Two events that have unfolded/are unfolding in the NHL off season gives a fella pause.
Sometimes suffering through the doldrums of the summer Hockey off-season is a bit like being adrift out on the waters in your brand new C&C 131, waiting for a breeze to come along and pick up your sails.
So if you were otherwise bored, you could easily sit around and subscribe to Conspiracy Theories, like the Kovalchuk Ultimatum and Niemi, The Shark...
The Kovalchuk Ultimatum
According to NY Post writer Larry Brooks, the NHL has issued what I like to call “The Kovalchuk Ultimatum.” Within the article, it is claimed that the NHL will ‘grandfather’ all current contracts, but wants an alteration to the current CBA that limits the counting of any future contract money past age 40 and the dollars in any years after the first five in the Salary Cap. There is an apparent deadline of Friday, 3 September for a final answer on this issue.
But IF you got caught up in conspiracy theory, you might pause at a few spots along the path taken to this point with the following line of reasoning…
Lou Lamoriello needs a player like Kovalchuk to get his team over the first/second round hump in the playoffs, so…
Lou signs Kovalchuk to a deal making him a Devil for life, but…
He still needs to be able to sign Parise next year, so puts in the ‘back end switcheroo’ to lower the overall Cap Hit a lot and promptly gets the first contract contested and voided;
AND Management/Team Owners have had it out for players throughout the history of hockey…
Lou is old school, and even apparently said he doesn’t like the kind of long term deal he concluded with Kovalchuk;
But then promptly forwards another, very similar contract to the NHL who apparently rejects it, simultaneously providing an ultimatum for the NHLPA to ratify changes to the Salary Cap structure, effectively ending the ‘old backend switcheroo;’
THEREFORE, Lou was working with the NHL to undermine the contract process at the expense of players to end these anti-old school contracts, right?
Wrong.
There was no collusion to force an alteration of the CBA before its scheduled renegotiation that was plotted, planned and executed by Lou Lamoriello on behalf of all other owners, the NHL, and Gary “The Evil Empire” Bettman himself.
‘How can you be sure because my logic above makes perfect sense?’ you ask.
Maybe to a paranoid tabloid reader. You are correct that Lou and the Devils need a player like Kovalchuk to get them over the hump come the post season. And they need Kovy AND Parise. After that, your conspiracy theory begins to take on water.
You are absolutely right Lou Lamoriello, GM of the New Jersey Devils, is old school. To his credit, he is a measure of the vanishing breed of folks who are all in for something they feel is important – in this case, putting together a winning Hockey club. That is why if you listened to the press conference, you heard him say ‘the name on the back is never bigger than the logo on the front,’ and once the deal was done, the Devils no longer care about anything except fitting that player into a system that can win.
You are allowed to scratch your head over why Mr. Lamoriello submitted a second contract that was similar to the first one. Heck, I did for a minute. But in 26 years in the military, I have thought long and hard on some tough issues and rubbed most of the hair off of the top of my head, only to find out the correct answer was something much easier.
But rather than surmising a grand scheme to end the long contract in the NHL by hacking off Mr. Bettman, ruminate on this: it is human nature to take the path of least resistance.
In contract negotiations, your competing input and sources of friction are: the current CBA; the player’s wants; expressed through his agent; the team’s balanced needs for that player plus taking care of the rest of the team; the NHLPA to ensure a player’s rights under the CBA are protected; back to NHL management to approve the whole process; and an independent arbitrator if there is an appeal of a decision against the contract. Like 40-grit sandpaper quality friction, that all is. Meet the CBA’s requirements and you only have the player, his agent and the team actively engaged in the process and all of the rest only passively doing their part. Aaaaah… Less resistance. And curiously enough, something ‘old school,’ which their accompanying experience knows.
I will hand you a mask and snorkel now as the crew abandons your sinking, conspiratorial ship.
Niemi, The Shark
In your descent with The Kovalchuk Ultimatum, your timing couldn’t be better as now you enter shark-infested waters. That’s the waters of Niemi, The Shark.
In a fit of final protest as you dog paddle around, asking for some floaties, I hear you say, “Wait! Wait! What about Niemi to the Sharks.”
“Huh?” I stupidly ask.
