL said “this is how it is,” and wasn’t even willing to answer the NHLPA’s question, “Well can you explain?” Basically all the NHLPA did was say “well if you won’t explain then we can’t say yes.”
2) The plan was created without any player input. Seriously, it’s relevant. The NHL shouldn’t be creating a realignment plan and then trying to force it on the players. Even if their concerns are small, the NHL needs to work with them. They’re the people most affected.
So seriously, this is the fault of the NHL for handling the situation wrong, not the NHLPA for not wanting to be walked all over.
Also, the fans totally don’t agree. The fans of some teams seem to agree. Looking at just random comment samplings in admittedly pretty terrible places like yahoo and NHL.com, the commenters are pretty split.
by warning on Jan 8, 2012 4:38 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Couldn’t disagree more. The realignment is simple. I can’t help but believe that the whole “we need more information” story from the players union is total garbage. Once the conferences were published and the playoff format explained, what more “information” did anyone need to know?
If they have an actual issue with the realignment, then freaking raise it. But they don’t. Not really. They just have vague “concerns” and requests for further information regarding something that is already very clear.
I’m not a union guy and I’m not a management guy, but I know when someone is dissembling, and Donald Fehr is dissembling. This isn’t about who plays who how often. It’s about injured egos and a union that feels compelled to make a point that “you can’t go making decisions without us.” And I have some sympathy for that sentiment. But when (as is so frequently the case) the result of the NHLPA’s response is to injure the interests of its own members, my sympathy ends. How the hell did the NHLPA explain what they’re doing to the players in Winnipeg — that’s what I’d like to know?
"Fais gros comme moi!" - Alex Ovechkin
by Gould Old Days on Jan 8, 2012 5:16 AM EST up reply actions
I too question the travel issue, but I do believe the a concern with favoring certain teams for playoff appearances with the proposed 8-7-7-8 conference set ups. Even if you disagree with the PA’s reasons, don’t you think the NHL is also to blame when they refused to take any input from the NHLPA before it was announced, and then set a false deadline for the decision?
"You can want to get to April but when you get to April you may not like the answers you get, so you might as well enjoy the ride while it's going on." - Brian McNally on JRR, 8/29/2011
by bagace on Jan 8, 2012 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
After watching a clip with Mike Knuble, and reading a comment from Chimera, I must say I am more sympathetic to the players. (Speaking of Winnipeg, Chimera noted that in realignment, since they are the only Canadian team in their division, they will have to go through customs in every divisional game!)
I think it was reasonable to request a sample schedule of travel for the year, and the league should have supplied them with one.
As has been noted elsewhere, it seems a major concern for the players in the 8 team vs. 7 team divisions. Players on the 8 team divisions do not have an equal chance of making the playoffs.
I think it was reasonable to request a sample schedule of travel for the year, and the league should have supplied them with one.
I don’t think this was a reasonable request. Making an NHL schedule for 30 teams over a full season is ridiculously difficult even when they already have the blockout dates and requests from each team. Sure, they could have taken a stab at a mock schedule without that info, but it would be completely meaningless since it would in all likelihood not resemble the actual schedule. Like the rest of the travel concerns I think this request was just part of the bullshit covering their real argument that they were pissed that they were left out.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jan 8, 2012 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think a mock schedule
Would vary too terribly from a real one in terms of travel time. And really, it’s not like they’re asking the executives to do anything – delegate. In terms of money spent (on salary) to do it, it’s a pretty trivial request.
If you make a mock schedule and have one California road trip, then find out a tour is going through LA during that time and you lose your options for the SoCal games, it could look very different.
Please, call me F&B.
But you're still spending the same number of air miles flying there
So when you’re number crunching at the end, it doesn’t make much of a difference.
If you just want the number of miles in distance between opponents without knowing lengths of road trips, etc. then that information was out there from bloggers pretty much immediately after realignment was announced. A mock schedule wasn’t needed.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jan 10, 2012 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
You don’t make a mock schedule specifically because no matter how good you make it, the NHLPA will find problems with it and use it as ammunition for its side of the argument. The unknown, in this case, is better for the league.
