Another week ticks by and even though there appears to have been some useful discussions today between some select NHL owners and players without their parents present, it fails to get me excited. I feel like I’ve been teased by this before a few weeks prior when representatives were meeting for several days straight, only to say they have nothing in common. I refuse to get sucked in…yet…

While we wait for some real news, there will be no podcast this week. When Mike takes a vacation from the podcast, he goes to India or Africa. I put on make up and sing songs in costumes. Yup, my vacation is cooler. Just ask Detroit Red Wings prospect, Riley Sheahan, how he spends his hockey vacation. Drunk in a Teletubby costume? Yes please.

Mike and I have been pretty hard on the Worcester Sharks from the beginning of the season, feeling they didn’t have the NHL caliber talent to compete in a bizarro world AHL season filled with players who would otherwise be playing in the Bigs. Worcester has told us where to shove it by leading the competitive Atlantic Division with 24 points and a 11-8-1 record. Tim Kennedy is tied for 3rd in the AHL in scoring and the Woo-Sharks have played with a brand of toughness one can only hope to see in the big club, if they lace them up again this year. There appears to be some encouraging moments from Freddie Hamilton, Sena Acolatse and Taylor Doherty and Alex Stalock’s numbers are solid, but not spectacular. I personally have not watched a moment online, but the closer we are to not having NHL hockey, the more likely it is that I plunk down some plastic to watch Worcester and some future Sharks take the ice.

Just up the road, the SF Bulls are competitive with a 8-12-1 record. They are the worst defensive team in GAA in the ECHL, but Sharks prospect, Marek Viedenskey, has found his scoring touch and looked dominant in person when Mike and I went to a game two weeks ago. He currently has 13 points in 9 games and hopefully he can carry it back to Worcester when they bring him back – which they will…There should be playoff hockey in the Bay Area regardless since it appears the ECHL takes the top eight teams per conference in their new playoff format. With only nine teams in the Western Conference, the odds are in the Bulls favor.

I’m looking forward to talking on the podcast about a hockey book I’m reading called Shorthand: The Untold Story of the Seals. I’m just barely into it so far but the stories about the Bay Area’s first venture into the NHL with the Seals is beyond fascinating.

We’ll be back next week, no matter what happens in the labor talks. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a costume to put on.

Good discussion in the comments section of the previous post about the CBA negotiations, be sure to check that out.

The players have responded with three separate proposals, all which move to an even 50-50 split.  The owners have rejected the offers.  Now, it certainly appears as if games will be missed, and possibly the season.

There’s no doubt the owners gained the upper hand in the PR war by offering the 50/50 split first.  We will see if the players win back some goodwill by proposing their own.  It looks as if the big difference right now is the NHLPA wants the current contracts to be honored in full, some of which were signed only days before the lockout, without impacting the 50/50 split.  The owners offered to honor those contracts, but they will count against the future players’ share, which led the players to say it was “the players paying the players”.  I can see this both ways.  Under the owners’ proposal, on one hand, the owners will be paying those players their actual salaries in the future.  On the other, the owners will suffer no financial repercussions for signing deals that are incredibly rich (Parise) and oftentimes foolhardy (Ehrhoff).

As disappointed as I am, I’m still on the players side.  Perhaps there are important terms that have not been made public, but the latest proposals seem to decrease the player’s future income and contract negotiating positions from the previous CBA in every case.  The players’ proposed deal weakens them across the board; they get no stronger position in any area. If games are lost or the season is canceled, it’s difficult for me to believe how people can blame the players for that (“You didn’t capitulate enough!”).