Something I don't quite understand...

[R0CKET]

It seems very clear to me. I think it is very easy to understand. Lots of people do understand it because it has been explained by many different people in many different threads on this board. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with the player position.

But you don't understand the player position? When I don't understand a position, I keep working at it until I do. I condemn Osama bin Laden for who he is and what he has done, but I understand why he did it and why he became who he became. How can we expect to beat him if we do not understand him?

Shame on me for missing this one from the original page.

Anyone who has to think for longer than a nonosecond about why bin Laden had his killers murder innocent civillians is really digracefully stupid.

When you see a rabid dog in the process of killing a small child you need to realize that understaning it is secondary to doing everything in your power to immediately exterminate it presense.

This is a regretfully irresponsible comparison to the present NHL dispute.

You should have found something that really makes the point, cuz all this does is make people mad.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Are these players greedy? In that case it was shown many times that the currently locked out players are better off financially if they negotiate the best possible deal NOW and get on the ice. So, greed=make the deal fast. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it must not be greed, no?

I think you have to pick something else to hate the players for. You even have a couple of more plausible candidates in your own post: stupidity, arrogance. Pick your poison.

I respectfully disagree. You do not understand the power of greed and how it can lead a man down a path to destruction, especially when they are weak minded individuals (and hockey players are extremely weak minded individuals). When you consider the stupid things that people will do for money it is very easy to see why players would forgo a years salary to get more.

To me this is a very simple argument. The majority of NHL players have been told they are special their whole lives. They have been allowed to get buy because of their ability with a puck and a stick. People have pandered after them since they were children and they have been built up to be invincible. They believe this to be true. They believe they could not be wrong. It comes with the territory of being a professional athlete.

The players are not the brightest and they listen to people who are supposed to be looking after their better interests (agents) because these people grasp the issues the players do not. The agents (who are told what they can think or say by the NHLPA, or be de-certified) tell the players what to think and what to say, and they dutifully follow that advice as they would their coach during a game. When these guys are told something by someone they "trust", they believe it. No matter how badly it flies in the face of reason. Add in the NHLPA, which the players have to trust, as its their brothers in arms, telling them they don't deserve this, and they do deserve that, and that this is a war that they can win, and you have a very powerful message that goes beyond reasoning to someone not intouch with reality.

You forget that the majority of these guys have never had a taste of reality. They have not gone to regular schools. They have not held regular jobs. They don't even handle their own money. They have not had any of the things common day people classify as reality impact their lives. They have had things given to them their whole lives and these players continue to take and take and take. Its in their makeup. So with that type of back ground, that type of personality, those types of influences, it is very easy to see how these individuals may fall prey to greed. They are no different than the actor who turns down a big money offer becayse they believe they deserve more. They leave a guaranteed $X million on the table because their handlers have them convinced something better is around the corner and that bigger riches are assured.

This is 100% about greed. The players have been convinced that they deserve the same deal that they have been getting, and more. They have been told by everyone they "trust" that they deserve that and then some. They have been told that the owners will cave and that greater riches around the corner. They believe that the golden goose is still able to lay those golden eggs, not realizing that the fine dinner they dined on ealier was the cooked goose itself. To me the players are being handled and are believing what they are being told. This is not only their greed coming into play, but the greed of the agents and those who run the NHLPA (Greedenow). Something has to give for these players to see the folly in their ways. If not they will blindly play in Europe or another league and make 1/10 of what they could make in the NHL, all the time believing that the owners will cave and greater riches are just around the corner. That is textbook greed.

 

[CarlRacki]

Error in consistency here. If they have the choice you outlined, then it was their decision to forego the paycheque, wasn't it?



This is just flat out wrong. There are maybe 200 players who earn the league average of $1.8 million. All but a relative handful are at least approaching 30 if not beyond. The majority have achieved free agency at least once and the first time the player achieves free agency is usually the player's biggest contract.

