NHL 2012-2013: Tentative deal early Sunday January 6

Gaald wrote:

Still I just don't understand the perception that it was a needless lockout. Even with the leverage of the lockout, the owners have had to negotiate against themselves to move things forward. If the lockout hadn't happened, I bet we would still be waiting for the NHLPA to deliver their first CBA proposal.

The reason this whole thing has been dragging out as long as it has is because they players have been trying to call the Owners bluff thinking if they just wait them out the owners will finally give in. The horrible part is that it seems everyone but the players know that will never happen. Idiots!

There was a valid CBA for this season. Owners locked out the players. f*ck them. They could have negotiated during the season. I don't care about the business, politicing, taking sides, or whatever other BS there is.

And it's been dragging out this long because both sides have been assholes. Trying to paint one side or the other as idiots is just plain wrong. Their both seemingly clueless about how much they actually stand to lose.

There was a valid CBA for this season.

I could be wrong but everything I have heard mention was that there was no valid CBA this season. It expired before this season started, the players were trying to get the owners to allow another season under the old CBA so that they could negotiate the new one and still play. The owners since the beginning, I believe since even before the playoffs ended last year told the players they were under no circumstances interested in playing one more year under the old CBA they needed to negotiate a new deal. They players said they would offer up a proposal sometime in the summer and never did, so eventually the owners offered up the first proposal and things went from there.

I still find it hilarious that people are fine with this happening in sports. Why do the owners need salary caps and contract caps? All the stuff they feed us about competitive balance etc is just a charade. They don't give a f*ck about that stuff. They care about keeping a wide fat margin between costs and revenues so their asset pays them out every year.

Uh, hello? Of course they want to make money! It's a business!

As for why they need a CBA? CBA's are import because they protect the league and it's players. Everything a CBA offers is either illegal without one, or not required by law to be provided. In north America it is illegal for owners, without a CBA, to agree with each other to keep costs down by not letting contracts get out of hand. It's called collusion and the players could sue the league if they felt like that was taking place. Imagine how many lawsuits would take place every time a high demand player was looking for a new big contract and he wasn't able to soak the owners for as much as he wanted. So the owners would have to truly compete without limits for players. Teams that couldn't afford to compete (AKA the small market teams, mostly Canadian) would just fold. Players would lose their jobs as no new owners would join the league unless they new they could outspend the top tier teams, and the whole thing would continue to escalate. The league would probably have like a third of the franchises it does now.

It also protects the players because without the CBA there would be no pension plans, there would be no set standard for travel, hotel rooms, coaching and support staff, player safety. There would be no entry draft, no revenue sharing, no contract minimums, and the list goes on. You would have players in the league playing for thousands of dollars and no benefits and others getting payed 10's if not 100's of millions! Basically everything perk you could possibly imagine that the players get now would have to be negotiated on an individual basis with each new player contract. Playing conditions would be different in every city with every team and even between every player.

So basically the NHL and every other sports league in existence would look completely different if they were not allowed to negotiate a CBA between the players and owners, and circumvent the free market laws in North America.

Sorry for anyone who caught all my edits!

Gaald wrote:
There was a valid CBA for this season.

I could be wrong but everything I have heard mention was that there was no valid CBA this season. It expired before this season started, the players were trying to get the owners to allow another season under the old CBA so that they could negotiate the new one and still play. The owners since the beginning, I believe since even before the playoffs ended last year told the players they were under no circuemstances interested in playing one more yar under the old CBA they needed to negotiate a new deal. They players said they would offer up a proposal sometime in the summer and never did, so eventually the owners offered up the first proposal and things went from there.

You are wrong. The CBA was valid for this season. It would have expired under this season. Upon the cancellation of this season the owners locked out the players announcing that they could no longer operate under the current CBA. That's actually why it is called a lock out.

I am annoyed that the NHLPA didn't approach the NHL sooner but also annoyed that the NHL and NHLPA didn't act like responsible adults and start talking earlyier.

