True Blue
12-15-2004, 10:50 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1946499
"But the reality of that image is that it's Bettman's general managers and owners who are the jacks in question, springing up with wild contracts in hand every turn or so. And no matter how hard Bettman tries to jam those owners back into their salary box, they continue to jump out. And so it is that Bettman finds it more palatable to continue his tireless efforts to force the players into a salary cap than to try and continue his ill-fated, in some ways comical, efforts to keep his own constituents under control."
I think that more and more all will see that despite any wordplay, Bettman's entire premise is based on the fact that the only way that he can think of to stop owners from spending what they want, is to hold the players accountable for any and all overspending.
Personally, this is becoming a two-horse race. The only problem is that both of the horses are fit for nothing but glueworks. I mean, how can Bettman actually think that becoming the very first professional sport in North America to cancel an entire season is a good idea? Is he arrogant enough to think that after taking no less than a year off, that fans will be be so loyal and that America will be so hockey starved that a scab league will be welcomed? Let's face it, this board is inhabitted by mostly die-hards. If a scab league can only rally half of the die-hards, who is going to support this scab league after missing an entire season?
Or does Bettman just not realize the slippery slope that the NHL is on as far as populairty in America goes? There as a poll done recently that showed that slighty more than half of America had no idea that there was no hockey games being played.
"But the reality of that image is that it's Bettman's general managers and owners who are the jacks in question, springing up with wild contracts in hand every turn or so. And no matter how hard Bettman tries to jam those owners back into their salary box, they continue to jump out. And so it is that Bettman finds it more palatable to continue his tireless efforts to force the players into a salary cap than to try and continue his ill-fated, in some ways comical, efforts to keep his own constituents under control."
I think that more and more all will see that despite any wordplay, Bettman's entire premise is based on the fact that the only way that he can think of to stop owners from spending what they want, is to hold the players accountable for any and all overspending.
Personally, this is becoming a two-horse race. The only problem is that both of the horses are fit for nothing but glueworks. I mean, how can Bettman actually think that becoming the very first professional sport in North America to cancel an entire season is a good idea? Is he arrogant enough to think that after taking no less than a year off, that fans will be be so loyal and that America will be so hockey starved that a scab league will be welcomed? Let's face it, this board is inhabitted by mostly die-hards. If a scab league can only rally half of the die-hards, who is going to support this scab league after missing an entire season?
Or does Bettman just not realize the slippery slope that the NHL is on as far as populairty in America goes? There as a poll done recently that showed that slighty more than half of America had no idea that there was no hockey games being played.