"Hockey is my life, wine is my passion." -- Igor Larionov
by Scott in Shaw on Jan 9, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure, probably
But doesn’t that mean the league is just as culpable in getting realignment pushed back a year? They too are putting political bullshit ahead of the common good. Same thing.
Chimera noted that in realignment, since they are the only Canadian team in their division, they will have to go through customs in every divisional game!)
As opposed to now, when they don’t?
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
I have $50 to Olie's autism charity or So Kids Can and a beer on the under for 50/57/107 as AO's final stat line for 2011-'12
And on Pekka Rinne's PK SV% dropping under .920 by the end of the '12 season
by Knee high to a duck on Jan 8, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
As opposed to a better realignment plan
Everyone agrees something has to change. The question is what and how major of a change.
by warning on Jan 8, 2012 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Standing pat definitionally doesn’t change the travel schedule.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
I have $50 to Olie's autism charity or So Kids Can and a beer on the under for 50/57/107 as AO's final stat line for 2011-'12
And on Pekka Rinne's PK SV% dropping under .920 by the end of the '12 season
by Knee high to a duck on Jan 9, 2012 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
The more I think about the customs comment, the more it bothers me. WPG is currently in the Eastern conference and in the SE Division, which means they’re the only Canadian team in their division as it stands. They have six road dates with the other three Eastern Canadian teams, and one-and-a-half road dates in your average year with VAN, CGY and EDM. Let’s be generous and say that they have all three of those games on the road. That makes a grand total of nine away games in Canada, meaning that they have thirty-two away games in the U.S. Even assuming that all of their roadtrips below the 39th parallel are two games in length, that still means that they’re passing through customs a minimum of 32 times in a season. In reality, it’s probably more than that.
If the NHLPA is actually sending that out as a talking point, it’s either ill-considered or intentionally misleading. I don’t like either choice, there.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
I have $50 to Olie's autism charity or So Kids Can and a beer on the under for 50/57/107 as AO's final stat line for 2011-'12
And on Pekka Rinne's PK SV% dropping under .920 by the end of the '12 season
by Knee high to a duck on Jan 8, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
You apparently have missed some of the facts in this
The simplest bit of information they asked for was a sample schedule so they could look at travel times. Not a terribly big request.
Anyway, here’s a good article on the other side http://blogs.mercurynews.com/sharks/2012/01/06/increased-and-more-onerous-travel-plus-varying-conference-sizes-were-biggest-issues-says-nhlpa/#more-7408
Basically, the NHL was just totally unwilling to work with the NHLPA at all. And at that point, no matter how good the NHL’s offer was, you have to say no. Because setting the precedent of “sure you can walk all over us” is just too much of one to send. And it’s not like you can’t say yes later. It was the NHL who made the decision that they could decide it was now impossible to go ahead with realignment next season and that would be a political win. Which, by the way is also pure politics.
Anyway, here’s my big question: if the deadline the NHL set for the players was the absolute last deadline that they could have drafted up a new season, why couldn’t they have done a draft 1 day earlier so the NHLPA would have something to look at?
(Puck daddy also has an even more detailed article – the point is the NHL was being bullies and regardless of how good the deal is, the NHLPA has a right to say “no, fuck that.”)
Being bullies…that must be some fancy new term for the suits that give nearly $2B in salary every year for playing a fucking game.
It isn’t even anger-inducing. It does not seem to be worth that kind of emotional investment. It might not even be disappointing any more. It is expected.
-Peerless 5.6.2011
Sort of not the point
They’re treating them like shit. They’re paying them so well because that’s how economics (eg: there’s huge(ish) demand for the product so yeah, it pays well) works not because they’re such nice guys. That doesn’t mean the NHL just gets to tell the NHLPA to sit down and shut up.
Perhaps the players misinterpreted your intended statement and thought you were proposing a post-realignment conference made up of the 8 teams represented by the logos on your sign. Kidding, sort of. I sometimes wonder if the players even fully understand what their association is doing. It is unfortunate that the issue of realignment has reached this point.
by Acer Jonesy's Laughker on Jan 8, 2012 4:39 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I know I’m in a minority on this, but I’m not in favor of the NHL’s proposed realignment. A realignment is necessary, but I don’t think their approach was right.
Here are my issues with it.