Gaald wrote:
There was a valid CBA for this season.

I could be wrong but everything I have heard mention was that there was no valid CBA this season. It expired before this season started, the players were trying to get the owners to allow another season under the old CBA so that they could negotiate the new one and still play. The owners since the beginning, I believe since even before the playoffs ended last year told the players they were under no circumstances interested in playing one more year under the old CBA they needed to negotiate a new deal. They players said they would offer up a proposal sometime in the summer and never did, so eventually the owners offered up the first proposal and things went from there.

The NHL could have continued to operate under the terms of the expired CBA until a new one is negotiated. That happens all the time in collective bargaining negotiations. There would even be a bit of protection against a player strike come the playoffs because all that lost revenue would lead to money being clawed back by the players in escrow.

I'm trying to find some data for the rest of your post Gaald but it's going to take a bit of time. For now I'll just say that the Canadian teams aren't small-market or at risk for being non-competitive or folding; the NHL's pension plan has been paltry (though that was being negotiated and they were moving toward a defined-benefit plan - the one concession the players have gotten in the whole of the negotiations), and the entry draft is not a positive for the players since it arbitrarily doles them out to markets rather than them choosing which team would be best for them.

Edit: TSN and Sportsnet are showing a Fehr speech to the Canadian Auto Workers union so if you enjoy negotiating through the media that's on.

Vector wrote:
Gaald wrote:
There was a valid CBA for this season.

I could be wrong but everything I have heard mention was that there was no valid CBA this season. It expired before this season started, the players were trying to get the owners to allow another season under the old CBA so that they could negotiate the new one and still play. The owners since the beginning, I believe since even before the playoffs ended last year told the players they were under no circumstances interested in playing one more year under the old CBA they needed to negotiate a new deal. They players said they would offer up a proposal sometime in the summer and never did, so eventually the owners offered up the first proposal and things went from there.

You are wrong. The CBA was valid for this season.

I did not know this and now I am even more mad.

*edit* private message from Vector admitting he was wrong. My day is complete.

Woops, looks like the CBA would have expired on September 12th. So Gaald was right in that the CBA would have expired but it would have expired after the season/training camp would have started. He is right in that the players did not offer up a proposal like they said. The owners proposal was also a terrible proposal. Like I've been saying all along, neither side cares about the fans. I understand the owners perspective but I don't care. I don't understand why anyone would care.

3 of the 4 Canadian teams are actually small market teams. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are not small market for NHL standards. Calgary is pretty good but his highly reliant on a successful team. Edmonton, Ottawa, and Winnipeg are about as small market as a team can get.

Edit: Also, what roke said about it being normal of adding an additional year to the CBA for negotiations.

Vector wrote:

Edit: Also, what roke said about it being normal of adding an additional year to the CBA for negotiations.

Not formally adding a year, just continuing to operate under the terms of the old Collective Bargaining Agreement while negotiating a new one.

Fehr CAW thing didn't have any news or really any negotiating (why the heck did TSN show it other than suckers like me thinking there might be news because they're showing it?). A few anecdotes about his past, talking about how players have to out-hussle, out-think, and out-skill the opposition on the ice and they're the best in the world at their vocation and such. Ended talking about how he tries to include all the players in the negotiations, door is open for any of them to sit in meetings and such. Without that trust you can't negotiate.

Gaald wrote:
The owners proposal was also a terrible proposal.

Yes it was, of course it was. It was the dream proposal for the owners, and anyone who says they thought the owners expected that proposal to be excepted is lying to you. You never start a negotiation with the proposal you expect to end up with, because then you end up having to give up more then you are absolutely willing to. Not to mention the fact the NHLPA promised to offer up a proposal during the summer and they never did. You can't blame the owners for being pissed off and maybe offering up a harsher first proposal then they might have had the NHLPA actually followed through.

Definitely not but also, I don't really care. None of us should.

