What are your thoughts on NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's decision to cancel the NHL season?

Chris Cuthbert: Despite all the warnings to the contrary I naively thought there would be a deal. I thought we would be playing hockey because [the NHL] couldn't afford not to play and not to award the Stanley Cup. So, I'm shocked, dismayed and disappointed. I never expected this even though I should've.

Scott Oake: For most of the lockout I subscribed to the theory that there would be a season if only because there had to be one and that the effects of not having one would be catastrophic.

When they came off their cornerstone positions of linkage and salary cap on Monday night, I thought ‘there is no way we cannot make a deal.’ They realized the stakes, they were prepared to jump hand-in-hand over the cliff together not knowing what the damage would be – they would hurt themselves, even possibly kill themselves. So I thought ‘there's got to be a deal now.’

I'm really mystified as to how they were unable to reach an agreement on the last day. I still think there was a deal to be had and hockey could have been played this season. As short as the season would've been, it would have been preferable to what we're getting now – no hockey.

They seemed so close – only $6.5 million apart on the salary cap. What went wrong?

Oake: It seemed like the season was almost doomed from the time they conquered those two points of principle – which was the owners taking linkage off the table and the players acquiescing on a salary cap. After that, both sides retreated to their bunkers and started swinging about very public proposals that they were posting on the internet, doing their best to embarrass each other.

Why were they doing that?

Oake: I don't know.

Cuthbert: This whole thing was set up as a winner-take-all and because of that, these guys didn't want to face off in a final showdown.

Oake: It was interesting the way they conducted themselves since the lockout began. There was perilously little negotiation. Think about it: if they'd got a deal [on Wednesday] it would have been on the basis of 36 hours’ worth of negotiations.

What should the players expect next?

Cuthbert: They shouldn't expect a deal with anything near a $42.5-million salary cap.

Oake: The biggest issue, which Bettman made perfectly clear, is that any new proposal will have linkage – a fixed relationship between player salaries and team revenues.

Linkage was a non-starter for the players and it took nearly five months to get the owners to drop their demand. As optimistic as we all were about the season starting when the two points of principle were conquered, we're equally pessimistic that the next season can start on time now.

How much damage does this do to the league?

Cuthbert: The damage is unprecedented and both sides still have a lot to lose. This could still go for another year.

Oake: It’s huge. It's incalculable. I know that hockey is part of the social fabric in Canada so I'm not so sure the game is in danger in any of the Canadian markets from a fan support point of view, but in the United States I'd be really surprised if the fans come back.

It's going to be a hard sell. When baseball cancelled the World Series in 1994 it took them 10 years to recover.

Cuthbert: And that's a gamble both sides are taking. The owners are betting that, no matter how long it takes, once it's fixed it's fixed, but you can't predict the ramifications of the layoff. [Bettman] is trying to salvage 30 teams, and yet, by being out another year, you have to wonder if 30 teams can get back on their feet.

But, on the other hand, if the owners had accepted a cap of $49.5 million, teams like the Edmonton Oilers would be in peril. As tough as it is for the Oilers' brass say there is no season, I'm quite sure they would have been more upset if Bettman got up and said ‘we're accepting the players' offer.’

During his news conference Bettman suggested he would have listened if the players had pitched a $45-million cap. What are your thoughts on that?

Oake: It was the most disturbing thing at the whole press conference. Bettman said that if they would have just phoned us and indicated they would have taken something less than 49-million, they'd still be talking.

Cuthbert: The most frustrating part -- beyond the fact they waited until the last three days to get anything done -- was that in the last 24-hours, they basically shut negotiations down. It's like trying to climb to summit of Mount Everest and giving up just before you reach the top. You make it almost all the way, before saying 'no we can't get there.'

Oake: The cancellation of the season in this manner is harder to accept than if both sides had remained entrenched in their positions with respect to linkage and salary cap. If they'd stayed the course on those two issues and the season had just been cancelled, people would've figured they are so fundamentally so far apart that it made sense. It's a lot harder to accept when they were so close.

So what now? Do they re-start negotiations?

Oake: They're not going to do anything for two to three weeks, maybe a month.

Cuthbert: At least.

Oake: Both sides will regroup and then it's going to take some effort get them together. Remember, even as the deadline approached, they weren't having face-to-face meetings. [Bettman and Goodenow] were back at their offices hurling emails and proposals at each other.

Cuthbert: The big problem now, Scott, is we know the deal that could've been made. If the new deal is worse for either side a year later – and it's likely going to be worse for the players – someone will have to explain why you didn't take the original offer or not negotiate further. I mean, its conceivable next January that the salary cap could be $36 million or less.

Do the players have any recourse?

Oake: The longer this goes on, the greater the owners' advantage. They at least have the wiggle room to get the season going with replacement players – which Bettman didn't rule out Wednesday. In fact, he pointed toward it. The players’ only recourse is to sit out and sit out.

How about a renegade league?

Cuthbert: The players couldn't organize a trip to Europe last year -- it was a complete disaster. Some players will go back to Europe and make 10 or 20 cents on the dollar there, compared to what they'll make here.

Do you think the players’ union is strong?

Cuthbert: A huge rift has developed because certain guys broke ranks on the salary cap. That was the one thing we were told would never happen. Clearly, there's a split on the issue.

Oake: I don't think all is well with the players [union].

But don't you think this ordeal has galvanized players?

Cuthbert: I think the horse may have been out of the barn, but you're right in a sense. What galvanized the union to some extent was Bettman's ultimatum letter. I think after all the concessions and acrimony it created in the union, then to then find out the league wants more, maybe it was enough to bring the players back together.

So did Bettman's bargaining strategy backfire?

Cuthbert: Both sides share blame. They got almost to the summit and then decided —

Oake: — to go back to the base camp.

Cuthbert: It was almost like, 'that's as far as we can move.’ They seemed like they were there and at the last point they turned around.

Look into your crystal ball. What will the future NHL look like?

Oake: It's going to be a league with a whole lot less revenue. The deal, certainly for the players, will be worse than the one they could have had today. It's simple as that.

Players are going to be very bitter and it's going to take them a while to repair their relationships. But 30 teams? If they get back playing in the fall, sure.

Cuthbert: But, are we talking about using replacement players? Because that's a whole different thing. If they open the doors in September, it could get real ugly. I mean, the product on the ice and the atmosphere within the players’ association. The animosity between the players and the league could be even worse.

Should Bettman and Goodenow be fired?

Cuthbert: That may be the only way. Bettman may have executed everything the owners wanted, but maybe the league – or the union -- needs a fresh face for this to get to another level.

Oake: I felt it was going to be tough for Goodenow after what happened on Monday when they agreed to take a salary cap. His position has always been ‘we are never, ever, taking a salary cap’ and suddenly they were. It became clear there were players who were almost going outside the process to get that done. It didn't look like Goodenow was very happy about that.

Will one of the two gone before hockey starts again? It's possible.

Both?

Oake: I don't know if both will be gone, but it may take one to be gone.