They did freely offered to have their future earnings cut drastically. If these 200 players wanted to make as much cold hard cash as possible, the obvious choice is to reject any idea of a rollback, demand full payment on freely negotiated valid contracts, and accept a cap. The cap really won't affect them.

This is a no brainer. It is impossible for this to be a greedy decision. They've chosen to act against their own best interests! There can be no denying this. It can't be greed. It can't be stupidity either - they all get expensive advice from lawyers and agents. They all know exactly what they are doing.

I think this is great. None of the owner apologists can explain the player position! Have none of them the intellectual curiosity to puzzle out the behaviour of these people? C'mon. It isn't like the position hasn't been explained. Somebody? Anybody?

Teehee.

Tom

Tom,

I completely understand the players' position and can't honestly say I would act differently if I were in their skates. However, IMO, this sacrifice you speak of is a short-term one being made because they fully expect it to result in a long-term gain. That's what the 24 percent rollback was all about. The players would take a short hit (one to two years for most) in order to keep in place a system that saw their salaries grow more than 300 percent over the past decade. Most of the players - except perhaps the guys in their mid to late 30s - would recover their losses from the rollback within a few years and then start reaping the benefits of the same system as they had for the prior decade.
As you say, it would be hardest for the guys with only a few years left in their careers, but for the most part these are the same guys who received the most benefit from the prior system. So, they're sacrificing a little to save a system that brought them disproportionate wealth.

What the players are doing has very little to do with principle and everything to do business. While I can't blame them for guarding their own interests, my problem with their stance is this:

1) I think it's a loser. I might be proven wrong, but to me it seems the owners hold the stronger hand in this game and will eventually win. As a result, I suspect all this sacrifice you speak of will go for naught. The players will eventually return to work under a cost-certainty system and the sport will have suffered needlessly.

2) While the players fight for their "principle" (which is more accurately defined as self interest) the sport they claim to love and the league that's provided them great wealth and opportunity is dying. It would seem to me that the ultimate self-interest of the players should rest in the good of their sport, not the good of their wallets. If the sport is relegated to WNBA status in the U.S. - and that's exactly where it's heading - eventually so too will player salaries. Obviously that's easier for me to say than for them to do, but I see no other ending for this thing.

FWIW, according to USA Today, about 230 players made above the league average last year, roughly a third of the league.

p.s. Teehee?

 

[YellHockey*]

This is 100% about greed. The players have been convinced that they deserve the same deal that they have been getting, and more. They have been told by everyone they "trust" that they deserve that and then some. They have been told that the owners will cave and that greater riches around the corner. They believe that the golden goose is still able to lay those golden eggs, not realizing that the fine dinner they dined on ealier was the cooked goose itself. To me the players are being handled and are believing what they are being told. This is not only their greed coming into play, but the greed of the agents and those who run the NHLPA (Greedenow). Something has to give for these players to see the folly in their ways. If not they will blindly play in Europe or another league and make 1/10 of what they could make in the NHL, all the time believing that the owners will cave and greater riches are just around the corner. That is textbook greed.

Then why is Dominik Hasek, who has probably signed his last NHL contract on board?

"That’s right. And at my age, I won’t get any advantages from my contract anymore. But it’s not just about me. It’s about 750 guys. In 1994, many players were in my position. But they supported our union. They get something from the other guys you can never buy with money – respect and high esteem.

Maybe your readers have forgotten their names. They weren’t all star players. But they made a great example and we still talk about them."

But I guess Dominik Hasek is just being greedy by towing the PA line. Afterall, he knows there's plenty of $10M a year contracts waiting under the old system for goalies in their 40's.

 

[thinkwild]

However, IMO, this sacrifice you speak of is a short-term one being made because they fully expect it to result in a long-term gain. That's what the 24 percent rollback was all about. The players would take a short hit (one to two years for most) in order to keep in place a system that saw their salaries grow more than 300 percent over the past decade. Most of the players - except perhaps the guys in their mid to late 30s - would recover their losses from the rollback within a few years and then start reaping the benefits of the same system as they had for the prior decade.