I do care that after the last round of negotiations and Bettman essentially said he is taking his ball and going home. I appreciate the emotion but that, as a fan, doesn't paint any of this in a postiive light.

Sorry Roke, that's what I meant.

Gaald, honest question, are you supporting the owners because you are appreciative of the approval of move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg? I understand the nuances of negotiation. I understand why one would support the players (even if that perspective is just as misguided). I don't understand why someone would support the owners as strong as you do.

The owners proposal was also a terrible proposal.

Yes it was, of course it was. It was the dream proposal for the owners, and anyone who says they thought the owners expected that proposal to be excepted is lying to you. You never start a negotiation with the proposal you expect to end up with, because then you end up having to give up more then you are absolutely willing to. Not to mention the fact the NHLPA promised to offer up a proposal during the summer and they never did. You can't blame the owners for being pissed off and maybe offering up a harsher first proposal then they might have had the NHLPA actually followed through.

Just watched a game from 1996 where Fedorov beat the Capitals 5-4 in OT. It was glorious. The intensity in this game was amazing considering it was played in December. Seeing the Russian 5 zip around the ice again was incredible.

That game had the crazy ass offside rule that didn't last. Multiple times, Mickey Redmond ripped into the rule and begged the fans to write in and complain. So glad the league went back to the touch up rule.

There was also no trapezoid. Osgood swooped out and stopped a puck so the D could play it before it when into the corner, saving his guy from taking a hit. But....you know...that's not safe for the players or anything.

/sigh

I really don't support the owners in general. I support the Winnipeg Jets. Whatever helps keep them in Winnipeg, that's all I care about.

I remember losing the team the first time, it was devastating to me and was really bad for the spirit of this city. For a long time I thought I had gotten over it, but getting the team back after 15 years was amazing! I couldn't believe how much it affected me. I couldn't believe the change in the City. It was wonderful. It's kind of silly I guess, but I can't help but feel the way I do, I grew up with hockey and for a long time even dreamed that one day I might play for the Jets.

So yeah, your right both sides are stupid. This whole situation sucks, but I have payed very close attention to this whole thing, and everything I have listened to, watched and read, about this lockout has proven to me that the reason we are where we are now is due to the players and Donald Fehr. They are the ones constantly delaying and sabotaging the negotiations.

I should also point out that a lot of the interviews I have heard with the old retired guys believe that the players are being stupid.

Okay, I'll try not to make this into a wall of text.

First, the "Canadian teams are small markets" myth:

Not being publicly traded companies we don't have complete revenue/expense/profit figures. Ticket revenue figures have been leaked on occasion to the Toronto Star, the latest leak being about the 2010-11 season some months ago. Anyway, here's a blog post about the gate revenues for the 30 teams in 2010-11 and scenarios where the Canadian dollar depreciates:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthw...

You'll notice 5 of the top 6 teams in gate revenue are Canadian and Ottawa manages to be above-average. Ottawa remains above-average in a hypothetical scenario where the Canadian dollar drops.

You will also notice that Calgary and Edmonton remain above-average even if the Canadian dollar had been 0.65 US$. Edmonton had the worse record in the NHL over the life of the old CBA.

Add in the national TV revenue generated by the Canadian teams compared to the US TV contracts, the liklihood that sponsorship and local TV deals are larger in Canada because of the greater interest in the teams and I don't see how you can classify anyone outside of maybe Winnipeg as a small-market team.

If the NHL were to have more than one team in the most lucrative hockey market in the world (Toronto) than say, Phoenix they'd probably generate even more money out of Canada. It's outrageous that the top-division in English soccer can support 6 teams in London while the top hockey league in the world only has a single team in Toronto. That's the Leafs and the NHL flexing their monopoly power there though.