Paddle. Paddle. Follow me on this:
The Sharks lose to the Blackhawks in the Conference Finals; dang it – it was their turn to go for The Cup, and they have to GET those guys so they can go onward and upward next season…
But star goaltender Evgeni Nabokov announces on 7 July he is leaving to play for SKA St. Petersburg of the KHL… Ruination!
‘Hey, wait a minute,’ they say – ‘There’s extreme Cap issues in The Windy City, so we can fix ourselves AND attack them at the weak point, all at the same time…’
So on 9 July, they send a rather large offer sheet for Niklas Hjalmarsson, which the ‘Hawks are goaded into matching on 12 July…
That contract for Hjalmarsson stalls pre-Arbitration talk with Stanley Cup winning goalie Antti Niemi who goes to arbitration on 29 July and is awarded less than $3M per year…
Which the Cap-strapped Blackhawks walk away from for a less-than-$2M-per-year contract with free agent Marty Turco, in turn…
Leaving Niemi to be signed by the Sharks on 2 September.
You see? Hjalmarsson’s offer sheet was a ruse to get Niemi under contract who will play for revenge against his old team, beat them, and put the Sharks in the Stanley Cup Finals next year.
Now throw me a line, haul me in and give me a towel, you unhelpful twit – it’s cold in the water…
Three things I say to this one. First off, had Chicago not matched Hjalmarsson’s offer sheet, the Sharks would have taken him and paid the contract because they likely saw him as a future replacement to Rob Blake.
Second, when you lose your star goalie, you need a replacement and Niemi was available.
And third, if they did pick up Niemi to spite the ‘Hawks after they walked away from that Arbitration award, good on ‘em. In case you haven’t really noticed the game, Hockey is combat in a cold place. And ‘All’s fair,’ they like to say.
So here, just hold this anchor I am handing you so you can go down with your theories to the cold depths of, well, you know. You strike me as the kind who watches a terrorist attack unfold against your own troops on CNN and provide running commentary on how the militants could have been successful.
Buh-Bye.
…Conspiracy theories…
…Not even mildly entertaining...
…Of course, they would be brilliant if San Jose could have seen all of the dominoes falling exactly that way. And Lou does remind you of a wily old fox, doesn’t he…
…Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. COME ON, BREEZE! Just a little puff of air would be nice.
Just to nudge us through to mid-September….
Take me to On Goal Analysis
Showing posts with label CBA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBA. Show all posts
Thursday, September 2, 2010
1. 4.
The Next CBA Simulation: What Did We Learn? – The Colonel
In “The Next CBA: Part I,” a new construct for the NHL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement between Management/The League and Players was offered. It was not a complete CBA re-write because, knowing there are some good things in the current CBA, there are things that just do not need to be changed.
Instead, it addressed the one issue standing as potentially the most contentious in 2012. The Kovalchuk arbitration clearly indicates the NHL is out to close the loophole on circumvention of the intent of the Salary Cap. Assuming a formal fix for this issue would be present in any new agreement, the goal of 12,735 words plus 30 charts, in eight blogs over 10 days was to dissect what could be done in order to avert another Lockout over this particular issue.
As a construct to test new CBA changes, recommendations for changing current contract structuring were offered to address Cap circumvention. A ‘simulation’ of sorts then resulted by laying the current salary structure over the top of these changes.
Armed with that information, some conclusions can be drawn about negotiating the next CBA which are offered below. After quickly summarizing the recommended CBA changes, the blog continues to discuss where the bones of contention will arise.
The Proposed CBA
It is not a stretch to offer that the Salary Cap is THE main reason there is exciting parity in the NHL. So for the entertainment value that sells TV/cable/satellite and tickets and allows for growth of The Game, I say the Salary Cap must stay in any new agreement.
I equally stand behind my earlier statements: “…Sew up that loophole tightly, I say. But do it with the least amount of change possible….” That' because revolutionary change, like the current CBA was, is borne out of desperation, takes longer to digest and creates the kind of pause that causes, well, Lockouts. You cannot simply sit down and decide to make revolutionary change to the current agreement after The Cup is raised in 2012. There is simply not enough time over the summer to inform all parties, get in the votes and ratify a new agreement all sides will want to discuss and study in detail prior to signing. If you want a revolution, start now so it can be digested over the next two years.
