Gag order on Roenick? Mercury News Thinks So

[arnie]

People are blowing this way out of proportion. Maybe people should have seen more of the press conference. He doesn't blast all of the fans like people are making it out to be. He only came out against the ones who say the only thing players care about is money, in which he was right. .

Oh yeah. How many players in the last 10 years have signed with a team that offerred less than someone else? Money may not be the only think the players care about, it is what determines their decisions.

 

[Timmy]

how do you expect them to attempt to argue against it? obviously they make a ton more, but you spend money as you can... so 24% rollback affects you. we earn money to spend it, not horde it... so being "responsible" is relative to the amount that you make, so i would argue anyone taking a 24% hit is going to have to change the level of spending that is "responsible."

read above... when your salary is X you spend based on X, not on 0. again, i'm pro owner, but this isn't really fair. any normal guy with a high-paying job would have the same exact issues...

again... you make X dollars you spend accordingly... you buy a nice house because (shocker here) real-estate is a GOOD investment to make when you have a lot of money... when suddenly your income stream is gone, that house is a problem for you.

.

Actually, we don't earn money just to spend. We pay down our mortgages, put money into RESPs for the kids' college fund, we make RRSP contributions for our retirement, we pay for life insurance to protect our families, etc etc etc.

What is left over is there for spending.

Now, if a player's average career is 5 years (the span roundly quoted), and he knows this going in, and he makes 1.3m per year, he has earned 6.5m over the course of his hockey playing days.

However, the players have been saying they need to make as much money as they can, because their careers are so short.

That doesn't mean, "I need to make as much as I can to live the high life for five years," that means "I need to make as much as I can to survive in my non-playing retirement.

Therefore, the player should not be taking on a mortgage that can't be comfortably paid off within five years, and should be watching his family's cash flow to ensure that a large portion of after tax, after agent commissions money is socked away to ensure that his family is set for retirement and/or emergencies(he could get injured tommorrow, and then no more contract renewals).

 

[Jester]

Actually, we don't earn money just to spend. We pay down our mortgages, put money into RESPs for the kids' college fund, we make RRSP contributions for our retirement, we pay for life insurance to protect our families, etc etc etc.

spent/invested

invested to spend

invested to spend later

spent on insurance

Therefore, the player should not be taking on a mortgage that can't be comfortably paid off within five years, and should be watching his family's cash flow to ensure that a large portion of after tax, after agent commissions money is socked away to ensure that his family is set for retirement and/or emergencies(he could get injured tommorrow, and then no more contract renewals).

none of this deals with:

a) a lost year of income (which is obviously to some extent the individuals fault)

b) 24% reduction in salary (which was unexpected by all accounts)

c) a sudden artificial line placed on their salary escalation over the course of their expected career.

as said... i'm pro-cap, and pro-owner, but to suggest that the players reasoning is completely idiotic and selfish is a bit much in my opinion.

 

[London Knights]

It's stupid to say that the players aren't in it for the money...they obviously are. But it is equally stupid to say that they don't love the game and only care about the money. It is a combination of both. If you don't love the game, you end up like Daigle, a guy with all the tools, but no heart.

I think Roenick was a victim of selective reporting, but at the same time I think he needs to watch what he says. Being candid is good, and something the NHL needs more out of a lot of players, but when you are a player in a media struggling league, sometimes saying a lot isn't a good thing. As much as I agree with what he says, the problem is you are going to get the people who hear "kiss my a..." and immediately go...screw you JR, go shove your NHL up your "a..." and then kiss mine.

As much as I would love to say, fine, don't let the door hit you on the way out (to these people), the NHL needs them now, more than ever.

 

[futurcorerock]

i'm very pro-owner but...

can you really tell me if your boss at work decided to impose a limit on how much you could potentially make you wouldn't be slightly peeved at him? obviously these guys make a ton of cash, but i completely understand their argument against the idea of a salary cap... i know i'd argue against one at my job.

the quality of the game is the league's responsibility through officiating and everything else. the players sole responsibility is to trying to win the game that they are playing that moment. it's not their job, or the coaches job, to make the game entertaining. they get paid to win... until you pay them to entertain, don't complain to them about the quality of the sport, it's out of their hands. if the NHL would get control of the way officials call the game you would see a massive increase in movement on the ice... look at College Hockey, from what i saw they call EVERYTHING there, which led to a lot of PP's, but also to a lot of flow throughout the game because the players knew if they touched someone they would get called. call the NHL like that and we will see a ton more speed through the neutral zone w/out having to worry about all these rule changes even.

I'd do it if I knew my company would be on the way up, and with their ascent my salary would go up. Also, I'd love to get paid for how good I am at doing something too.

 

[mackdogs*]

Kind of like when the owners threw out "competitive balance & lowering ticket prices" as to why they needed a cap.

It was all BS, this was nothing more than a cash grab on either side.

Lots of teams have announced season ticket prices will be reduced. In some cases by quite a bit. And if you don't think this new agreement will bring about competitive balance, at least about 100 magnitudes from what we are used to, you should find another sport.

 

[Epsilon]

Lots of teams have announced season ticket prices will be reduced. In some cases by quite a bit. And if you don't think this new agreement will bring about competitive balance, at least about 100 magnitudes from what we are used to, you should find another sport.