1. Uneven conference size. This unfairly favors the teams in the smaller conferences in terms of making the playoffs.
2. Lumping the Florida teams with the NE. It just makes no sense if the NHL is going with geographic conferences.
3. Less games against some of the Eastern conference rivals. Especially, I dislike only playing Tampa twice a year – that was turning into a good rivalry.
I do like that every team from the West would play here once a season – that’s the best feature of the NHL’s realignment plan to me.
I do have to state that I didn’t start watching hockey until 1993, so I don’t have the strong feelings about the old Patrick rivalries that many here have. I wouldn’t mind being in a conference with the Pens, Flyers, etc., but I think the plan has to be better than the NHL’s current proposal.
Failure is always an option.
by timmyv38 on Jan 8, 2012 12:48 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
There’s good and bad about the realignment proposal as it currently stands.
1) Relatively easy for the Atlantic/old Patrick division teams by adding the Caps and Carolina to the current Atlantic
2) Lumping the Florida teams with the current NE. Do not really like that one. But at least they’re in the same time zone.
3) Overall, I like the “new” Central, sticking Winnipeg, Dallas, and Minnesota there. That makes sense. Only thing: surprised they weren’t moving either Detroit or Columbus to one of the Eastern conferences, except for the fact of what may happen to Phoenix.
4) Overall, I like the “new” Western, placing the Pacific Time Zone and Mountain Time Zone teams together.
5) Do not like the fact that the conferences are uneven. The realignment proposal, in my opinion, would be much better if we could expand to two more teams and make them even. Except that the current economic climate and the precarious financial situation makes that unfeasible. If it were up to me, I would expand to two Western cities, probably Houston and Seattle but not 100% which ones I want. Houston would go in the Central. Seattle would go in the Pacific. Detroit would move to the NE. Columbus would move to the Atlantic.
Rocking the Red for teams on the banks of the Potomac and at the Gateway Arch and Singing the Blues about Hockey.
I don’t by the playoff argument for a second. Yes by simple math the smaller conferences have a bigger chance of getting to the playoffs but the MLB has had uneven divisions within a league since 1993 and has had the AL and NL have different numbers since the 70s and only now are going to even things up. For decades it was easier to make the playoffs in one league then the other and yet there were still players who would sign in the league that had a harder time, many times with actually easier paths because while there were more teams the teams were not as good. You don’t think that the O’s would like to get out of the division with NY, Boston, TB, and even Toronto who was .500 and move to the NL central who despite having 6 teams instead of 5 also have the Pirates, Astros, Cubs, and Reds who were all under .500 last year and that division has had at least 3 or 4 poor teams for years. By pure numbers teams in that division have a harder time making the playoffs yet looking at how good the divisions are it is harder to make it in the good division and it doesn’t matter the numbers in the division.
As for the travel, the Blue Jays and Raptors have to do the same thing as the Jets would and haven’t seemed to have huge issues with it being the only Canadian teams in their league so I don’t see how it would be an even bigger issue for them and moving them into a division with any of the other Canadian teams would force them to play some or all of their division games in a different time zone and ask Detroit how many issues that causes. Also as for the more information if the NHL is saying that they need to start now to get the schedule done for next season then the short time between when the league agreed to this and this deadline was not enough time to create a proper schedule and the PA knew they couldn’t so they knew this excuse could not be satisfied.
This was nothing more then the NHLPA wanting as many chips as possible when going to the CBA table (and they don’t have many) and not wanting to give anything up for free before they start negotiations and the NHL wanting to try and get something for free and if they didn’t get it at least getting the majority of fans on their side. Both sides had the CBA in mind when doing what they did in this situation.
Yeah, I think it’s a fairly weak argument too. Sure just by the numbers the odds of making the playoffs aren’t even, but in terms of being a top four team in your division the quality of the other teams in the division matters much more than the number of other teams. Winnipeg has a better chance of making the playoffs, for example, than does Carolina or the Islanders, even though the latter two teams are in a 7-team division and the Jets are in an 8-team division.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jan 8, 2012 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not a weak argument at all. Look at the NE division in the proposal – it’s almost guaranteed for 2 weak teams to make it, based on recent history. In either of the Western conferences, it’s likely that a team who would have made the playoffs in recent years won’t. The Atlantic is the exception to this at the current time, due to how many strong teams there are.