Speaking of English soccer, I may have said this earlier but consider that the 4 biggest soccer leagues in Europe have had about 4 work stoppages in their history. England has had 0, Germany 0, Spain has had a couple of player strikes delaying (not cancelling) matches for a few weeks, and Italy has had a couple of one or two week strikes delaying (not cancelling) matches. They have no restrictions on free agency or entry draft, no salary cap, and yet players for mid-tier players aren't getting paid almost nothing while the stars garner all the money. No work stoppages, better agency for players, and multiple teams playing in cities so fans have more choice when it comes to where to buy tickets. It's almost like we'd be better served by something like that.

Both sides are too close to not make a deal, but in the long-term things would be better if the players were to decertify. The NHL's just going to lock them out once the next CBA expires to get an even greater share of the revenue anyway.

Gaald wrote:

I really don't support the owners in general. I support the Winnipeg Jets. Whatever helps keep them in Winnipeg, that's all I care about.

I remember losing the team the first time, it was devastating to me and was really bad for the spirit of this city. For a long time I thought I had gotten over it, but getting the team back after 15 years was amazing! I couldn't believe how much it affected me. I couldn't believe the change in the City. It was wonderful. It's kind of silly I guess, but I can't help but feel the way I do, I grew up with hockey and for a long time even dreamed that one day I might play for the Jets.

So yeah, your right both sides are stupid. This whole situation sucks, but I have payed very close attention to this whole thing, and everything I have listened to, watched and read, about this lockout has proven to me that the reason we are where we are now is due to the players and Donald Fehr. They are the ones constantly delaying and sabotaging the negotiations.

I should also point out that a lot of the interviews I have heard with the old retired guys believe that the players are being stupid.

Okay, thanks for responding. I figured that was the case and completely understand that and understand your perspective. There are times I feel you are coming across as pro-owner but that might just be the backlash with how some people are extremely pro-player. The Jets should have never left and as someone who had their team ripped away from them (Vancouver Grizzlies, NBA) I understand that now that you have them back, you'll never let them go.

I'm hesitant with what any of the retired guys have to say. A lot of them are extremely uneducated, feel they owe the NHL, and many work for the NHL in some capacity. They're not the most reliable of sources. I do like what the TSN guys have had to say so far. McKenzie, Miller, and Duthie just seem frustrated with the whole situation. Dreger has some bias (he's Dave Nonis' cousin) but I feel he's been fairly impartial with slight leanings towards the owners perspective.

My hope was for this to be over so I could watch a game when I return to Canada for Christmas. That won't happen now.

Both sides are too close to not make a deal, but in the long-term things would be better if the players were to decertify. The NHL's just going to lock them out once the next CBA expires to get an even greater share of the revenue anyway.

Wrong, if the players decertify it will blow up the season and the courts may end up siding with the owners, not the players, just like they did earlier this year with the NFL. I should also point out that the owners are trying to convince the players that this next CBA should be 10 years long, because they don't want to have to go through this again for as long as possible, and the players don't want it, they want 5 years max.

Gaald wrote:
Both sides are too close to not make a deal, but in the long-term things would be better if the players were to decertify. The NHL's just going to lock them out once the next CBA expires to get an even greater share of the revenue anyway.

Wrong, if the players decertify it will blow up the season and the courts may end up siding with the owners, not the players, just like they did earlier this year with the NFL. I should also point out that the owners are trying to convince the players that this next CBA should be 10 years long, because they don't want to have to go through this again for as long as possible, and the players don't want it, they want 5 years max.

The court decision against the NFL players was only against an injunction against the lockout, not about the anti-trust arguments itself.

Some of the hockey people I follow on Twitter are lawyers (though not labour lawyers in Canada and the US) and they can't think of a defense for the league against anti-trust in the US. There might be one in Canada (Section 48 of the Competition Act).

If nothing else the possibility of the US owners paying treble damages when they lose an anti-trust case would get the owners to move to avoid the uncertainty there.

Maybe I'm too cynical but to me a 10-year CBA rather than 5 means the next lockout happens in 10 years rather than 5. Unless fans walk away like they did in baseball after '94 or the players develop leverage the cycle will continue.

On my phone so I just a quick post.