The system was that they negotiated a deal with the owners who decided what they were worth to them. It was the incredible revenue growth that sent that value higher more than the system. If you think spending will return to high levels for the the next generation of stars that will ultimately benefit from the fight to preserve a semblance of market principles for allocating whats spent on salaries, you must be expecting the revenues to similarly rise again.

2) While the players fight for their "principle" (which is more accurately defined as self interest) the sport they claim to love and the league that's provided them great wealth and opportunity is dying.

And in the end, the players may care more about this than the owners who arrogantly sit in their sheltered pampered boardrooms with their lawyers devising methods to win a power struggle, which as they said, is more important than playing hockey. It seems owners are counting on it.

 

[CarlRacki]

The system was that they negotiated a deal with the owners who decided what they were worth to them. It was the incredible revenue growth that sent that value higher more than the system. If you think spending will return to high levels for the the next generation of stars that will ultimately benefit from the fight to preserve a semblance of market principles for allocating whats spent on salaries, you must be expecting the revenues to similarly rise again.



And in the end, the players may care more about this than the owners who arrogantly sit in their sheltered pampered boardrooms with their lawyers devising methods to win a power struggle, which as they said, is more important than playing hockey. It seems owners are counting on it.

1. It would be nice to think that the rise in player salaries over the past decade was the result of a rise in revenues, but it's simply not true. According to Forbes - praised for their integrity by none other than Ted Saskin - NHL revenues grew 156 percent between 1994 and 2003. In that same time frame, player salaries grew 276 percent.
That same Forbes report states that in 1994 player salaries were 45 percent of revenues. Ten years later, the report states, salaries were 66 percent of revenues.

2. Uh-huh. The players don't sit in boardrooms with lawyers devising ways to win this power struggle. It's only the owners who are doing that.
As for who cares more about the game ... who cares? To an objective person it seems obvious neither side cares much. But the fact remains that the players have to care more because for most of them it's the only significant careers they're ever going to have and it's the primary means by which they're going to care for themselves and their families for the next four or five decades.

 

[Other Dave]

1. It would be nice to think that the rise in player salaries over the past decade was the result of a rise in revenues, but it's simply not true. According to Forbes - praised for their integrity by none other than Ted Saskin - NHL revenues grew 156 percent between 1994 and 2003.

And franchise values over that same period?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Then why is Dominik Hasek, who has probably signed his last NHL contract on board?

But I guess Dominik Hasek is just being greedy by towing the PA line. Afterall, he knows there's plenty of $10M a year contracts waiting under the old system for goalies in their 40's.

A couple of things.

We don't know who is on board. We hear a lot of comments, but nothing that is not really more than the NHLPA party line. When a player does speak his mind he recants his coments less than 24 hours later so it is pretty obvious the validity of the comments that are anything but inflamatory in nature.

Hasek is a very bad example as well. Here's a guy who has walked away from the NHL, twice, and has only come back for big money contracts. Would that not be considered greed? Hell, right now Hasek is in the catbird seat. He's sitting at home with his family, where he wants to be, knowing that if nothing happens he's lost nothing that he would not have been unhappy about losing in the first place. So stick with your shining Hasek argumnet, because that one actually works best in outlining player greed.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

And franchise values over that same period?

I don't know. Can you pin-point franchise values? Forbes likes to make a SWAG (some wild assed guess) but they are always wrong. All you have to do is look at the sales that have transpired to see that NHL franchises hold very little value, certainly not much more than their expansion fee counter parts. The only franchises that have great values are those that have huge broadcast contracts (Toronto, NY Rangers and Philiadelphia). The rest are going to be hit and miss, depending on the success of the team at that time.

 

[CarlRacki]

And franchise values over that same period?

Franchise values don't pay the bills. Franchise values do nothing for you until you sell the team. Think of it like a house. Having your house value rise 4 percent a year does you no good when you're taking out loans every month to pay the mortgage.

