I think we should get one thing straight.
Stillman voted in favor of locking out the players.
The vote to lockout the players was unanimous.http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8374747/nhl-commissioner-gary-bettman-receives-unanimous-vote-owners-support-league-imposed-lockout
NHL commissioner Gary Bettman received a unanimous vote from owners Thursday in support of a league-imposed lockout should no deal be reached by midnight ET Saturday.
Just because Stillman just took over the team, doesn't mean he was against the lockout. It's probably quite the opposite. He probably wants the best possible situation for himself and his investors, especially since the Blues struggle to make money.
And just because the Blues had three players involved in the negotiations, what does that mean? How does that somehow imply they weren't part of the problem? I'm not saying they were, but there were A LOT of players involved in the negotiations (too many IMO).
I don't care what others do. Boycott or no boycott. I completely understand why someone would want to boycott and I completely understand why someone wouldn't want to. However, to imply that Stillman was against the lockout is just wrong...and to imply that the Blues players involved in the negotiations were trying to be peacemakers so a deal could get done, is just hearsay...unless someone provides a link.