it would be best if no one supported the WHA tourney

[CantHaveTkachev]

So... the Stanley Cup is going to have meaning when it's going to go to a bunch of second or third rate players?

The Memorial Cup is great but it doesn't represent the pinnacle of achievment in hockey. And if there are replacement players in the NHL next season, the Avco Cup (or whatever they decide to call it) will have a greater claim to that "pinnacle" than the Stanley Cup will.

the Stanley cup is the Stanley cup. It has mmore meaning then any Avco cup will ever have...history

I bet this 12-team league (in place where there isn't even NHL teams) will NOT have the same meaning as the Stanley cup...last I checked, no T.V rights have been picked up...the U.S could care less about the NHL let alone the WHA.

In time, players are gonna miss what they had in the NHL. More and more will cross the line in order to get their name on the Stanley cup. It's not like they're not gonna make millions in the new NHL anyways!

 

[Tawnos]

what I'm saying is rocket science.

Player salaries have escalated because of some of the contracts offered by teams in special situations.

Player number renewing contract, I just want whats fair, look at what X got!

I'm not sure what impediment you've got but, I dont think blinders are my problem.

That's how a job market works

It doesn't matter if its athletes, movie stars, factory workers, teachers, Dunkin Donuts counter workers. This is how all job markets work. People see that others doing the same job as them get paid more, they want a raise. And if they don't get the raise and the oppurtunity arises to get paid more at a different company, they'll jump. This is how a job market works.

 

[Tawnos]

the Stanley cup is the Stanley cup. It has mmore meaning then any Avco cup will ever have...history

I bet this 12-team league (in place where there isn't even NHL teams) will NOT have the same meaning as the Stanley cup...last I checked, no T.V rights have been picked up...the U.S could care less about the NHL let alone the WHA.

In time, players are gonna miss what they had in the NHL. More and more will cross the line in order to get their name on the Stanley cup. It's not like they're not gonna make millions in the new NHL anyways!

Having 2nd and 3rd rate players playing for a Stanley Cup is a MOCKERY of that very history you're talking about. Once replacements' names go on the Cup, IMO the Cup should be de-legitimized forever. It's not that these names aren't NHLPA names, it's that they don't represent the best of the best. It no longer is a symbol of excellence in the game, but rather of the corporation that is the NHL.

 

[AM]

and by your behaviour

That's how a job market works

It doesn't matter if its athletes, movie stars, factory workers, teachers, Dunkin Donuts counter workers. This is how all job markets work. People see that others doing the same job as them get paid more, they want a raise. And if they don't get the raise and the oppurtunity arises to get paid more at a different company, they'll jump. This is how a job market works.

if you kill off your employer you'll be sitting at home twidling your thumbs making 0...

So whats your point?

You see, I'm assuming NHL players are inteligent and like to continue working, rather then being market forces....

 

[Timmy]

And how many players didn't do that? How many players settled during training camp in time for the season, which is really all that matters? How many players were content to negotiate the best contract they can get through fair negotiations. The VAST VAST majority of players do that. So those who hold out become the exception to the rule.

As AM so eloquently put it earlier, the exception proves the rule. How many players seriously hold out in a given season? 6? 7? 10? Even if it is 2 or 3 per team, thats 90 max. Out of SEVEN HUNDRED?? Less than 15% at the most. Players get villified for a group that never even accounts for a 5th of their membership. And somehow the owners have no choice to cave when it's a very select group that holds out. The fans, the media... none of that matters. It doesn't now and it didn't then. So don't give me that garbage. If the fans mattered, we never would've had a cancelled season. Period.

If the owners really cared about the fans, the players would've been traded at fair market value long before some of the lengthier holdouts ended. Do you really think that the Sharks couldn't get a good return for Brad Stuart?

And if someone with the same statistics as you gets paid $4mil, why should you settle for any less? Most players aren't stupid. Given the business oriented aspect of the game, do you really think players care where they play? I know very few people who would turn down a job that pays them double what they're getting now, for the same job, out of loyalty to their employer. And still, a good number of players are deluded and misled by their agents as well. Both are causes of hold-outs. And both can be stood up to.