Also, while franchise values have risen, in several cases they have not risen beyond the amount of operating losses for teams.

For example, Buffalo's franchise value has gone from $91 million in 1998 to $103 million in 2004 (again, according to Forbes). But in that same time frame, the franchise has lost $53.7 million. What good does a $12 million increase in franchise value do when you're losing almost $54 million.

Phoenix is another example. In the past seven years, the franchise value has grown from $87 million to $136 million. But they've also lost $61.3 million in that time.

And that doesn't even take into account the fact that seven teams - more than 20 percent of the league - have actually lost franchise value since 1998, an almost unheard of occurrence in professional sports.

 

[Other Dave]

Franchise values don't pay the bills. Franchise values do nothing for you until you sell the team. Think of it like a house. Having your house value rise 4 percent a year does you no good when you're taking out loans every month to pay the mortgage.

Right analogy, wrong conclusions. I can justify running an investment operationally in the red if I can get it to increase in value over the long term. If I can get an interest-free loan on a mortgage, I'm up 4% per annum, right?

 

[CarlRacki]

Right analogy, wrong conclusions. I can justify running an investment operationally in the red if I can get it to increase in value over the long term. If I can get an interest-free loan on a mortgage, I'm up 4% per annum, right?

An interest-free loan on a mortgage? Maybe from your parents, but certainly not a financial institution. Banks usually like to make money on their loans.

Regardless, several teams (eight, to be exact) are running operationally in the red while at the same time not seeing their value increase over the long term enough to cover those losses. With more than a quarter of the league's team experiencing losses on both ends, how can anyone call the NHL anything but unhealthy?

 

[YellHockey*]

Hasek is a very bad example as well. Here's a guy who has walked away from the NHL, twice, and has only come back for big money contracts. Would that not be considered greed? Hell, right now Hasek is in the catbird seat. He's sitting at home with his family, where he wants to be, knowing that if nothing happens he's lost nothing that he would not have been unhappy about losing in the first place. So stick with your shining Hasek argumnet, because that one actually works best in outlining player greed.

Who is to say what Hasek's motivations were when he left Detroit? But to say that greed was his motivation is completely illogical. Did he not have a contract when he retired? It's not like he retired as an excuse to extort more money from the Red Wings. He knew how much he would get if he came back. He had those contracts already.

And if he were truly greedy as you wish to paint him, why would he not be demanding that the PA give in to a cap? After all a year down the drain is a couple of million dollars he'll never see again.

And if he just wanted to sit at home "where he wants to be" why would he be playing in the Worldstars games?

 

[YellHockey*]

Franchise values don't pay the bills. Franchise values do nothing for you until you sell the team. Think of it like a house. Having your house value rise 4 percent a year does you no good when you're taking out loans every month to pay the mortgage.

OK. Lets think of it as a house that is being used as an investment instead of a residence. If you're doing that you're going to be renting out the house that you have a 25 year mortgage on. So lets say that the rent you collect only pays 50% of the mortgage, to be conservative. Although rent will generally increase during the life of a mortgage.

You're paying half of a mortgage on a house that will see its value climb over 250% during the mortgage. You've paid out half the value of the house and you're got an asset worth 2.5 times what it orginally was. That's over 500% return on your investment.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Right analogy, wrong conclusions. I can justify running an investment operationally in the red if I can get it to increase in value over the long term. If I can get an interest-free loan on a mortgage, I'm up 4% per annum, right?

Something many people forget about. NHL franchises were in high demand over the course of the last CBA. How many times were teams bought and sold? Some of those owners bought those teams for the express purpose of re-selling them later on for a huge profit. How did they increase the value of their teams in such a short amounts of time? They add value in the form of high priced players. It definitely contributed to the inflation.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Tom,

I completely understand the players' position and can't honestly say I would act differently if I were in their skates. However, IMO, this sacrifice you speak of is a short-term one being made because they fully expect it to result in a long-term gain. That's what the 24 percent rollback was all about. The players would take a short hit (one to two years for most) in order to keep in place a system that saw their salaries grow more than 300 percent over the past decade. Most of the players - except perhaps the guys in their mid to late 30s - would recover their losses from the rollback within a few years and then start reaping the benefits of the same system as they had for the prior decade.

