5 things that annoy me about the NHLPA (and supporters)

[thinkwild]

Who's team superstar did you wish to steal while prtoecting your team from losing its superstars. Why should you get to buy one? Who does that and succeeds?

I remember a few years when Ottawa ticket prices were about half what they were now, and the Sens were having no success, and everyone complaining about ticket prices. What if they go up to $100, was they cry. What family can afford that. No one will pay, the crowds will drop off if they raise prices anymore. Something has to be done about the CBA. At the time we had about a $28mil payrill. $40mil was inconceivable. Fans revolted, upset at the losing, threatening not to go to games until they bought some UFAs. But management knew better. They waited and developed and gave the young players time, and all of a sudden, everything changes. We have one year of success. Thosetickets are $150 now. We have more sellouts. Winning changes everything.

Calgary wont keep all its players if its losing. Why would they want to keep the player sthey are losing with. THey will have a lot mor emoney to sign them if they keep winning with them. And thats what you want isnt it? Not to makle it easier to get there, its equally tough for everyone, but to keep it once you earn it.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You forgot about the 7 years of re-building without having the ability to bid on a bonafide superstar. If only they could have been able to score Hull, Robitaille and Cujo during that 7 years...

No. If only they had made good use of their draft position and the number of high picks that they had. They did the right thing in the rebuilding program making those trades. It took forever because they didn't draft anybody to go with the excellent young players they acquired by selling veteran stars.

How can you rebuild if you don't draft anybody good?

Tom

 

[Cawz]

No. If only they had made good use of their draft position and the number of high picks that they had. They did the right thing in the rebuilding program making those trades. It took forever because they didn't draft anybody to go with the excellent young players they acquired by selling veteran stars.

How can you rebuild if you don't draft anybody good?

Tom

You buy a Cujo, or a Hull, or a Guerin, or a Bourque, or a Robitaille...

 

[thinkwild]

What good would that do for Pittsburgh, Washington, NYR, or any rebuilding team right now. Those are expensive free agents that get to choose where they want to go. They only help winners. Only winners can afford them. If you want to start buying these players, develop a winner like everyone else - the hard way.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You buy a Cujo, or a Hull, or a Guerin, or a Bourque, or a Robitaille...

Rebuilding teams don't buy these guys. That would be crazy. Good teams can patch here and there with players like this, but none of these players can help a team that sucks. Rebuilding teams go for young guys.

Tom

 

[YellHockey*]

You buy a Cujo, or a Hull, or a Guerin, or a Bourque, or a Robitaille...

And you become the New York Rangers.

Is that what Flame fans want? To match the success of the Rangers?

 

[PecaFan]

Funny, those guys don't look like Rangers to me.

They look like Devils (multiple Cups), Avs (multiple Cups), Stars (Cup), and Wings (multiple Cups).

 

[Cawz]

And you become the New York Rangers.

Is that what Flame fans want? To match the success of the Rangers?

Ya, which one played on the Rangers? They all played on a team with an inflated budget that won the cup.

 

[YellHockey*]

Ya, which one played on the Rangers? They all played on a team with an inflated budget that won the cup.

They all played on a team that developed a solid young core and expanded their payroll through playoff revenues.

You propose that the Flames could become a contender by signing those guys despite being unable to draft talent. The best example of a team that uses that philosophy is the Rangers.

I wasn't talking about the players per se, I was talking about the philosophy.

 

[Cawz]

They all played on a team that developed a solid young core and expanded their payroll through playoff revenues.

You propose that the Flames could become a contender by signing those guys despite being unable to draft talent. The best example of a team that uses that philosophy is the Rangers.

I wasn't talking about the players per se, I was talking about the philosophy.

But in your theory, the Flames should be able to sign a couple stars with their playoff revenue. They have a good base. They have good d-depth. If they signed a couple stars, they would have good o-depth. But they cant because they cant increase their payroll to 60 million. Imagine if they could blow 20 million on 3 players in the off-season to supplement their team, instead of hoping to find the funds to sign Iginla.

But whatever. we're arguing in circles. At least Iginla isnt playing in another league yet, like those other scabs.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

But in your theory, the Flames should be able to sign a couple stars with their playoff revenue.

That would be stupid. The Calgary ownership should pocket that money and quit whining about losses in the previous years. I'm serious. If there had been a season this year, the smart Calgary strategy would be to do nothing.

If the young Flames - Leopold, Regehr, Lombardi, Clark, Kobasew et al - take another step forward the team will get better. If they don't, they won't. Hiring a couple of free agents won't change that. In fact, hiring a couple of free agents will take ice time away from the guys who have to improve for the Flames to improve.

If you are a Calgary fan who thinks the team would be better off hiring free agents, I think you are a very ignorant fan. They got good by giving these players big roles. They will get better as they get better. The Flames can spend the money they made last year in the playoffs if they want, but to what end?