Para1 The holdouts have always won, either by the owner signing the player or trading him to someone who's willing to meet his demands. The exception to the rule just set a new benchmark for all the other members.

Para2 When two or three players per team holdout and win on a team of twenty players where only eight of them have contracts coming up for renewal, then it's closer to 25%, or one in four. And if they have been successful in moving the benchmark with their actions, their peers may not see the need to hold out, because their raise will be so large just by putting up average numbers.

The fans and the media do matter, because if the media rides you and fans believe what they see and hear, they may stop buying tickets to watch your product. And if fans stop buying tickets to watch your product, you aren't making any money. So you'd better sign someone to show the city you care, or you're going to be in Islanderville very quickly.

Para3 So the player gets traded, and the new owner signs him, essentially giving into his demands before the trade is consumated. So therefore the original owner always has to give in, especially if he had had to trade away a couple of key guys to get the superstar a couple of years ago. By letting a superstar he traded half the team to get sit in Europe while his team's racking up the L's and emply seats, you are telling me that the owner should just be strong for the good of the league while the business loans he has personally guaranteed to build the stadium threaten to go unpaid? And all the while he's watching other GMs improve their teams? Of course he's going to trade or sign, which means the player always wins.

How is it that the world suddenly changed on September the 15th, when players went from being businessmen in charge of their future to being innocent bystanders on the deck of the Titanic?

Para4 The reason the guy is making 4m is because he put a gun to his owners head and said sign me or you're screwed. So even though his stats were average, he got what he wanted because the owner had to either sign him or trade him for reasons mentioned above. You now get to use him as your benchmark when your contract comes up, and may want to send the guy a thankyou note while you're at it.

In the real world owners can't allow their businesses to fall out of favour with their markets and expect to survive. Fans in Edmonton have been forgiving, but elsewhere they aren't.

To state that the local media and fans don't matter is naive. Ticket sales matter, unless there's a big TV contract that I'm not aware of.

 

[HF2002]

Maybe somebody should access media archives and see how many times an agent said a team's offer was "a joke" to his client before the agents and players wade in about players just taking what was given to them.

How many players in the last ten years didn't start training camp on time due to contract disputes?

Sure, and an agent has never been known to negotiate in the media. How many times have we heard "it's not about the money". Really, then what's it about?

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Having 2nd and 3rd rate players playing for a Stanley Cup is a MOCKERY of that very history you're talking about. Once replacements' names go on the Cup, IMO the Cup should be de-legitimized forever. It's not that these names aren't NHLPA names, it's that they don't represent the best of the best. It no longer is a symbol of excellence in the game, but rather of the corporation that is the NHL.

Cancelling the season and not playing for the Stalney Cup is the biggest mockey of all. Cancelling 2 seasons and the NHL is dead.

Personally, I'd rather see 3rd and 4th liners (and other bigger profile names who cross) playing with heart by blocking shots, giving out big hits, and scoring big goals in order to win the Cup. Not a bunch of babies willing to play for the exact same amount of money in another league to "prove a point".
I'm sure they'll be just as proud to win the Avco cup as the Stanley cup

 

[Timmy]

Sure, and an agent has never been known to negotiate in the media. How many times have we heard "it's not about the money". Really, then what's it about?

It's all about the money.

And not being insulted by a GM's offer. :lol

 

[Tawnos]

if you kill off your employer you'll be sitting at home twidling your thumbs making 0...

So whats your point?

You see, I'm assuming NHL players are inteligent and like to continue working, rather then being market forces....

There's no such thing as a member of the job market who isn't a market force, working or not.

My point is that you criticize the players for doing something (when there was a CBA) that every person does in every job market.