Failure is always an option.
by timmyv38 on Jan 8, 2012 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but that’s due to the specific teams in each division, not the total number of teams. And that’s my point. Some teams do have a tougher road to the playoffs, but not because of the number of teams in the division.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Jan 8, 2012 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
And you’ve actually missed the main point of the uneven conference problem. Long-term, strength of different teams will change – and therefore the conferences with less teams will end up giving their teams a better chance to make the playoffs. 10 years down the road, the teams who are on top now might not be – and a team in a conference with 7 teams is more likely to make it to the playoffs than one in a conference with 8.
Failure is always an option.
by timmyv38 on Jan 9, 2012 6:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Very true. Or maybe they could go to 28. If either of those happens, then that objection would disappear – but for now, it’s valid.
Failure is always an option.
I think contraction will be a non-starter for the NHLPA. I also don’t think the unbalanced divisions is all that valid. You’re just as likely to get a patsy that you can beat up on as a powerhouse. Just gotta be one of the top 4 in your division, it’s simple. Over 82 games I don’t think it’s going to make a difference that two divisions have 8 and two have 7.
Please, call me F&B.
I tend to disagree with the message, but love the effort and the FanPost, so rec-a-roni, the San Jose treat.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
So when you go to 28 or 32 teams, then you make this kind of realignment. You don’t do it when there is no good reason to set it up other than to pander to those longing for the “Old Patrick Division…” NHL has never even called it that yet, that’s just us hoping for better times. This plan was just as political as the veto. Look how many fans have supported it when, if they think about it for a little bit, it really sucks.
I feel like this major plan was ill-timed with the potential movement of PHX and uncertain future of NJD. Add to the NHL gave the middle finger to both FLA teams, and I can see quickly why the PA would love to block this. I’m so anti Fehr it’s not even funny, but he did right here. This plan was crap and needed to be destroyed.
What I’m more upset with is the NHL for not having a contingency plan in case they blocked it, simply swapping WPG and CLB or NSH would have been fine for a season until they could let both sides get what they want. Hell, why not roll the new format into the next CBA so you can fix the schedule/travel issues and playoffs.
With this proposed solution, not only do we have needlessly imbalanced conferences and the only sport in the US where EVERY PLAYOFF SPOT is locked based on position in a DIVISION. This is a SERIOUS issue and one that must be addressed. Personally, I’d hate to spend 2 full 7 game series against teams that we got our fill of already in the reg. season. I love the current format. If not for this current format, I’d not hate MON or NYR as much as I do. Taking my personal feelings for the current system away, the proposed one has ZERO ability to account for a team that deserves to be in the playoffs over a lesser team in another division. This proposal also removes the benefit of “get the best record, play the cupcakiest team first.” That may or may not be the case depending on the strength of the division. How awesome is it when 8 beats 1? That’s completely gone here.
I have no issue with a division winner (or top two) getting auto-bids, but you can’t lock them all. That’s bad bad bad and I will never support any plan in any sport that does not have enough Wildcard slots (MLB, I’m looking at your broken sport). Sure, it might not play out every season, but like the Seahawks getting a home game two years ago for a 7-9 record, it only has to happen once to get people upset enough to be vocal about it.
As I said above, I feel this plan by the NHL was disguised to make fans happy, but the reality of the plan is such that it does not feel the little things were very well thought out, and if I were a FLA team owner, I’d be furious that my division “rivals” are all just about 1000 miles away. Nothing says “The league’s gonna try to move you…” like that kind of travel schedule.
This league needs realignment, but it doesn’t have to be major right now. I have not heard anybody complain about the current playoff format or schedule, other than the schedule being unfair to the western teams. But when you move a few around, it makes a lot more sense than what they proposed. This veto is a good thing, folks.
by FFSEnough on Jan 12, 2012 11:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Driven DeBoer delivers Devils back to NHL's elite
- Driven DeBoer, fired by Panthers, delivers Devils back to the land of elite in just one year
- Bruins acquire son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque
- Bruins add a Bourque: Chris Bourque, son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque, acquired from Capitals
- Shinnimin named CHL's Player of the Year