Instead, the easier solution to get past everyone would be evolutionary change that still includes a Salary Cap while closing the loophole that circumvents the spirit of the Cap right now. Even that change will not be able to pass without compromise from all parties. To that end, the following main points of my proposed CBA were:
1. Maintain a Salary Cap Ceiling starting at $60M U.S. that increases by a modest amount each year
2. Maintain a Salary Cap floor that is never lower than $16M below the Ceiling
3. Every five years, review overall hockey receipts for tickets, merchandise and media monies from any NHL organization and induce a Five-Year Adjustment (FYA) to the base Cap figures
4. Allow for authorized, long-term contracts that can lower overall team Caps for three Franchise Contract Players (FCPs) per team
5. For players not designated FCPs that are under age 35, allow for one-to-three year contracts
6. For players not designated FPCs that are over age 35, allow for one year contracts
7. Set a ceiling for Non-FPC (NFC) contracts, a floor with League Minimum Contracts (LMCs) and a ceiling for Entry Level Contracts (ELCs), all with a predictable, annual salary increase.
8. At the end of FCP, NFC, LMC or ELC agreement, a player becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent (UFA)
9. To bridge the gap where current agreements surpass the restrictions on age or term limits, allow for a one-time, one-year exception followed by UFA status to bridge the gap
Regardless of whether or not these are the exact changes put in place, the ‘simulation’ of doing so team by team in the blogs of the last 11 days were illustrative of points of contention for any new CBA with the same desired end state. Taking the points above one at a time shows the discord.
Based On the Proposed Adjustments, What Did The Simulation Show Us?
Here are the pertinent stats from the analysis:
1. There was an average of 8.23 players per team needing contract adjustments:
a. The highest number was 15 players (CHI)
b. The lowest number was 3 players (WSH)
2. An average of 1.43 players lost 3.16 years of term per team:
a. The highest number of players was 5 (PHI)
b. The highest number of term years was 17 (CHI)
c. The lowest number of players was 0 (ANA, ATL, BUF, CAR, COL, CBJ, FLA, LAK, STL and TOR)
d. The highest number of term years was 0 (same as above)
3. Average amount of current contract money back to teams was $16.188M:
a. Most back was $84.966M (CHI)
b. Least back was -$477.5K (ANA)
One look here and at Larry Brooks’ NY Post column on NHL ‘givebacks’ to approve Kovalchuk’s contract, and you might draw a conclusion that a rudderless NHLPA is likely to sink, and sink fast here. The Lockout drumbeat and signal fires are a brewin,’ you might believe.
But in working through a potential, new CBA and its impact on salaries and the Cap, we learned a few things that if known up front, may make working through the process somewhat easier.
First and foremost is the fact that if you are a good enough player, somebody will find a way to sign you. Sounds simple and flippant, but it actually runs as an undercurrent to inflated free agency contracts and why some players continue to skate on into their 40’s. That fact will never disappear from the game no matter what the construct of contracts becomes.
Next is the point that if teams are going to sign 24 players, on average only 1/3 of contracts needs to be adjusted. Sure the Blackhawks had 15 to redo but, respectfully, they mortgaged themselves to the hilt in succeeding to win The Cup. There were still 17 other teams at, or below, the average number of affected players. So no matter how the new CBA is written, it is likely some current contracts will need to be adjusted.
The average number of redone contracts is weighted heavily against long-term, over 32-year-old players. They are established players with substantial salary. They are losing term based on NFC or LMC status and under 35-years-old limits of three years per contract, plus one-year terms for over-35 players. This is the vast majority of money coming back to clubs, but accounts for only about 10% of players. Renegotiated contracts which are likely in a new CBA will RELATIVELY put more money in teams’ pockets. And other-than entry level contracts from now through 2012 may carry too much term after the new CBA is approved.
But in my proposal, the loss of term equates to UFA status and the ability to bargain up to the NFC maximum starting at $5.75M plus bonuses. This is a contract price 90%+ of the NHL already rests under. And in this simulation, the payback was UFA status. If the League and Management get consensus for a similar restriction to term/Caps in place, they will likely do so only with a compromise on UFA status, the one ‘free’ thing they can give back to players.
Another significant hit on contracts that puts money back into the teams’ coffers is the only group that is truly screwed here. There were 23 players with Entry Level Contracts (ELCs) that the proposed structure indicated were overpaid, often in the millions of dollars. While only a handful of these players will still be under an ELC when 2012 gets here, if the ELC system is going to be cut back in total dollars allowed, it should be done now or all parties will need to determine how to grandfather any approved contracts in.