I'm willing to bet you that the players would have played under the last CBA while they worked out a deal during the season. It's a perfectly legal strategy employed time and time again by union and employer. Hell, the NYC Teachers worked without a contract (CBA) for years when Rudy Giuliani was mayor. The players worked without a contract in 1992 before they went on strike. So the owners were unwilling to continue losing money... that's fine. But don't for one second act like it's the players fault that the owners lost money and that the NHL didn't play this year.

 

[Timmy]

My point is that you criticize the players for doing something (when there was a CBA) that every person does in every job market.

I'm willing to bet you that the players would have played under the last CBA while they worked out a deal during the season. .

Of course the players were allowed to use the tactics they did during the last CBA. The owners are saying ten years of that was enough, let's try it our way. The players absolutely made like bandits in 95 CBA. If the projected increases continued for the next ten years, where d'yall think we'll be? Back to the original six (oops, maybe not Montreal, but who cares, right? It's just business and the owners don't deserve to own anything. They should just go bankrupt if they lose money - oops, Detroit and NYR lose money too. Well, bye to them too)?

How far are you willing to go to defend the "principles" of a worker? Kill the host and you're toast.

But you are certainly right about one thing-the players would definitely have been willing to play the season under the old CBA.

In fact, I think you'd find them generous enough to play for the next ten seasons under the old system.

 

[Tawnos]

Timmay,

Benchmarks... those benchmarks started with the Sakic and Fedorov contracts. Both offered by the owners. You can't criticize the players for taking advantage of the system... people are almost never selfless. In their situation, you'd likely do the same thing as they did.

By the way, 2 or 3 players per team is a ridiculous number. I was just saying as a maximum cuz it was the number used before. 2 or 3 players per DIVISION maybe, but not per team. Remember, training camp doesn't count. Only the beginning of the season does.

I meant that the local fans and media don't matter to the owners. You're right, for them to fall out of favor with those groups is ridiculous, but guess what? Bill Wirtz has done it. Jeremy Jacobs has done it. Edmonton fans have been patient, but so what? The owners don't care. Neither do the players, but that's neither here nor there. By the owners giving in to the holdouts, they've screwed themselves. Had they set the precedent that if you hold out, you won't get paid, period... then you'd see much fewer holdouts in the league. The owners decided to not look into the future and the players took advantage... that's the nature of business.

 

[Timmy]

Timmay,

Benchmarks... those benchmarks started with the Sakic and Fedorov contracts. Both offered by the owners. You can't criticize the players for taking advantage of the system... people are almost never selfless. In their situation, you'd likely do the same thing as they did.

By the way, 2 or 3 players per team is a ridiculous number. I was just saying as a maximum cuz it was the number used before. 2 or 3 players per DIVISION maybe, but not per team. Remember, training camp doesn't count. Only the beginning of the season does.

I meant that the local fans and media don't matter to the owners. You're right, for them to fall out of favor with those groups is ridiculous, but guess what? Bill Wirtz has done it. Jeremy Jacobs has done it. Edmonton fans have been patient, but so what? The owners don't care. Neither do the players, but that's neither here nor there. By the owners giving in to the holdouts, they've screwed themselves. Had they set the precedent that if you hold out, you won't get paid, period... then you'd see much fewer holdouts in the league. The owners decided to not look into the future and the players took advantage... that's the nature of business.

Good post, and I agree with alot of your clarifications.

I would say, however, that the owners are now looking into the future to prevent the players from taking advantage of them again.

 

[AM]

read my lips

There's no such thing as a member of the job market who isn't a market force, working or not.

My point is that you criticize the players for doing something (when there was a CBA) that every person does in every job market.

I'm willing to bet you that the players would have played under the last CBA while they worked out a deal during the season. It's a perfectly legal strategy employed time and time again by union and employer. Hell, the NYC Teachers worked without a contract (CBA) for years when Rudy Giuliani was mayor. The players worked without a contract in 1992 before they went on strike. So the owners were unwilling to continue losing money... that's fine. But don't for one second act like it's the players fault that the owners lost money and that the NHL didn't play this year.