How are the players sabotaging the process when they are the ones locked out.

I look at it from vectors point of view. I don't give a f*ck about the owners business. If you can't hack it in hockey then fold your team and beat it.

This is all the owners creation. We could be two months into a season under last year's cba.

I honestly don't understand how fans can be for salary caps besides some flawed logic the owners are feeding us. The fact is its not to help small teams be competitive and its all about legalizing their collusion.

All I see is a bunch of wealthy owners who are very aware how easy it is to operate a business under monopoly conditions. These guys made their money in real competitive markets but when it comes to sports they need price controls to save themselves?

Sad part is its this type of laziness that's going to sink the league in the long run anyways. These guys are more interested in legitimizing their monopoly then growing the game.

What fans should be really pissed about is between the owners and bettman it's pretty clear they actually don't give a f*ck about hockey.

From what I understand, the players themselves aren't sabotaging, but Fehr has done his part to f**k with things; randomly late to meetings, long breaks, constant changes of primary focus of meetings, etc. It's a tactic to keep the owners off-balance, and it's working. While Bettman is known to have a temper, his crazy rant Thursday is this most publicly shaken he's been.

In the end, I think this is totally one of those situations where neither side is in "the right." I think if I was forced to pick a side, I'd be more sympathetic to the players, but both sides have a hand in how messed up things are right now. Is the NHLPA trying to put the fear (Fehr? <g>) in the owners to avoid a prolonged lockout? Likely. Still doesn't mean they're not being jerks about it.

I don't disagree that the reason we are in another lockout is because the of the stupid owners. They have found ways around the old CBA to jack up contracts in order to snag the premium players, which has benefited the players greatly. They don't want it to change during their tenure, which is why they want another 5 year CBA. As long as they get what they want, it doesn't matter what state the league is left in, the new guys can fight for what's left when they are gone.

The problem I have is that the players, through Donal Fehr, have been playing games through out this whole negotiation process and are then turning around to the media and saying look how evil the owners are being!

The latest example happened this past Thursday, after all the progress that was made the owners asked the players to get back to them with a yes or no answer to whether or not they could accept the 3 things the owners felt they couldn't give on. Fehr and the NHLPA made them wait 6 hours for an answer, and instead of coming back with a yes or no answer they tried to change the focus again. Then, they didn't answer the phone when the NHL tried to get back to them! It's been like this since the beginning!

I would love for a deal to be made so that we could just get our hockey back, but after all this, if we aren't going to get a season this year, I want the owners to crush Fehr, and ruin that story book ending he wants for his memoirs. That's how much the players have pissed me off with all the bullsh*t they have allowed Donald Fehr to pull during CBA "negotiations".

In the light of the new cancelled games, I thought this might get a laugh or two. http://vimeo.com/55149830

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea is ideal, I suggested something similar myself a while back except it was just 1 game. In an ideal world this is exactly what the NHL deserves.

By them boycotting me, I have boycotted them... Never mind... I lied.

I got my daughters the Bailey(Kings Mascot) Buddies pack for Christmas.

I defy you not to laugh. We're all going to hell:

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_memc9jNdrH1r8cs5uo1_500.jpg)

This is Twitter at its best. I guess the media are getting a bit punchy with only the lockout to talk about. Gord Miller from TSN posted this, earlier today:

@GMillerTSN wrote:

@GMillerTSN ...I've been telling people about my "four Twitter rules for public figures". And here they are as a public service:
@GMillerTSN 1) Don't get into fights on Twitter. Even if you win you look ridiculous. Ignore the trolls who are trying to start arguments.
@GMillerTSN 2) Don't pay attention to your @mentions. Twitter is a haven for haters, ignore them and it's just angry people shouting in a vacuum.
@GMillerTSN 3) Don't respond to people you don't know. You can only get "destroyed" on Twitter if you allow it to happen.
@GMillerTSN 4) Don't follow people who annoy you. You wouldn't invite an obnoxious person to your home, why allow them into your virtual world?
@GMillerTSN It's amazing how many public figures have their confidence rattled or their reputations damaged on social media. Those "rules" work.