And based on Larry Brooks’ article in the Post, it looks like the NHL is moving RIGHT NOW to limit the counting of any FUTURE contract money past age 40 and the dollars in any years after the first five in the Salary Cap. This, if you want to call it an attack, strikes at Management who wants more than their cake for the sake of producing a winning team, and Players who are willing to sign that kind of agreement. It should be noted these restrictions will likely be a starting point for the next CBA’s negotiations.
And On Another Note…
A persistent burr under Players’ saddles is the subject of escrow money. While legalese is required in the current CBA, it is still difficult to read and sort through both Section 50.4 (d) (“Escrow Account,” “Escrow Percentage,” “Escrow Agent”) and Section 50.11 (Reconciliation and Distribution Procedures). It may not also be acceptable for salaries to increase or decrease based on a sliding scale driven by my proposal’s Five Year Assessment (FYA) review. But the question should be ‘Does the current Escrow system work, or can something else more palatable be done?’ Look at what we in the military like to call Second and Third Orders Of Effect (OOE):
Task: Take money from players throughout the year in case their total payroll is higher than the Players’ overall Players’ Share of Compensation
2nd OOE: Players lose available capital in their pocket on the assumption the league as a whole may make less profit
3rd OOE: Players are angered because they feel that they are being made to cough up money to ensure clubs break even or make a profit
While the 3rd OOE may very well not be true, the perception is put there because of the 2nd OOE. Though the overall intent was to have Players vested in the overall profitability of the League, it is highly likely the goal was not to make players down-right angry.
So if they are feeling ‘punished for a potential crime,’ ‘taxed without representation,’ or the like, perhaps another course of action could be taken. Perhaps the adjustment comes to all salaries the year following a review that indicates payroll was above the appropriate percentage of total revenues. Done in this manner, players can see where the shortage was and then pay their fair share.
No matter what the final system is, a different system will at least be explored and debated as players would like a replacement for the current escrow format.
And As A Whole…
The League needs to be ready to negotiate length of contract terms in the context of some adjustment to the Salary Cap system.
Management will be highly interested in the Cap and Escrow Systems as they affect operations and profitability each and every day.
The NHLPA needs a representative team that will keep them from being thrown under the bus in the negotiation process. Watching the Kovalchuk Ultimatum, I cannot help but hear the screeching tires and expelling air brake gas.
And none of these Salary Cap/Escrow issues are a simple, snap-your-fingers-and-it’s-fixed proposition. It takes a starting position which incorporates everyone’s minimally acceptable criteria for a solution, produces a new course of action, generates discussion and a vote, and goes back to the drawing board if all sides do not agree. For an inch-thick plus CBA, that is going to take a little time.
As for the whole lot of you out there, don’t forget the fan of the Great Game makes the whole wheel turn. (Fan-generated revenue produces Hockey Related Revenue which drives all other capabilities.) In short, gentlemen, start work NOW on an evolutionary CBA that closes the Salary Cap circumvention loophole so come the first week of October in 2012 we have Hockey.
Cause, durn it all, if the Mayan Long Calendar is correct, I, Fan, want my 20+ games before December 21, 2012 rolls around…
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part I”
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part II”
Take me to analysis for ANA through CGY (U.2)
Take me to analysis for CAR through DAL (U.2)
Take me to DET through MIN (U.1)
Take me to MTL through NYR
Take me to OTT through SJS
Take me to STL through WSH
Instead, it addressed the one issue standing as potentially the most contentious in 2012. The Kovalchuk arbitration clearly indicates the NHL is out to close the loophole on circumvention of the intent of the Salary Cap. Assuming a formal fix for this issue would be present in any new agreement, the goal of 12,735 words plus 30 charts, in eight blogs over 10 days was to dissect what could be done in order to avert another Lockout over this particular issue.
As a construct to test new CBA changes, recommendations for changing current contract structuring were offered to address Cap circumvention. A ‘simulation’ of sorts then resulted by laying the current salary structure over the top of these changes.
Armed with that information, some conclusions can be drawn about negotiating the next CBA which are offered below. After quickly summarizing the recommended CBA changes, the blog continues to discuss where the bones of contention will arise.
The Proposed CBA
It is not a stretch to offer that the Salary Cap is THE main reason there is exciting parity in the NHL. So for the entertainment value that sells TV/cable/satellite and tickets and allows for growth of The Game, I say the Salary Cap must stay in any new agreement.