This is flat out wrong. The arithmetic does not work. Even if we accept the ridiculous NHL position that salaries would zoom back within two years, there is no way the players can recover $1.3 billion. None. Zip. Zero. Haven't owner apologists used this argument to explain why the players would have to give it up?

And in fact, the 230 players who make above the league average make nearly 70% of the $1.3 billion and most of those players are over 30 and on the downside of their careers. These players are getting killed financially. Plus, they can see the end of the career coming. That's almost worse for them. They are losing a year of playing hockey they can never get back.

There is absolutely no doubt that if Mats Sundin - and the 230 other veterans leading the player association - followed their own self interest, we have hockey. This is the reason the players are so difficult to break. They are not acting selfishly. They know they are acting against self interest.

As you say, it would be hardest for the guys with only a few years left in their careers, but for the most part these are the same guys who received the most benefit from the prior system. So, they're sacrificing a little to save a system that brought them disproportionate wealth.

Yes, but they've already got their benefit from the existing system. These are the players who are leading the players. They are sacrificing a lot to maintain the system for the players who come after them. They think the next generation should get the same benefit. Other paid the price to make them rich and now it is their turn. Right or wrong, it is a selfless act on their part.

1) I think it's a loser. I might be proven wrong, but to me it seems the owners hold the stronger hand in this game and will eventually win.

Maybe. The owners have the financial strength, but these veteran players are millionaires who seem prepared to to sacrifice now for the generations of players who come after. Unless that changes, the owners can't win. Maybe it will change.

Just don't call them selfish or greedy because they are definitely not behaving in a selfish way or a greedy way. They are doing this because they feel obligated. They got very rich because, in 1994, the veterans made the same sacrifice for them. The quid pro quo is that ten years from now, Brad Richards and Vincent Lecavalier will make the sacrifice again.

That is a tough position for the owners to break. I'm not saying they won't break it, but if you think we are going to see the players cave this year so we get hockey, I think you are nuts. Baseball players and hockey players play it this way, and as a result, have won every strike or lockout they've ever fought. The senior basketball players did not see it the same way and gave the owners what they wanted.

It would seem to me that the ultimate self-interest of the players should rest in the good of their sport, not the good of their wallets. If the sport is relegated to WNBA status in the U.S. - and that's exactly where it's heading - eventually so too will player salaries. Obviously that's easier for me to say than for them to do, but I see no other ending for this thing.

There are a number of questionable assumptions in this paragraph, assumptions the players do not share. They are not acting for the good of their wallets. They are acting for the bad of their wallets for the sake of future player wallets.

To the players the question is one of fairness for the likes of Sidney Crosby, Ilya Kovalchuk and Brad Richards and the 3,000 Juniors who will be drafted in the next ten years. These are the players who will pay if the veterans follow their wallets today.

1) How much should Brad Richards make over the next ten years? Nobody can say.

2) If he makes $50 million rather than $30 million, where does the extra $20 million come from? Under the owner proposal that extra money has to come out of another player's wallet.

3) When an owner makes a terrible mistake and pays an Alexei Yashin way too much money in 2008, should the owner be the one to pay for the mistake or should all of the other players take less as a result? We know what the answer is under the owner proposal.

Never mind that revenues are impossible to define and never mind that the players don't trust the owners and never mind that it is impossible to say, really, what a fair percentage of the player's share of the pie should be. The owners want a system that turns the players against each other. Every dollar one player earns as a raise has to come out of another player's pocket.

One of the unintended consequences of this is increased selfishness on the basketball court. If another player is successful, he gets more money. At whose expense? It is at the expense of all the other players on the team or in the league.

The owners have to convince Mats Sundin that that type of system is fair to Sidney Crosby. That's really difficult to do - because it isn't fair - and Sundin is apparently prepared to spend millions of his own money to make sure the system is fair for Sidney Crosby.

