Steve Zipay takes you inside the locker room, home and on the road, with the New York Rangers, and also writes about the NHL, off and on the ice.
With end to mediation, why not open up talks?
With the gremlins on a spree, this didn't post yesterday, although I did express my opinion over on Twitter @stevezipay. Apologies to readers who, I'm sure, are breathlessly awaiting every word from your lockout messenger. Yeah, right. There's a lot of hot air out there; and I don't mean global warming.
So anyway, I had some Keith Jarrett on the turntable, always a contemplative spin (solo from Bremen/Lausanne), and thought this about the owner-player talks: Why not?
Why does anyone think this would be a binding negotiation? At an impasse with the players on stage, why shouldn't there just a conversation/discussion among other owners than the negotiating committee and players? You don't need the lawyers in the room to hold hands. Toss around some new ideas, hear some new voices and then go back to the barristers.
When you shop for a house or a car, do you need your lawyer or accountant with you every step of the way? To close the deal, you need to consult with them, especially on a house, but, I'm confident that I can make some decisions and set some parameters and listen on my own before that. (With my intelligent and beautiful wife having an equal say, of course, ahem.)
So roll the dice, leave the Big Four out of it for one meeting, and maybe even another. If there still no traction to negotiate, then at least there's some clarity that for sure, a majority of the owners and a majority of the players strongly agree that this season should be tanked and the issue ends up in court and we let the self-immolation play out...to the good of no one involved, however tangentially, in the current version of the NHL.
Logic and common sense be damned....