Now, #4 maybe I can get behind, but the rest are another way of saying, "be a mouthpiece, don't actually use or be a part of Twitter."

The hockey twitterverse has EXPLODED. Someone started a #GordsRules hashtag. Then Dave Lozo started doing his own set of rules:

@DaveLozo wrote:

Twitter Rule No. 1: If a person has a mustache, follow that person. Especially if it's a woman. You won't regret it.
Twitter Rule No. 2: If a pretty girl/guy follows or RTs you, look through their photos on Twitter. Chances are, they've gone to the beach.
Twitter Rule No. 3: Tweet things like "YES!" or "NO!" or "TOUCHDOWN!" or "YOU IDIOT!" because we are all watching what you're watching.
Twitter Rule No. 4: When people reply with harsh things, take them to heart. Cry. Because the opinions of strangers should matter to you.
Twitter Rule No. 5: If an athlete on a team you dislike does well, @ him and threaten him and berate him because he's not a real person.
Twitter Rule No. 6: Grammar. It matters.
Twitter Rule No. 7: If you're on a Follow Friday list, RT that puppy. Then RT it again with "Thanks!" Everyone you follow needs to see it.
Twitter Rule No. 8: Take yourself very seriously because Twitter is serious. When things get rough, make up Twitter rules.
Twitter Rule No. 9: Tweet anything you want, no matter how insensitive or inappropriate because no one can prove your account wasn't hacked.
Twitter Rule No. 10: If you're the first person to create a parody account based on something topical and short-lived, you win everything.
Twitter Rule No. 11: Tweet pictures of every meal. Add "nom nom nom" if at all possible. Your food is unique and special.
Rule No. 12, aka the @seangentille rule: If you unfollow someone, tell them why. How else will they improve themselves? Be a hero.
Twitter Rule No. 13: Ask sports writers what time games start, because as we know, there's no other way to find out that information.
Twitter Rule No. 14: If your profile says "tweets don't reflect employer's opinion," legally, you can tweet ANYTHING and can't be fired.
Twitter Rule No. 15: If you're at a concert, tweet the set list, one song at a time.
Twitter Rule No. 16: If you ask for a RT from a celebrity and get it, Twitter sends you a check and plaque that reads, "Coolest Tweeter."
Twitter Rule No. 17: A retweet just isn't a retweet if you don't put an exclamation point in front of it.
Twitter Rule No. 18: Check in on Foursquare for EVERYTHING. If you're the mayor of a McDonald's bathroom in Brooklyn, let the world know.
Twitter Rule No. 19: If @hockeyyinsiderr starts following you because of your list of Twitter rules, block him and create a rule about it.
Twitter Rule No. 20: If someone you don't know asks you to RT a link to a charity you don't know, just do it. It's probably legit. Probably.
Twitter Rule No. 21: Only give to charity if you reach a certain number of followers. It makes the sick kids who need the money follow you.
Twitter Rule No. 22: If a person has fewer followers than you, they are inferior. Their opinions do no matter. Dismiss them. Mock them.
Twitter Rule. No. 23: Always ask to be followed back. Beg if you have to. It's not sad at all.
Twitter Rule No. 24: If someone has a small grammatical error in a tweet, point it out in a very snarky way. People appreciate that.
Twitter Rule No. 25: When making a list of Twitter rules, it's best to stop around Nos. 15 or 20 for the sake of the list's quality.

And then Ryan Lambert got in on the game, he's been writing a "Christmas Carol" spoof that is friggin' epic. He's not done yet, but I LOL'd at:

@twolinepass wrote:

and just like that, [pierre] mcguire passed through gord's closed door, but a faint "aaaactive stiiiick" could be heard echoing down the hallway

*edit* And he's done. Here's A Twistmas Carol in its entirety.