Furthermore, the owners have to convince Trevor Linden, and personally, I think that is impossible. Someday a generation of hockey players may decide to sell out the future generations but I have a lot of trouble believing it will happen on Trevor Linden's watch.

Trevor Linden was elected by the players because there is not a single one of them who does not respect and like and trust him. They are going to have to throw Trevor Linden over the side to accept linkage and I don't think they will do it.

Tom

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Someday a generation of hockey players may decide to sell out the future generations but I have a lot of trouble believing it will happen on Trevor Linden's watch.

Tom

What a load. And the first bargaining chit offered up by the NHLPA? Rookies and entry level contracts. Yeah, this is all about protecting the young guys. This is all about protecting the top 8% of the PA membership and guaranteeing that they continue to make exorbidant salaries while the role players and youngsters take it in the kiester. If it were anything else the NHLPA would have put the NHL offer where the roll back was adjusted to a vote. But the NHLPA knew better because those players not in the top 8% would have been tickled to be guaranteed $800K er season.

 

[CarlRacki]

OK. Lets think of it as a house that is being used as an investment instead of a residence. If you're doing that you're going to be renting out the house that you have a 25 year mortgage on. So lets say that the rent you collect only pays 50% of the mortgage, to be conservative. Although rent will generally increase during the life of a mortgage.

You're paying half of a mortgage on a house that will see its value climb over 250% during the mortgage. You've paid out half the value of the house and you're got an asset worth 2.5 times what it orginally was. That's over 500% return on your investment.

I think your math is off.
Let's take a look at this with numbers and assume by mortgage you meant mortgage + property taxes.

Let's say you buy a $250,000 house with 20 percent down. So far you've invested $50,000 and you have a $200,000 mortgage. At a current mortgage rate of 5.2 percent on a 30-year loan, you'll paying roughly $1,100 a month in principal and interest. Add another $450 a month for property taxes and insurance and you've got a monthly payment of $1,550.

Now, let's say you're making $775 a month in rent. That means the house is costing you at a minimum $775 month, assuming you have to make zero repairs, never have to replace an appliance, never need a new roof, etc. We know that's not the case, but let's work with it. Over 25 years the house going to cost you $232,500. Add in your $50,000 down payment and we're at $282,500.

At the current high rate of 5.6 annual appreciation on a house in the U.S., that home is worth about $976,200, not adjusting for inflation, in 25 years. When you sell it, however, you're going to pay at least 5 percent to a realtor, so now your return is about $927,400. That's about a 382 percent return.

What's the point of all this? I'm not sure.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What a load. And the first bargaining chit offered up by the NHLPA? Rookies and entry level contracts. Yeah, this is all about protecting the young guys. This is all about protecting the top 8% of the PA membership and guaranteeing that they continue to make exorbidant salaries while the role players and youngsters take it in the kiester.

This is the best you can do? That rookie contracts and an entry level system are unfair? I would argue, the players would argue, and the teams would argue, that some sort of entry level system is very fair. Otherwise teams are forced to pay players for their potential rather than what they actually do. The NHLPA conceded that in 1994.

I call that fair. What do you call it?

The owners claimed that the existing rookie system loopholes defeated the purpose. Even though the players thought that was bunk, in the spirit of compromise, they conceded a tightening. What's wrong with that?

You do not have to agree with the players, but I have accurately set out their position in this labour dispute. I don't understand why you want to pretend it is otherwise. Why is it so important to you to believe it is greed? You would prefer to draw a conclusion that is impossible on the numbers than accept a truth. Why? What difference does it make to you whether it is greed or principle?

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

This is flat out wrong. The arithmetic does not work. Even if we accept the ridiculous NHL position that salaries would zoom back within two years, there is no way the players can recover $1.3 billion. None. Zip. Zero. Haven't owner apologists used this argument to explain why the players would have to give it up?