I equally stand behind my earlier statements: “…Sew up that loophole tightly, I say. But do it with the least amount of change possible….” That' because revolutionary change, like the current CBA was, is borne out of desperation, takes longer to digest and creates the kind of pause that causes, well, Lockouts. You cannot simply sit down and decide to make revolutionary change to the current agreement after The Cup is raised in 2012. There is simply not enough time over the summer to inform all parties, get in the votes and ratify a new agreement all sides will want to discuss and study in detail prior to signing. If you want a revolution, start now so it can be digested over the next two years.
Instead, the easier solution to get past everyone would be evolutionary change that still includes a Salary Cap while closing the loophole that circumvents the spirit of the Cap right now. Even that change will not be able to pass without compromise from all parties. To that end, the following main points of my proposed CBA were:
1. Maintain a Salary Cap Ceiling starting at $60M U.S. that increases by a modest amount each year
2. Maintain a Salary Cap floor that is never lower than $16M below the Ceiling
3. Every five years, review overall hockey receipts for tickets, merchandise and media monies from any NHL organization and induce a Five-Year Adjustment (FYA) to the base Cap figures
4. Allow for authorized, long-term contracts that can lower overall team Caps for three Franchise Contract Players (FCPs) per team
5. For players not designated FCPs that are under age 35, allow for one-to-three year contracts
6. For players not designated FPCs that are over age 35, allow for one year contracts
7. Set a ceiling for Non-FPC (NFC) contracts, a floor with League Minimum Contracts (LMCs) and a ceiling for Entry Level Contracts (ELCs), all with a predictable, annual salary increase.
8. At the end of FCP, NFC, LMC or ELC agreement, a player becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent (UFA)
9. To bridge the gap where current agreements surpass the restrictions on age or term limits, allow for a one-time, one-year exception followed by UFA status to bridge the gap
Regardless of whether or not these are the exact changes put in place, the ‘simulation’ of doing so team by team in the blogs of the last 11 days were illustrative of points of contention for any new CBA with the same desired end state. Taking the points above one at a time shows the discord.
Based On the Proposed Adjustments, What Did The Simulation Show Us?
Here are the pertinent stats from the analysis:
1. There was an average of 8.23 players per team needing contract adjustments:
a. The highest number was 15 players (CHI)
b. The lowest number was 3 players (WSH)
2. An average of 1.43 players lost 3.16 years of term per team:
a. The highest number of players was 5 (PHI)
b. The highest number of term years was 17 (CHI)
c. The lowest number of players was 0 (ANA, ATL, BUF, CAR, COL, CBJ, FLA, LAK, STL and TOR)
d. The highest number of term years was 0 (same as above)
3. Average amount of current contract money back to teams was $16.188M:
a. Most back was $84.966M (CHI)
b. Least back was -$477.5K (ANA)
One look here and at Larry Brooks’ NY Post column on NHL ‘givebacks’ to approve Kovalchuk’s contract, and you might draw a conclusion that a rudderless NHLPA is likely to sink, and sink fast here. The Lockout drumbeat and signal fires are a brewin,’ you might believe.
But in working through a potential, new CBA and its impact on salaries and the Cap, we learned a few things that if known up front, may make working through the process somewhat easier.
First and foremost is the fact that if you are a good enough player, somebody will find a way to sign you. Sounds simple and flippant, but it actually runs as an undercurrent to inflated free agency contracts and why some players continue to skate on into their 40’s. That fact will never disappear from the game no matter what the construct of contracts becomes.
Next is the point that if teams are going to sign 24 players, on average only 1/3 of contracts needs to be adjusted. Sure the Blackhawks had 15 to redo but, respectfully, they mortgaged themselves to the hilt in succeeding to win The Cup. There were still 17 other teams at, or below, the average number of affected players. So no matter how the new CBA is written, it is likely some current contracts will need to be adjusted.
The average number of redone contracts is weighted heavily against long-term, over 32-year-old players. They are established players with substantial salary. They are losing term based on NFC or LMC status and under 35-years-old limits of three years per contract, plus one-year terms for over-35 players. This is the vast majority of money coming back to clubs, but accounts for only about 10% of players. Renegotiated contracts which are likely in a new CBA will RELATIVELY put more money in teams’ pockets. And other-than entry level contracts from now through 2012 may carry too much term after the new CBA is approved.
