The Scariest Night of the Lockout...So Far

The Devils Zone Blog

Diabolically clever commentary on the state of Jersey’s Team

by Nick Casale

Home | Nick’s Names | O Brother | Bettman Sucks | Devils Graveyard

The Scariest Night of the Lockout...So Far

They say this collective bargaining is scary stuff, and boy, did I find that out first-hand Thursday night. For sitting in a dark car, half-in and half-out of the garage like Rose McGowan in Scream, the unthinkable happened: I found myself agreeing with Gary Bettman.
(cue scary music: dunt dunt duuuuuuuuuuuun!!!)
I'd put myself in this unusual location so my car's antenna could pick up NHL Network on SiriusXM. I wanted to listen to Bettman's reaction to Don Fehr's antics just a bit earlier. (That right there was the first sign something was wrong: I was ignoring my normal policy of changing the station/skipping the paragraph any time the little troll speaks/is quoted. But that's how anxious I was to hear the latest developments, on this night that brought the most optimism of the entire 83 days. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and all that.)
So here's the scary part: At one point, I actually said to myself "You know what, Bettman, you have a point there." Yes, I actually said that. To myself. Not aloud. Let's not get crazy here.
The point I agreed with was Bantam-Sized Bully’s assertion that the NHLPA keeps coming up with a new and different "The Most Important Thing To Us" each time the previous one was settled. First it was the make-whole provisions. Then it was player contract terms. Now it's the pension plan. I don't think even the most ardent pro-Fehr, anti-Bettman observer can argue that.
A change of heart?
I bet now you're thinking, "You know, Nick, maybe there's a lesson here. If you open your ears and your mind and actually listen to the guy more often, you may find that you really don't want to see Bettman get on one of those catapulty sling-shot things they have on the boardwalk, and have it mysteriously malfunction the exact moment it's released from pull-back, launching The Commish untethered into shark-infested waters. With a bloody prime rib in each pocket. Wearing a QUINT RULES, JAWS DROOLS t-shirt."
Well you’d be wrong. Because the next morning I heard that same presser a second time, out from under the emotional maelstrom that may have clouded my judgment the previous evening. No, I did not back off my original stance regarding the PA's Most Important Thing shell game. But I did see the twisting of the truth, obfuscation of facts, and downright smugness we've come to expect from The Sultan of Smarminess.
So below are actual quotes from a transcript of the press conference, courtesy of the New York Times Slap Shot blog. Following each are my interpretations.
Bettman-speak: “With that view in mind, the owners…wanted to push ahead and do something bold. And so what they did, among other things, was put virtually a new $100 million on the table Wednesday night in the hope that would help show that we wanted to get back to play, which we want to do as quickly as possible.”
Rational, Plain-English Interpretation: Yes, this truly was a bold move. For the first time in these negotiations, the League actually made a move in the players' direction! Of course, that move was simply an offer to pay a bit more (though still not all) of the contracts they signed players to. But it was a move nonetheless.
BS: “The union’s response was shockingly silent, so to speak, in terms of reaction. There was almost no direct reaction – it was, “Thank you, we’ll take $100 million, an approximate $100 million.’”
RPEI: Wait, what? You offered something…the other side said, "thank you, we'll take it"…and that's somehow an inappropriate reaction? OK, we'll forgive Bettman on that one. I mean, how would he know what reaction to expect when you make a concession that’s actually reasonable enough for the other side to accept? Maybe he expected them to say, "Awww, that's awfully sweet...you know what, keep your money. You don’t have to honor the contracts you signed us to. Just knowing you care enough to make the offer makes us happy. "
BS: “The owners were beside themselves–some of them I had never seen that emotional. They said they don’t know what happened, but this process is over – clearly the union doesn’t want to make a deal.
So they went back and reported that to the players, and the player reaction was: ‘Well, don’t leave – let’s see if we can get back on track. Let’s take an hour. Let’s have cooler heads prevail.’”
RPEI: I can’t even wrap my head around these two paragraphs—which did indeed follow in succession, just as shown above. Maybe John Madden will have better luck telestrating this argument.

“Here’s a guy who said, ‘we threatened to walk out’...which in his brain somehow means ‘they don’t want to make a deal.’ See? An, an, and then he said ‘they said, ‘don’t leave, let’s keep trying.’ So BOOM! there’s more hypocrisy: we wanted to leave, they asked us to stay, but they don’t want to make a deal and we do. And that’s what that’s all about.”
BS: It was in that context that once again the owners said: “We’re going to make another bold move…we’re going to give up some of the things that are important to us, such as in the player contract area.”
RPEI: Again, I’ll ask a guest writer to handle this one. Noah Webster?
Negotiate (nuh GO shee ate)  transitive and intransitive verb To attempt to come to an agreement on something through discussion and compromise
Compromise (COM pruh mize) noun Something accepted rather than wanted; something that somebody accepts because what was wanted is unattainable
BS: “And the owners, in light of what happened with the $100 million, said: ‘You know what? We’re going to tell you the three or four things that we need…and we need you to give us those things the way we’ve asked for them, because we’ve given up a lot of other things. And if you do that, then we’ll get your pension done. There’s a lot to work out, but we’ll figure out how to do that, because we know now that’s important to you.’ ”
RPEI: So here, once again, the Count of Condescension is saying, “Give us exactly what we want, to the comma, no negotiating and no questions asked. Do that, and we’ll work together to figure out your silly nonsense.”
What’s another word for ‘thesaurus’?
I don’t know the answer to this age-old mystery, first proposed by the great philosopher Steven Wright. But it’s a swell segue into the next section, in which I give 3 examples from the same speech of Gary Bettman using different words to say, “Take it or leave it.”
1. “But we’re going to tell you the things that are vitally important to us that we need to have.”
2. “We don’t need movement in those key elements—we needed those key elements”
3. “So today, we were expecting an answer, a yes or a no. And our instruction from ownership was, if you get the yes, we can proceed and try and get the pension wrapped up and do the other things—and if the answer was no, then there was no point in continuing the discussions.”
I’ll conclude this marathon post by riffing off of Bettman’s own parting words: “I am disappointed beyond belief that we are where we are tonight.”
Well you know something, Gar? I am disappointed—and shocked, and flabbergasted, and horrified—beyond belief that you are where you are today: still heading a sport you've done your best to ruin, solidifying its reputation as a second-rate league, and causing billions of dollars in damage to everyone from the greedy bastards you represent to the poor guy who feeds his kids by selling foam fingers on game night.
Considering the fact the only productive thing Gary Bettman’s done this entire negotiation is to remove himself from it for a couple days, please remind me again: why does this man have a job when so many others are without theirs?
Skate with your head up, Nick

December 8, 2012

“I suuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuck!”

(C) 2012 Nicholas J. Casale | Got a beef? Think I’m brilliant? Talk to me