Tom

 

[Hasbro]

I'll reiterate my post from another forum:

I could be more sympathetic to sports unions if they didn't cop an attitude like they were in Harlan County USA. The decent living rhetoric, unwillingness to articulate why they are allergic to a cap, visible apathy to any other issue than money and BS about looking out for the fans is off-putting.

Honestly I think they are a cartel as much as a union. Taking a limited resource and controlling the costs. The counter is always "Nobody held a gun to the owners head and made them hand out these contracts." True that, but nobody holds a gun to my head and forces me to pay $2 a gallon for gas. I can either take an extra two hours to get to work or bite the bullet. I've done what I can to defray the cost, getting a better milage car, voting for mass transit improvements, yet I'm still paying more out of pocket. The same goes for ownership, they have to either pay up or face the consequences of losing players.

I think it's also a luxary being unionized in and off itself. With the switch to a service economy and outsorcing of jobs, collective bargining and workers rights are on the wane.

On a trip to New Mexico this weekend I stopped by the Ludow Massacre memorial. In 1914 Rockafeller strike busters shot up a camp of striking miners. They killed 20 people (12 of witch were women and children.) The UMWA was striking for the right to live outside company towns, get paid in cash instead of company script, shop outside of company stores and an 8 hour workday. Really made this dispute seem in bad taste.

 

[degroat*]

That would be stupid. The Calgary ownership should pocket that money and quit whining about losses in the previous years. I'm serious. If there had been a season this year, the smart Calgary strategy would be to do nothing.

If the young Flames - Leopold, Regehr, Lombardi, Clark, Kobasew et al - take another step forward the team will get better. If they don't, they won't. Hiring a couple of free agents won't change that. In fact, hiring a couple of free agents will take ice time away from the guys who have to improve for the Flames to improve.

If you are a Calgary fan who thinks the team would be better off hiring free agents, I think you are a very ignorant fan. They got good by giving these players big roles. They will get better as they get better. The Flames can spend the money they made last year in the playoffs if they want, but to what end?

Tom

Who is going to step up and fill Conroy's roll? You know, that center that they couldn't retain despite the fact that they made it to the finals.

 

[YellHockey*]

Who is going to step up and fill Conroy's roll? You know, that center that they couldn't retain despite the fact that they made it to the finals.

Daymond Langkow perhaps?

Or maybe Reinprecht or Lombardi?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Who is going to step up and fill Conroy's roll? You know, that center that they couldn't retain despite the fact that they made it to the finals.

What role does Conroy have when the Flames have Langkow, Reinprecht, Kobasew and Lombardi? The Canucks let Andrew Cassels go when they were in exactly the same place. They did not have a role for him. They let him go and gave his ice time to Chubarov and Sedin. As a result, the team got better.

Under the old CBA, there was one way to build a great hockey team. Why on earth would a Calgary fan want the Flames to get off that track and get on another one? How many teams that were in Calgary's position have tried to improve by spending money? Calgary did for one. Can you say Roman Turek and Mike Vernon?

Also San Jose (Selanne), Vancouver (Messier), Phoenix (Amonte), Buffalo (Gilmour, Gratton), Washington (Jagr, Lang, et al), Anaheim (Fedorov), Florida (Bure) St Louis (Tkachuk, Weight) the Rangers (a zillion guys).

I think one of the biggest problems in this debate is that most fans don't have a clue as to how to put together a good hockey team. When Bettman says that teams are put between the rock and the hard place, the hard place is created by ignorant fans and an ignorant media.

Tom

.

 

[chriss_co]

I think one of the biggest problems in this debate is that most fans don't have a clue as to how to put together a good hockey team. When Bettman says that teams are put between the rock and the hard place, the hard place is created by ignorant fans and an ignorant media.

Tom

Man, Tom you and I are on a roll.

I have to agree with u on this part too.

Atleast we both agree that teams are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I have to disagree with the Conroy part tho. Why can't we just keep a guy like conroy longterm? Why do we have to keep interchanging players at a cheaper price to step up and fill his role (#1 center with Iggy... good faceoffs.. good speed... good size... good penalty killer... responsible defensively)

There's no guarantee that Rhino, Lombardi or even Langkow can be as effective as Conroy was with Iggy.

That is a huge loss.

Theres nothing wrong with developing players. I just hate to see small market teams lose those key players when they start getting the big bucks and have to revert back to a devleping role.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Atleast we both agree that teams are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Not in Calgary. If they make the right move, they are geniuses. If they make a stupid move, it is the fault of the CBA. Incredibly, the ignorant fans and the ignorant media bought this sort of stupidity for seven years.

There's no guarantee that Rhino, Lombardi or even Langkow can be as effective as Conroy was with Iggy.

There are no guarantees on the ice. Sutter thinks he is upgrading the team by unpgrading Conroy to Langkow. If it works he is very smart. If it doesn't, we are guaranteed to hear whining out of Alberta about how unfair the league is. They couldn't keep Conroy. Oh, boo-hoo.