But in my proposal, the loss of term equates to UFA status and the ability to bargain up to the NFC maximum starting at $5.75M plus bonuses. This is a contract price 90%+ of the NHL already rests under. And in this simulation, the payback was UFA status. If the League and Management get consensus for a similar restriction to term/Caps in place, they will likely do so only with a compromise on UFA status, the one ‘free’ thing they can give back to players.
Another significant hit on contracts that puts money back into the teams’ coffers is the only group that is truly screwed here. There were 23 players with Entry Level Contracts (ELCs) that the proposed structure indicated were overpaid, often in the millions of dollars. While only a handful of these players will still be under an ELC when 2012 gets here, if the ELC system is going to be cut back in total dollars allowed, it should be done now or all parties will need to determine how to grandfather any approved contracts in.
And based on Larry Brooks’ article in the Post, it looks like the NHL is moving RIGHT NOW to limit the counting of any FUTURE contract money past age 40 and the dollars in any years after the first five in the Salary Cap. This, if you want to call it an attack, strikes at Management who wants more than their cake for the sake of producing a winning team, and Players who are willing to sign that kind of agreement. It should be noted these restrictions will likely be a starting point for the next CBA’s negotiations.
And On Another Note…
A persistent burr under Players’ saddles is the subject of escrow money. While legalese is required in the current CBA, it is still difficult to read and sort through both Section 50.4 (d) (“Escrow Account,” “Escrow Percentage,” “Escrow Agent”) and Section 50.11 (Reconciliation and Distribution Procedures). It may not also be acceptable for salaries to increase or decrease based on a sliding scale driven by my proposal’s Five Year Assessment (FYA) review. But the question should be ‘Does the current Escrow system work, or can something else more palatable be done?’ Look at what we in the military like to call Second and Third Orders Of Effect (OOE):
Task: Take money from players throughout the year in case their total payroll is higher than the Players’ overall Players’ Share of Compensation
2nd OOE: Players lose available capital in their pocket on the assumption the league as a whole may make less profit
3rd OOE: Players are angered because they feel that they are being made to cough up money to ensure clubs break even or make a profit
While the 3rd OOE may very well not be true, the perception is put there because of the 2nd OOE. Though the overall intent was to have Players vested in the overall profitability of the League, it is highly likely the goal was not to make players down-right angry.
So if they are feeling ‘punished for a potential crime,’ ‘taxed without representation,’ or the like, perhaps another course of action could be taken. Perhaps the adjustment comes to all salaries the year following a review that indicates payroll was above the appropriate percentage of total revenues. Done in this manner, players can see where the shortage was and then pay their fair share.
No matter what the final system is, a different system will at least be explored and debated as players would like a replacement for the current escrow format.
And As A Whole…
The League needs to be ready to negotiate length of contract terms in the context of some adjustment to the Salary Cap system.
Management will be highly interested in the Cap and Escrow Systems as they affect operations and profitability each and every day.
The NHLPA needs a representative team that will keep them from being thrown under the bus in the negotiation process. Watching the Kovalchuk Ultimatum, I cannot help but hear the screeching tires and expelling air brake gas.
And none of these Salary Cap/Escrow issues are a simple, snap-your-fingers-and-it’s-fixed proposition. It takes a starting position which incorporates everyone’s minimally acceptable criteria for a solution, produces a new course of action, generates discussion and a vote, and goes back to the drawing board if all sides do not agree. For an inch-thick plus CBA, that is going to take a little time.
As for the whole lot of you out there, don’t forget the fan of the Great Game makes the whole wheel turn. (Fan-generated revenue produces Hockey Related Revenue which drives all other capabilities.) In short, gentlemen, start work NOW on an evolutionary CBA that closes the Salary Cap circumvention loophole so come the first week of October in 2012 we have Hockey.
Cause, durn it all, if the Mayan Long Calendar is correct, I, Fan, want my 20+ games before December 21, 2012 rolls around…
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part I”
Take me to “The Next CBA: Part II”
Take me to analysis for ANA through CGY (U.2)
Take me to analysis for CAR through DAL (U.2)
Take me to DET through MIN (U.1)
Take me to MTL through NYR
Take me to OTT through SJS
Take me to STL through WSH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