I like making fun of TSN as much as the next guy, but I've always seen Ryan Lambert as one of the biggest trolls in the hockey media. Don't really like him.

Dysplastic wrote:

I like making fun of TSN as much as the next guy, but I've always seen Ryan Lambert as one of the biggest trolls in the hockey media. Don't really like him.

I don't usually follow him, but the Christmas Carol story was a thing of beauty.

Ranger Rick wrote:
Dysplastic wrote:

I like making fun of TSN as much as the next guy, but I've always seen Ryan Lambert as one of the biggest trolls in the hockey media. Don't really like him.

I don't usually follow him, but the Christmas Carol story was a thing of beauty.

That was epic. My faith in Twistmas has been restored.

Edit: Still can't stand TSN though.

What's wrong with TSN and what's wrong with what Gord Miller said?

Duthie, McKenzie, and Onrait are some of the best in the industry. I really like Lebrun as well.

Vector wrote:

What's wrong with TSN and what's wrong with what Gord Miller said?

Duthie, McKenzie, and Onrait are some of the best in the industry. I really like Lebrun as well.

I don't get TSN here in the US, so dunno about their coverage, but I follow a number of their folks on Twitter and they're pretty good.

As for what he said, it was basically, "don't be a part of twitter." Don't interact with people, just be a media mouthpiece and shut up. In other words, it might as well not be your name on the account.

Ranger Rick wrote:
Vector wrote:

What's wrong with TSN and what's wrong with what Gord Miller said?

Duthie, McKenzie, and Onrait are some of the best in the industry. I really like Lebrun as well.

I don't get TSN here in the US, so dunno about their coverage, but I follow a number of their folks on Twitter and they're pretty good.

As for what he said, it was basically, "don't be a part of twitter." Don't interact with people, just be a media mouthpiece and shut up. In other words, it might as well not be your name on the account.

Coming from his perspective, media, celebrities, and sports stars tend to make asses of themselves by looking like idiots on twitter. It is good advice for those types. The risk isn't worth the reward. We don't like it but it is true. I don't like Miller's rule about not responding to people you don't know. Get rid of that rule and I think it's a pretty solid mindset for public figures, that aren't used to social media, to follow.

Basically, what I'm seeing is that, on the internet, almost everyone can come across as an idiot. An anonymous fool has nothing to lose while a a public figure has a lot. Best they avoid that risk.

Vector wrote:

What's wrong with TSN

It's always Toronto first. A Western Canadian team might have played the best game in the history of hockey while Toronto lost 0-23 and punched a baby, and TSN would still give the first 20 minutes of SportsCentre to Leafs coverage. Their commentators are obnoxious. And Pierre McGuire's talent to utter the most moronic statements would be truly impressive if he weren't so insufferable. I guess there's nothing fundamentally awful about TSN's hockey coverage, they're just... annoying.

I'm with you that Gord Miller's advice to athletes with twitter accounts isn't bad. Don't pretend you're like everyone else on Twitter.. your audience is way larger than the audience of the people talking to you.

But yes, TSN annoys me hugely. Pierre McGuire is a large part of this. Every time I watch a game where he's providing colour, he distracts me from the game and I'm spending more time shaking my head at some inane comment he made rather than watching the game. I think his voice is part of this: it's so distinct. The presentation of TSN's hockey broadcasts bother me too: in their intermission reports they're so interested in making inflammatory statements (and shouting) to gain interest they lose some of the really interesting things their people have to say. I like when TSN brings in coaches (and former coaches) to make intermission comments. It's great, I love hearing that stuff. But the format is hideous: they have maybe 15 seconds to make their statement.

CBC's intermissions are the gold standard for presentation in my mind. The discussion comes before all else, and their people have a chance to respond to each other before the topic jumps forward to the next "are all Russians lazy?!?!?" topic. I just wish CBC's presenters were better more often.

(Strangely, I have no issue with spending the first 20 minutes of any hockey broadcast on the Leafs )