I guess we should look forward to the competitive balance that existed before the "big markets ruined the sport". You know, when 3 teams won the Stanley Cup in 15 out of 16 seasons.

 

[mackdogs*]

I guess we should look forward to the competitive balance that existed before the "big markets ruined the sport". You know, when 3 teams won the Stanley Cup in 15 out of 16 seasons.

Sure, go oilers.

 

[Timmy]

I guess we should look forward to the competitive balance that existed before the "big markets ruined the sport". You know, when 3 teams won the Stanley Cup in 15 out of 16 seasons.

You mean when teams were able to develop talent, make intelligent trades, and keep their core together after a string of successful seasons without having to dump salaries in order to avoid losing millions?

You mean when a (comparatively) small Canadian town like Edmonton got to revel in the glory of one of the greatest teams assembled without fear of the economics of the game ruining any hope they might have of another run at the cup?

You mean when the "little sister" of New York was able to outshine her big brother and create one of the most wonderful teams to grow up watching without worrying about clubs with deeper pockets coming along to disassemble everything they worked so hard to achieve?

You mean when Habs fans actually had something to cheer about?

 

[Epsilon]

You mean when teams were able to develop talent, make intelligent trades, and keep their core together after a string of successful seasons without having to dump salaries in order to avoid losing millions?

You mean when a (comparatively) small Canadian town like Edmonton got to revel in the glory of one of the greatest teams assembled without fear of the economics of the game ruining any hope they might have of another run at the cup?

You mean when the "little sister" of New York was able to outshine her big brother and create one of the most wonderful teams to grow up watching without worrying about clubs with deeper pockets coming along to disassemble everything they worked so hard to achieve?

You mean when Habs fans actually had something to cheer about?

Nice sweet story there, but you completely missed the point. That was not "competitive balance". And a reserve clause-type system is never coming back in professional sports, no matter how much some fans might want it to be so.

 

[kdb209]

Nice sweet story there, but you completely missed the point. That was not "competitive balance". And a reserve clause-type system is never coming back in professional sports, no matter how much some fans might want it to be so.

Well, I wouldn't say never. Wait until Bain buys the whole league ...

 

[CarlRacki]

Nice sweet story there, but you completely missed the point. That was not "competitive balance". And a reserve clause-type system is never coming back in professional sports, no matter how much some fans might want it to be so.

You're right, there wasn't always competitive balance. The difference, however, was that teams were good and bad largely as a result of how well they assembled, drafted and developed talent. Today player development and smart management fall a distant second and third to finances. Teams that can afford to keep its own talent while adding key free agents along the way are the teams that win consistently. Franchises that can't may put together nice one or two-year runs (see: Calgary) but lack the financial wherewithal to regularly field winning clubs.

 

[Timmy]

You're right, there wasn't always competitive balance. The difference, however, was that teams were good and bad largely as a result of how well they assembled, drafted and developed talent. Today player development and smart management fall a distant second and third to finances. Teams that can afford to keep its own talent while adding key free agents along the way are the teams that win consistently. Franchises that can't may put together nice one or two-year runs (see: Calgary) but lack the financial wherewithal to regularly field winning clubs.

Thank you for translating my usual gibberish into something intelligible.

God I wish my parents weren't related.

 

[Epsilon]

You're right, there wasn't always competitive balance. The difference, however, was that teams were good and bad largely as a result of how well they assembled, drafted and developed talent. Today player development and smart management fall a distant second and third to finances. Teams that can afford to keep its own talent while adding key free agents along the way are the teams that win consistently. Franchises that can't may put together nice one or two-year runs (see: Calgary) but lack the financial wherewithal to regularly field winning clubs.

So I guess loopholes like Montreal having territorial rights to the best Quebecois players for years, and Edmonton bypassing the draft to sign Gretzky then bringing him to the NHL weren't advantages that other teams didn't have?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

People are blowing this way out of proportion. Maybe people should have seen more of the press conference. He doesn't blast all of the fans like people are making it out to be. He only came out against the ones who say the only thing players care about is money, in which he was right. There's a lot of people who come out to games who could care less about hockey and more about the business function they're having.

Its the canadian media who initially blew this out of proportion(TSN). But no one should be shocked over that. That paper is pro-Leafs and really anti-Flyers. especially JR. This is making more news because JR said it, if someone like Yzerman or Sakic had said allot more people who probably say "hmmmm he does have a point". I dont blame JR for being ticked off and frustrated the way the whole process went down. Maybe he could have used a differant choice of words, but i certianly dont blame him for his frustration.

 

[futurcorerock]

So I guess loopholes like Montreal having territorial rights to the best Quebecois players for years, and Edmonton bypassing the draft to sign Gretzky then bringing him to the NHL weren't advantages that other teams didn't have?

The Montreal issue isn't a loophole, at the time there was no draft in place.

And at the time, Gretzky had joined the WHA's Edmonton Oilers. It was the NHL's own decision not to disband the teams or hold a dispersal draft

 

[mackdogs*]

The Montreal issue isn't a loophole, at the time there was no draft in place.

And at the time, Gretzky had joined the WHA's Edmonton Oilers. It was the NHL's own decision not to disband the teams or hold a dispersal draft

Aww come on man, we're supposed to feed the conspiracy troll. No labor talk news = come up with our own entertainment.