Wings' NHLPA rep Nik Kronwall says unfairness of playoff format was a big part of what he didn't like about the proposed realignment.

Tweet from the Globe & Mail's James Mirtle on Saturday morning

5 months ago J.J. from Kansas 12 comments 0 recs |

Comments

I agree

I didn’t like the format either. If you were in a weak division (which the Red Wings were) it would have been Detroit vs. Chicago to see who made it to the third round.

Why they didn’t just keep it as the East teams get seeded appropriately, the west teams get seeded appropriately, and they maintain the current playoff format, I don’t know.

I also kind of hate forced rivalries.

by eight_legged_freaks on Jan 7, 2012 12:47 PM CST reply actions

I would have loved going back to the divisional-esque playoffs, but yeah – knowing the same 2-3 teams might always be there makes it unfair at some point. Also, it makes parity much, much harder – which is something the league AND players both wanted.

I think if they tweak the conferences a little, you’ll see a similar realignment proposed soon.

by ScottC85 on Jan 7, 2012 1:21 PM CST reply actions

And the eastern players are out there talking about travel

Interesting that the eastern players are talking about too much travel, and the western players are talking about unfair playoff format (specifically the 4/8 and 4/7 ratios). How amazing that the players have their story strait… Just like the NHL and NBA players did early in the year. Seems the conference call was more about setting talking points as the decision was already made… Just what we need more people taking negotiating tactics for the dysfunctional American government. This stinks of the NHLPA under Fehr deciding to play “who’s blank is bigger” right before CBA negotiation begin in a couple months. This about gaining some kind of advantage for those upcoming negotiations. Gives me great confidence that the first public move by the NHLPA is a pie shot in the face… Nice way to treat your partner.

by cokolman on Jan 7, 2012 1:51 PM CST reply actions

Nice way to treat your partner.

Yeah, because the league has been so incredibly equitable in how they’ve treated decision-making with the PA.

- The Kovalchuk contract and rule-change in which the league gave the PA a two-day ultimatum.
- The suspension appeals process
- Actually reporting HRR

by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 1:56 PM CST up reply actions

Kovalchuk issue was to close a loop-hole that the teams were taking advantage in order to circumvent the salary cap. This wasn’t a sudden new thing that league decided to take a stand on, but something that the league was concerned about as soon as it was apparent (with the Wings contracts BTW). It took the ridiculous nature of the Kovalchuk contract to force the leagues hand. The PA had plenty of warning that this was a problem, and as such when it came to a head this wasn’t a surprise ruling. And the quick response was required because the ruling put the entire FA process into chaos. A couple months discussion wasn’t possible due to this chaos… Sometimes you can’t have months of negotiation on things.

by cokolman on Jan 7, 2012 4:23 PM CST up reply actions

Who cares if it was a loophole?

You don’t like the loophole? Don’t write it into your CBA. The way the league handled closing that loophole was not one built off the spirit of partnership with the players. The league CHANGED the CBA and held other players’ contracts hostage to get the NHLPA to sign off on it to keep the two sides out of an ugly arbitration. They could have tried to close the loophole in a more friendly manner, but instead they chose to threaten voiding players’ contracts if the PA didn’t accept a change to the CBA within a very short deadline. It wasn’t an issue of not having months of negotiations, it was a manner of bullying.

Whether you think the change to the rule was something good for the game is irrelevant. The discussion here is about how the partners in this situation are treating one another. The league treated the players like shit.

by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

I don't care about the union or the league

The owners should feel lucky that they are involved in something most (80% or so) have loved but didn’t have the skills to play. And the players should feel lucky to earn millions playing a game considering 15% or so of our neighbors are fighting to keep their houses. When either starts putting the CBA in front of the game I will alway say a pox on their house. Will say the same if the league asks for roll-backs on the contract.

I really think this crap that they treated me badly crap has to stop… This is buissness not a love fest. Can’t say at one time that the reason the NHLPA acted that way was that it is a buissness, then say their feelings got hurt that they weren’t consulted enough. Complete BS.. In my company we’ve had to put our suppliers over a barrel every once and again, and in return our customer (USG) has done the same. Sometimes you have to play hardball… And its not personal. But when we do it it isn’t to gain negotiating leverage… It is because their a legitimate problem that needs to be corrected. In the Kovalchuk case the loop-holes are not in the long term interest of the game, league, or the players and needed to be corrrected. It threatened the entire league salary structure was unacceptable to continue… The league was right to put an ultimatume ot the NHLPA… Accept this ruling or we throw out the entire salary structure and start building a new one. That’s not too hard to understand… And when someting as critical to league operation as player salary structure was at threat something the leqague needed to react to.

by cokolman on Jan 7, 2012 4:55 PM CST up reply actions

we’ve had to put our suppliers over a barrel every once and again, and in return our customer (USG) has done the same. Sometimes you have to play hardball… And its not personal. But when we do it it isn’t to gain negotiating leverage

Of course you don’t have to play hardball to gain negotiation leverage. As the purchaser from your suppliers, you have all of the leverage. The relationship between the league and the PA is not the same as the relationship your company has with suppliers. If your suppliers go ape shit and start making demands you absolutely cannot live with, there’s going to be somebody out there with both the willingness AND the capability of providing the exact same thing they do.

That is not the case with professional athletes. They provide a service that nobody on earth can provide as well. They have that leverage that your suppliers do not.

No idea where you’d pull an admonishment for an attempt to gain negotiating leverage in a place where it’s absolutely called for.

Again, the point of the Kovalchuk issue is that it was not an IMMEDIATE threat to the ongoing success of the league. It did need to be fixed. It was absolutely something which needed to be corrected. The means by which the league did it was not in fitting with the idea of a partnership (which is what touched off this entire thread… the idea that YOU said the players should be treating their partners, the league better, despite THIS EXACT THING BEING A COUNTER-EXAMPLE OF THE LEAGUE TREATING THE PLAYERS AS LESS-THAN-PARTNERS).

The league did need to react, but to pretend like it was critical to have it fixed within a matter of days before it destroyed the entire structure of the NHL does not add up. It is absolutely untrue.

by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 5:04 PM CST up reply actions

Don’t think you understand… As an Aerospace company we can’t go to another supplier… The required development and quaification for a new supplier and/or part costs thousands and months… In many cases millions and years. In particular the entire rocket is desinged around that particular engine. There is no way to drop in a replacement. To change it would require so many changes it is effectively a new rocket and cost billions and take 10 years to change the engine… This would put us out of buisness. And as such these suppliers provide a service that they and only they can provide.

by cokolman on Jan 7, 2012 5:13 PM CST up reply actions

Would it be possible for your supplier to sell that engine to another Aerospace company easily or would they also be facing bankruptcy?

by J.J. from Kansas on Jan 7, 2012 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

In general no

Getting OT… But historically engines are generally wedded to rockets as much as rockets are wedded to engines. About the only engine to be used for multiple rockets in the past has been the RL-10 used on the Saturn, Centaur, and now Delta IV rockets. But there have been families of engines where a manufactur modifies an engine to work with different rockets. Even military missiles with their solid rockets (effectively glorified fireworks) have the engines modified for a particular use.

Got to say I think the stress of the upcomming Lions game got to me… I over reacted for sure. The Wings and Tigers playoff losses got me good this year, and was worried that kid in me that is still in the 1991 Silverdome stands would take a bad Lions game. I’m sure there is a wealth of ground for a socialogist on howsports teams take on so much for ex-pats (piece of home and all).

by cokolman on Jan 9, 2012 9:15 PM CST up reply actions