And in fact, the 230 players who make above the league average make nearly 70% of the $1.3 billion and most of those players are over 30 and on the downside of their careers. These players are getting killed financially. Plus, they can see the end of the career coming. That's almost worse for them. They are losing a year of playing hockey they can never get back.

There is absolutely no doubt that if Mats Sundin - and the 230 other veterans leading the player association - followed their own self interest, we have hockey. This is the reason the players are so difficult to break. They are not acting selfishly. They know they are acting against self interest.





Maybe. The owners have the financial strength, but these veteran players are millionaires who seem prepared to to sacrifice now for the generations of players who come after. Unless that changes, the owners can't win. Maybe it will change.

Just don't call them selfish or greedy because they are definitely not behaving in a selfish way or a greedy way. They are doing this because they feel obligated. They got very rich because, in 1994, the veterans made the same sacrifice for them. The quid pro quo is that ten years from now, Brad Richards and Vincent Lecavalier will make the sacrifice again.

That is a tough position for the owners to break. I'm not saying they won't break it, but if you think we are going to see the players cave this year so we get hockey, I think you are nuts. Baseball players and hockey players play it this way, and as a result, have won every strike or lockout they've ever fought. The senior basketball players did not see it the same way and gave the owners what they wanted.

There are a number of questionable assumptions in this paragraph, assumptions the players do not share. They are not acting for the good of their wallets. They are acting for the bad of their wallets for the sake of future player wallets.

To the players the question is one of fairness for the likes of Sidney Crosby, Ilya Kovalchuk and Brad Richards and the 3,000 Juniors who will be drafted in the next ten years. These are the players who will pay if the veterans follow their wallets today.

1) How much should Brad Richards make over the next ten years? Nobody can say.

2) If he makes $50 million rather than $30 million, where does the extra $20 million come from? Under the owner proposal that extra money has to come out of another player's wallet.

3) When an owner makes a terrible mistake and pays an Alexei Yashin way too much money in 2008, should the owner be the one to pay for the mistake or should all of the other players take less as a result? We know what the answer is under the owner proposal.

Never mind that revenues are impossible to define and never mind that the players don't trust the owners and never mind that it is impossible to say, really, what a fair percentage of the player's share of the pie should be. The owners want a system that turns the players against each other. Every dollar one player earns as a raise has to come out of another player's pocket.

One of the unintended consequences of this is increased selfishness on the basketball court. If another player is successful, he gets more money. At whose expense? It is at the expense of all the other players on the team or in the league.

The owners have to convince Mats Sundin that that type of system is fair to Sidney Crosby. That's really difficult to do - because it isn't fair - and Sundin is apparently prepared to spend millions of his own money to make sure the system is fair for Sidney Crosby.

Furthermore, the owners have to convince Trevor Linden, and personally, I think that is impossible. Someday a generation of hockey players may decide to sell out the future generations but I have a lot of trouble believing it will happen on Trevor Linden's watch.

Trevor Linden was elected by the players because there is not a single one of them who does not respect and like and trust him. They are going to have to throw Trevor Linden over the side to accept linkage and I don't think they will do it.

Tom

Well, that's a mouthful. Time constraints keep me from responding to it all, so I'll respond as best I can.

1. You're right in one regard. Many would not recover the losses of a lost season within a few years. Rather, I intended to say that many would be back at the salary level they're at today within a few years despite the rollback. My bad on that count.
Still, IMO anybody who has five or more years left on their careers will probably benefit more by losing a season and not having a cap than returning to work this year and playing he rest of their careers under a cap. They may never recover totally (though some will) but they'll get much closer to that without a cap than they ever could hope to if a cap is established.

