Shame on Gretzky, Lemieux, predicts Brooks

[Bicycle Repairman]

NY Post

Interesting points raised by Larry Brooks, a little bombastic perhaps.

Wiser for 99 and 66 to stay on the sidelines?

Click to read more...

 

[garry1221]

it's by brooks, not even worth reading, and yes i did read it and those are two minutes of my life i'll never get back to do something more useful with

 

[Pepper]

Brooks is nothing but a NHLPA propaganda machine, it's very obvious that he supports Goodenow, most likely because he gets all his 'rumors' from player agents and he doesn't want to offend them.

Just like Al Strachan btw.

That article is so full of biased, uninformed opinions that it's not worth the bandwidth it uses.

 

[thinkwild]

Another great article from Larry. Hate him for hockey rumours all you want, he is one of the few hockey journalists out there who sees through the NHL bs. We need more like him to speak out.

It would put 66 and 99 in an uncomfortable position wouldnt it. So far they have both wisely said that these issues are too complex for them, and best left to the experts who understand this the best. But once it crosses the line to union busting, if they cross that line, their reputations will go down the drain as fast as Pocklington with Gainers.

And good for young Gregory Campbell. Im sure a lot of young players havent thought through all the ramifications of their decisions yet. Especially when that young, it is hard for them to see it. But in the end I think the great majority of them will reconsider their initial rash impulses.

 

[Pepper]

Another great article from Larry.

I stopped reading after this line...

 

[transplant99]

It would put 66 and 99 in an uncomfortable position wouldnt it.

Why?

I don't understand why Gretzky in particular would ever be "uncomfortable" in using replacement players.

He is a former player...so what?

Newsflash!! Every single team in the league has former players in management and/or coaching positions. Why is Gretzky any different in this instance than them??

Mario is an owner first and foremost. Again why would he have any problem icing a team with the best available talent at the time, should replacement players be deigned necessary?

It's just another instance of Brooks blowing hot air and writing something to keep his job until the NHL returns to the ice.

The whole "players wont play for Team Canada if 99 and 66 become involved with a scab league" is just ridiculous. What does one have to do with the other??

Either you agree to play for your country or you dont. Its not based on who else is involved.

Just hilarious stuff and a desperate column once again from North American hockey's biggest windbag

 

[thinkwild]

Like the Russians refusing to play for their country? If Gretzky is leading a Canada Cup tourney, he wont get many of the curent stars to show up if he supports the owners in union busting. He will have to resign that position if they want the best to play. And what makes you think all the ex players in management support union busting? They cant talk remember? And for good reason, their cracks would be showing.

 

[Sanderson]

Well, I think Gretzky is more popular than one of many successful Canadian (national-)teams.

Fans would be more angry about the players not playing for their country...

Using Gretzky being on the "other side" as a reason for not playing would be stupid. It would look childish, like their ego is bigger than their national pride.

Russia's World Cup problems were totally different. Not comparable at all.

 

[espo*]

Canadian players will play for Canada,union busting or not,they'd be villified in Canada for not doing so and they know it,they would'nt dare(except for a few extreme nut case players) Most Canadian players grow up considering it a responsibility to defend Canadian honor on the rink regardless of any union busting,organizational problems(a la russia) nonwithstanding.

 

[transplant99]

And what makes you think all the ex players in management support union busting?

Who said they do? I didn't.

What is a fact though, is that they are employees of the ownership, they collect their paycheques from these guys...so why would they say anything to jeopardize their own careers??

Again, every single team has ex-players in management roles. Gretzky also being the leader of a National team makes not one single iota of difference in the fact that if he wishes to coach in the NHL, and it is deemed that replacement players are the ones he has to work with...he will and has to do it. Or he gets fired like any other employee that is subordinate to his employer.

It means absolutely nothing to players....Gretzky is in management now, he is not on the NHLPA payroll. He is, in fact, the boss for some of them.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

Without agreements with the IOC and IIHF at the present time, the participation of NHL players in the next Olympics are in jeopardy at any rate. Neither is there firm word of a future World Cup. I think it's safe to say there may not be any premier international tournaments for the next decade, with or without Gretzky's participation.

Lemieux probably has more to consider regarding the fallout of a replacement league than Gretzky, IMO. I wouldn't be surprised to see him opt out of a playing role if it were to come to that.

 

[Seachd]

My favorite part:

The participations of Lemieux and Gretzky in such a sham would blacken their reputations for all eternity. Their days as shining representatives of Team Canada would immediately come to an end. Few elite Canadian players — if any — would accept an invitation to play for their country if it were to mean dressing beside union-buster Lemieux. Few elite Canadian players — if any — would accept an invitation to play for their country if the team were to be run by a union-busting Gretzky.

Sure, Larry. Keep telling yourself that. People will suddenly hate Lemieux and Gretzky. More than that, they'll probably be replaced in the public eye by Brooks himself, I'd imagine. People won't be talking about the great players that Gretzky and Lemieux were, and what they'd done for the game - they'll be talking about Larry Brooks, and what an authority he is on all things hockey.

If Brooks was actually aware that he's this clueless, it wouldn't be as funny, I guess.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

NY Post

Interesting points raised by Larry Brooks, a little bombastic perhaps.

Wiser for 99 and 66 to stay on the sidelines?

That you would even post anything written by this bozo suggests your mom should limit your computer priviledges.

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

I started to read this, but then my mind wandered to more interesting things, like....anything else.

