To the surprise of whoever was surprised, Wednesday’s collective bargaining agreement negotiations ended without any progress. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be reason for optimism. 

Multiple reports Wednesday stated the NHL owners are holding firm on their “take it or leave it” offer from last week. That offer is the same one Gary Bettman said was off the table when talks broke off last Thursday. It’s also an offer the players should have taken. 

Nick Cotsonika of Yahoo! Sports said that the offer is not officially back on the table, and that it was discussed in "what-if scenarios" Wendesday with a mediator present. Reading between the lines, that's the billionare equivalent of children asking classmates if they "like" them, but insisting that they're just wondering. 

Maybe it's a case of the owners wanting to look like they're keeping their word on pulling their offer and they won't table it again unless they know it will be accepted. For all intents and purposes, let's assume that offer can and will pop up again. The question is whether the NHLPA is taking it any more seriously. They should.

Without rewriting every word of Tuesday’s column, here’s a recap of the main points of that proposal:

- 50-50 split of hockey-related revenues. 

- $300 million “make whole” going to the players to offset their loss from 57 percent of the hockey-related revenue in the last CBA. 

- Ten-year term on the CBA, with the ability to opt out after eight years. 

- Five-year limit on contracts, with seven-year limits for teams re-signing their own players. 

- No amnesty buyouts (waiving a player without it counting against the cap, while player still gets their salary, which is to be split against their old team and new team). 

Before getting into why that should be an acceptable enough deal for the players, here’s a quick recap of what they countered with (something that made the owners go cuckoo-pants):

- Same terms on the HRR split and make-whole as the owners’ proposal.

- Eight-year term on the CBA, with the ability to opt-out after six.

- Eight-year limit on contracts, with teams allowed to extend players eight years ahead of their current year (or, as a reader put it, pretty much no limit on contracts).

- Amnesty buyouts. 

The major sticking point is the length of contracts. NHL deputy commissioner Billy Daly’s “hill we’ll die on” line in reference to the five-year max has become the 2012 version of “winning,” as over-quoted quotes go.

The line of thinking on this side is simple: If the owners are so obsessed with the five-year limit on contracts, give it to them. Eight-year contracts, as the players are asking for, aren’t common enough to justify missing another season. Remember, just 22 players in the NHL currently have contracts of eight or more years. Yes, some of them were signed this summer before the lockout (Zach Parise, Ryan Suter, Shea Weber), and that means the owners are hypocrites. Duh. Did people not already know that? 

Yes, the owners are unlikable and often despicable, but throwing fits over their tendency to do so is like not renewing your drivers' license because you think the people at the DMV are unpleasant. This is still a negotiation, and the owners' movement last week easily could have been enough to have ended the lockout. 

When last week’s offer from the owners was proposed, the NHLPA did not put it to a vote. Instead, they responded with their counteroffer, which they had every right to do. Again, it’s a negotiation, and when you have Donald Fehr in charge, it’s about getting everything you can. That didn’t work, and with time running out the players should at least take solace in the fact that the owners’ deal hasn't completely gone away. 

Whether the players decide to put something resembling that proposal to a vote remains to be seen. The worst-case scenario is the proposal going away completely, and if that happens, girls can start wearing long tank-tops under their shirts that cover up part of their pants, because it’s going to be 2004-05 all over again.  

Daly’s words were strong when he spoke of how unwilling to bend the owners are regarding contract terms. Maybe they’ll cave, and maybe they won’t, but it isn’t worth risking another lost season to find out. 

Fehr’s reputation as a tough negotiator who gets what he wants is well-deserved, but the need for eight-year contracts doesn’t represent the average NHL player (or it shouldn’t, at least). Most of these guys will never see a five-year contract, so holding out for more, while better for the players, isn’t worth it. 

If the owners’ offer is back on the table, which it seemingly is (but not according to the owners, wink, wink), the players should take it. At the very least, they should vote. There’s been too much of not doing anything going on, and the differences are too trivial to keep the NHL off the ice.