Its 100% the players fault the position the NHL is in.

Why is the NHL in danger... they are losing money.

Where is the money?

In the players pockets!!

Wake up!

 

[Tawnos]

Of course the players were allowed to use the tactics they did during the last CBA. The owners are saying ten years of that was enough, let's try it our way. The players absolutely made like bandits in 95 CBA. If the projected increases continued for the next ten years, where d'yall think we'll be? Back to the original six (oops, maybe not Montreal, but who cares, right? It's just business and the owners don't deserve to own anything. They should just go bankrupt if they lose money - oops, Detroit and NYR lose money too. Well, bye to them too)?

How far are you willing to go to defend the "principles" of a worker? Kill the host and you're toast.

But you are certainly right about one thing-the players would definitely have been willing to play the season under the old CBA.

In fact, I think you'd find them generous enough to play for the next ten seasons under the old system.

This is ridiculous... you play the season and you negotiate during it. By the way, salary increases slowed to a trickle last offseason... why? Because the owners showed restraint. The first few years of the last CBA worked perfectly until Cablevision and Peter Karamanos decided to destroy the whole thing. In fact, the CBA was working so well that the league extended it before Sakic and Fedorov. They also extended it after that, but I'm not totally sure why.

The players admitted that the salaries have gotten out of control. That's why you have the rollbacks and the luxury taxes. The players' best case scenario would be to stay under the same system. That's why we call the luxury taxes and rollbacks concessions.

The Rangers losing money is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, by the way, and I'm not criticizing you for it... just whoever said it first. Advertising revenue on MSG Network was not counted as being part of their overall revenue. No way did they lose money.

 

[Tawnos]

Its 100% the players fault the position the NHL is in.

Why is the NHL in danger... they are losing money.

Where is the money?

In the players pockets!!

Wake up!

Your post should have said:

"Why is the NHL in danger... they are losing money.

Where is the money?

In the players pockets!!

Who put the money in the players' pockets?

The owners!!

Wake up!"

 

[AM]

what do the players

say when the owners say they cant do that anymore?

Come on you can finish it.

 

[Timmy]

This is ridiculous... you play the season and you negotiate during it. By the way, salary increases slowed to a trickle last offseason... why? Because the owners showed restraint. The first few years of the last CBA worked perfectly until Cablevision and Peter Karamanos decided to destroy the whole thing. In fact, the CBA was working so well that the league extended it before Sakic and Fedorov. They also extended it after that, but I'm not totally sure why.

The players admitted that the salaries have gotten out of control. That's why you have the rollbacks and the luxury taxes. The players' best case scenario would be to stay under the same system. That's why we call the luxury taxes and rollbacks concessions.

The Rangers losing money is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, by the way, and I'm not criticizing you for it... just whoever said it first. Advertising revenue on MSG Network was not counted as being part of their overall revenue. No way did they lose money.

One of the reasons for this "restraint" is because owners thought if there was a cap implemented the next year under a new CBA, they didn't want to get caught out in the cold.

And I agree that a couple have idiotic owners/maneouvres have thrown things out of whack, which makes the new CBA as much a protection from other owners as it does against players and agents.

And I don't particularly care who is making or losing money. If it's a knife-edge right now for the league as a whole, as it is according to Forbes, and ratings continue to plummet, as it is according to Nielsen, then it would seem to me that revenues and expenses are headed in opposite directions, and the league that I love so much is not going to survive the inevitable conclusion.

 

[Timmy]

say when the owners say they cant do that anymore?

Come on you can finish it.

When the owners say they can't do what anymore? (Sorry, I'm a little slow today )

 

[Tawnos]

Cancelling the season and not playing for the Stalney Cup is the biggest mockey of all. Cancelling 2 seasons and the NHL is dead.