 

[wedge]

what an amount of crap

 

[Hasbro]

Fact is, if Lemieux and Gretzky were to lend their names and faces to the league's marketing effort to sell scab hockey, they'd immediately be excommunicated by the players. Forget the goals, the assists, the Stanley Cups, the Olympics, the Canada Cups, the World Cups, the records and the smiles they've generated. All that will recede into the background, the way Pete Rose's 4,256 hits have become nothing more than an interesting footnote to his biography. Instead, Lemieux and Gretzky will become known forever as union-busters, as mere pawns utilized by the commissioner and the Board to win a power struggle against the players.

PETE ROSE?!

Yeah, putting scab hockey on ice (which will be almost a lateral move for the Quins at this point) is really comperable to gambling and tax evasion. Pete still has his knee jerk deffenders, and gambling is the only thing he's remebered for doing against the spirit of baseball. He was a notrious woanizer (even by baseball standards) ruined Ray Fosse's career at an all star game, admitted to taking greenies in an interview, abandoned his first son.

The NFL scabs sure as hell didn't tarnishg the reputations of Pete Rozelle and Joe Gibbs (he didn't exactly get a cold reception in DC this year.)

Brooks is the Ann Coulter of hockey.

 

[K215215]

Perhaps the point he was making passed all of you. If the league does in fact field a bunch of scabs and Gretz coaches and Mario skates with them, they will have turned their backs on the players. None of the Canadian players who 99 had crossed will play for him on team canada, nor will they still respect or play with 66. Plus they will have done a diservice to the game of hockey in taking part in a charade that would conclude with some ECHL clown with his name on the Cup.

You clowns need to get past your jealousy of the fact that the players make big salaries and look at things objectively. These guys are blue collar guys just like you and I who happen to be the best in the world at what they do. They're job is high pressure and their carreer is very short and they deserve to make as much as anyone is willing to pay them.

Newsflash...the owners are not the ones who have busted their butts to get where they are. Take a look at the owners, I'd say probably 95% of them are complete ********. Charles Wong, Bill Wirtz, Comcast. These people want to be guaranteed to make millions and millions of dollars just by virtue of owning the franchise. I believe they should make millions of dollars too, but not because they own a franchise. They should have to make smart business decisions and field a good hockey team.

But, go ahead, trash the players and trash Larry Brooks (one of the few columnists who speaks the truth). Call me an idiot, but I'd rather be an idiot than be on the same side as Gary Bettman and Bill Wirtz

 

[Seachd]

But, go ahead, trash the players and trash Larry Brooks (one of the few columnists who speaks the truth). Call me an idiot, but I'd rather be an idiot than be on the same side as Gary Bettman and Bill Wirtz

...who are the ones trying to get the game fixed. I don't care how hard the players worked to get where they are - their salaries (that they demand, something that a lot of people choose to ignore) are too high, and if it destroys the league, the players will only be able to lay most of the blame on themselves. If the players eventually find themselves without hockey, or playing for pennies, I will have zero sympathy.

 

[thinkwild]

Trying to get the game "fixed"? Ironic wish for a sports fan, By fixed, you must mean guarantee them easy money thus making hockey better?

Just because players demand money, is no reason to give it to them, anymore than you should be bending over for the owners because they demand it.

 

[Seachd]

Trying to get the game "fixed"? Ironic wish for a sports fan, By fixed, you must mean guarantee them easy money thus making hockey better?

I assume you mean the owners? In which case I'm wondering how changing the economic situation is guaranteeing the owners easy money.

What it does do is get that much closer to guaranteeing my team stays where it is, is competitive, in a healthy league, and I don't have to feel the least bit sorry for the players, because they're still making extraordinary amounts of money.

I'd rather have that than what we have now.

 

[djhn579]

I assume you mean the owners? In which case I'm wondering how changing the economic situation is guaranteeing the owners easy money.

What it does do is get that much closer to guaranteeing my team stays where it is, is competitive, in a healthy league, and I don't have to feel the least bit sorry for the players, because they're still making extraordinary amounts of money.

I'd rather have that than what we have now.

Couldn't agree more. A salary cap does not guarantee owners make money. They still have to mange their team properly to make a profit. A salary cap (or even a luxury tax that really inhibits excessive spending) does keep the economic playing field reasonably level so that all teams can survive if managed well. And the players are still extremely well paid.

 

[thinkwild]

All teams can survive now if managed well. Thats the big untold secret.

 

[Seachd]

All teams can survive now if managed well. Thats the big untold secret.

What do you mean? The Oilers have said many times, and have said very recently, that if a proper system doesn't come into place, they're done. It's not hard to understand. And it's not hard to see that it's the same situation for other teams.

That much shouldn't be a secret at all.

 

[patchyfogg]

Wayne and Mario sitting on the sidelines would not be unprecedented:

Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos made millions defending unions. As such, he refused to field a replacement team during '95 Spring Training.

 

[thinkwild]

What do you mean? The Oilers have said many times, and have said very recently, that if a proper system doesn't come into place, they're done. It's not hard to understand. And it's not hard to see that it's the same situation for other teams.

That much shouldn't be a secret at all.

Saskin, who has seen all the books, seems to think Edmonton is making money and is a good investment. Not that had to believe really.

The Oilers have all sorts of lease agreements and expiring contracts to negotiate. They need to project poor right now. If they dont get what they want, they will regrettably have to come to you for ticket price increases. They wont want to do it, but they will have been forced into it by the greedy players. Im sure you'll understand.