2. I've never called them greedy or seflish. Misled, ill-informed and wrong? Yes. But not selfish.

3. I think you're greatly exaggerating the players' motives in "taking one for the young guys." It's more than that. They know a cap will deflate salaries far greater than a 24 percent rollback and, most importantly, it'll keep them there. As I said above, players with more than a few years left will recover much more of what they lose this year if they outlast the owners than they would if they came back to a cap. In that sense, they absolutely are acting in their wallets' best interests.
I also believe we disagree about the number of players who will benefit long-term by an uncapped league, even if its cost is a lost season.. It's not just Sidney Crosby and Ilya Kovalchuk, but Simon Gagne, Todd Bertuzzi, Marian Hossa and players in their age group.

 

[hockeytown9321]

3) When an owner makes a terrible mistake and pays an Alexei Yashin way too much money in 2008, should the owner be the one to pay for the mistake or should all of the other players take less as a result? We know what the answer is under the owner proposal.

Which is why I laughed when none of the pro cappers took the NHL to task for their triple cap offer this week. They all say the cap won't be a problem if you have a well managed team. Well, what happens in the NHL's offer if you have the most well managed team in the league and another owner signs a stupid deal(or even a good deal) that puts total salaries above whatever percentage they talked about, thus severely lowering the cap for everyone else the following year? Surely even the dimwits here can't call this one fair, can they?

 

[NYR469]

Here is what I don't understand. The players want a partnership. Fair enough. Why is it then, that they refuse to accept tying their salaries to revenues? I mean is this not what a partnership is?

the players NEVER said they want a partnership, the league said they want a partnership...HUGE difference.

of course the league wants to do that without revenue sharing where they would give also, they just want the players to give...and bill daly fully explained the leagues idea of 'partnership' by telling trevor linden that players will have as much say in how the nhl is run as auto workers have in the car industry (ie none)...nice partnership

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Well, that's a mouthful. Time constraints keep me from responding to it all, so I'll respond as best I can.

Teehee.

2. I've never called them greedy or seflish. Misled, ill-informed and wrong? Yes. But not selfish.

I did not mean anyone in particular. I entered this thread because I am tired of the players being labelled as greedy and selfish. Funny how guys who all have high priced agents and lawyers have been misled and ill-informed, eh? We know more about the way it works than the players or their high priced help?

It's not just Sidney Crosby and Ilya Kovalchuk, but Simon Gagne, Todd Bertuzzi, Marian Hossa and players in their age group.

For sure. Not so much Bertuzzi because he's signed through age 32, but all the others. The guys who have already hit their home run (and those who never will) versus those who haven't hit one out of the park yet. That's the way logic says the union should split. There is no split because those who have hit the home run are paying a price to stick with those who haven't.

And those who haven't include players who aren't out of bantam yet.

Tom

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

This is the best you can do? That rookie contracts and an entry level system are unfair? I would argue, the players would argue, and the teams would argue, that some sort of entry level system is very fair. Otherwise teams are forced to pay players for their potential rather than what they actually do. The NHLPA conceded that in 1994.

I call that fair. What do you call it?

The owners claimed that the existing rookie system loopholes defeated the purpose. Even though the players thought that was bunk, in the spirit of compromise, they conceded a tightening. What's wrong with that?

You do not have to agree with the players, but I have accurately set out their position in this labour dispute. I don't understand why you want to pretend it is otherwise. Why is it so important to you to believe it is greed? You would prefer to draw a conclusion that is impossible on the numbers than accept a truth. Why? What difference does it make to you whether it is greed or principle?

Tom

Sure thing Tom. Principle. What ever lets you sleep at night. All I know is that the rookies in the league should be extremely careful when waiting for city transit with a vet. "Hey Rook! Watch out, here comes the bus! PUSH!!!" Yup, that's some principle.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Sure thing Tom. Principle. What ever lets you sleep at night. All I know is that the rookies in the league should be extremely careful when waiting for city transit with a vet. "Hey Rook! Watch out, here comes the bus! PUSH!!!" Yup, that's some principle.

Why bother making this type of stupid post? Either address the issue or admit defeat and slink away. These players got pushed under a bus if you think the entry level system is unfair. They did not get pushed under the bus if you think it is fair to limit the salaries of young players until they prove themselves.

Which is it?

Tom