Personally, I'd rather see 3rd and 4th liners (and other bigger profile names who cross) playing with heart by blocking shots, giving out big hits, and scoring big goals in order to win the Cup. Not a bunch of babies willing to play for the exact same amount of money in another league to "prove a point".
I'm sure they'll be just as proud to win the Avco cup as the Stanley cup

... not sure how standing up for your princibles makes you a baby. Hockey is a game, life is not. When you stand up for your princibles, whether those princibles are wrong or not, it makes you a person of integrity (outside of certain things like murder, we're talking philosophy here).

The Cup is a symbol. Take away what it symbolizes and all you are left with is a big silver chalice.

 

[Tawnos]

say when the owners say they cant do that anymore?

Come on you can finish it.

The players say "well, we'll give you back 24% of what you promised us and we'll add in a way to slow the increase of salaries down."

The players aren't striking here, the owners are locking them out. There's a tremendous difference.

 

[AM]

so the players

The players say "well, we'll give you back 24% of what you promised us and we'll add in a way to slow the increase of salaries down."

The players aren't striking here, the owners are locking them out. There's a tremendous difference.

admit they were over paid by a whooping 24% then say they want to continue the system that saw them get to 24% over paid.

If I were an owner, I'd want them to pay me back....

the owners arnt even saying that, they just want a system where they can make money and market their teams.

The players are fools not to offer them that... then again, a greedy person is always a fool.

Just ask con man goodenow.

Enough said.

 

[labatt50]

Orignally posted by Tawnos The players admitted that the salaries have gotten out of control. That's why you have the rollbacks and the luxury taxes. The players' best case scenario would be to stay under the same system. That's why we call the luxury taxes and rollbacks concessions.

I'm not sure where you've been, but this is no longer about the players best case scenario, this is about the employers (owners) taking back control of their companies from their employees (players). As owners, that is their right. It is time for the inmates to stop running the assylum. If they don't like it, let them stay in Europe, taking jobs from other players and making less money.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

if the players realize that no one will watch then they will feel more pressure to sign, if the WHA tourney is sold out then maybe players decide to sign on to the new WHA for a start up season and that won't help anyone get back to getting a deal done.

Sorry if this topic was brought up but i wanted it out there, DON'T support the WHA and maybe the players will get back to the NHL.

anyone have a different opinion, or maybe the same?

Well, you got three choices.
1) Support the WHA
2) SUpport scabs in the NHL
3) Support neither.

I'm torn between 1 and 3.
Two is not an option for me. And I'm really not thrilled with the first one, either.
I probably wouldn't buy tickets for the WHA. But I'd probably watch it on the television.

 

[BLONG7]

Orignally posted by Tawnos The players admitted that the salaries have gotten out of control. That's why you have the rollbacks and the luxury taxes. The players' best case scenario would be to stay under the same system. That's why we call the luxury taxes and rollbacks concessions.

I'm not sure where you've been, but this is no longer about the players best case scenario, this is about the employers (owners) taking back control of their companies from their employees (players). As owners, that is their right. It is time for the inmates to stop running the assylum. If they don't like it, let them stay in Europe, taking jobs from other players and making less money.

You are bang on here, but it's not the players that need to understand this, it's their leadership...and until someone is willing to stand up to Goodenow and his executive then nothing will change...goodenow still thinks he has some leverage... :lol

 

[Timmy]

Well, you got three choices.
1) Support the WHA
2) SUpport scabs in the NHL
3) Support neither.

I'm torn between 1 and 3.
Two is not an option for me. And I'm really not thrilled with the first one, either.
I probably wouldn't buy tickets for the WHA. But I'd probably watch it on the television.

Well, if you're the type of person that marks the date on his or her calendar of the NHL All-Star Game, and are talking to people about how excited you are about it, then I would assume you would choose option one.

If, on the other hand, you're the type of person frantically scouring the papers trying to find out who is televising the Vancouver Giants/Kelowna Rockets playoffs, you'll probably choose option two at reduced prices.

If you were simply a casual fan with no real interest in when and in what form the NHL comes back, you would probably choose number three.