Whine me a river.

Tom

 

[YellHockey*]

There's no guarantee that Rhino, Lombardi or even Langkow can be as effective as Conroy was with Iggy.

There's also no guarantee that a 33 year old Conroy will be as effective with Iginla as he was in the past.

But there is one guarantee. There's no way that Conroy will be MORE effective then he was in the past. But any of the guys taking Conroy's job could wind up being more effective then Conroy.

 

[chriss_co]

The one thing I'll miss Conroy that I know noone can replace is Conroy. Its his personality.. his attitude. The guy was so upbeat and so positive in the dressing room. Everyone knows how giddy he was answering questions after a game.

That's irreplacable. Conroy himself.

So why am I upset about this? Well, maybe you would start to understand if year after year you see the same trend happening and your team has no choice but to accept it. Why do we have to accept it? I dont accept it. Thats why I take my stand against the CBA. Call it whining or whatever but this isn't the first time something like this is happening. Its part of a continuing trend that you (union supporters) want to continue and I am against that.

If Langkow works out, will I suddenly praise Sutter and forget about Conroy? Heck no! Whats going to prevent Langkow from leaving after his contract runs out?

This frustration felt in small market teams may seem oblivious to you out-of-towners but its something only u can understand once you have experienced it for several years. Until then there is no point arguing.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The one thing I'll miss Conroy that I know noone can replace is Conroy. Its his personality.. his attitude. The guy was so upbeat and so positive in the dressing room. Everyone knows how giddy he was answering questions after a game.

Well then blame Sutter for the decision, not the CBA. He could have made different decisions. Langkow makes basically the same money as Conroy. Sutter thinks Langkow is a better player. So do I.

Tom

 

[YellHockey*]

This frustration felt in small market teams may seem oblivious to you out-of-towners but its something only u can understand once you have experienced it for several years. Until then there is no point arguing.

I've lived in Ottawa my entire life. Are you trying to tell me that Ottawa is a big market team?

I've watched Ottawa ship out McEachern, Kravchuk, Dackell, York, Prospal, etc and this past offseason it was Bonk and Lalime. It hasn't bothered me a bit. Because I trusted that management knew that it could replace everyone of those players with someone younger and better.

If Sutter can't replace a player like Conroy with someone better, then Flames fans should be looking for someone better as GM.

 

[Onion Boy]

As an NHLPA supporter, the thing I understand least about the owner's position is that a hard cap should be less in their interest than a soft cap with a stiff luxury tax. The point is to generate revenue, a hard cap does not do that. Most of the teams that are struggling financially are well below that cap anyway. The best system is one in which player salaries are directly linked to club revenue. A hard cap is about as far from that policy as having no cap system at all.

 

[Onion Boy]

And there's a big difference between supporting small market teams and supporting teams in non-hockey markets. As a Ranger fan, a team that would undoubtedly contribute to a luxury tax system, I'd much prefer to have my dollars go to Edmonton or Ottawa than Nashville and Carolina.

Of course the owners refuse to discuss soft cap, revenue-sharing systems so I suppose it's a moot point.

 

[thinkwild]

The one thing I'll miss Conroy that I know noone can replace is Conroy. Its his personality.. his attitude. The guy was so upbeat and so positive in the dressing room. Everyone knows how giddy he was answering questions after a game.

That's irreplacable. Conroy himself

I can relate. Fans get an attachment to the players on our team. They make our team. Its not just the laundry. Im sure You would never be hoping for replacement players either.

So why am I upset about this? Well, maybe you would start to understand if year after year you see the same trend happening and your team has no choice but to accept it. Why do we have to accept it? I dont accept it. Thats why I take my stand against the CBA. Call it whining or whatever but this isn't the first time something like this is happening. Its part of a continuing trend that you (union supporters) want to continue and I am against that.

Im an Ottawa fan too. And I can definitely relate to what you are feeling. A few years ago, many fans were furious with our team, and felt so small and weak because it seemed we couldnt sign any big name players. Like Carolina getting Brind'Amour and Francis. Thats who we wanted. Those were our missing pieces. Fans complained constantly, ticket sales trailed off, nobody wanted to watch a bunch of chokers who were just going to lose their players every year.

But fans were wrong to be impatient. There was a method to the madness. The reason we are where we are today as an organization is because we didnt trade away all our young players or load up on long term UFA's. We were still building a team and giving ice time to young players to develop to where we need them.

Calgary has some impressive youngsters, and has the defense and goalie done first, with a true superstar powerforward. Calgary fan are nuts to be worried about money or needing big name players. Conroy is easily replaceable as Yashin was for us. We didnt replace him, we built a different team. Money cant buy you the time you need for some of your young players to get ice time.

And im only a union supporter by default. If the owners didnt have such an outrageous position and strategy and record of lies, fraud, and criminality, I might support them.

As an NHLPA supporter, the thing I understand least about the owner's position is that a hard cap should be less in their interest than a soft cap with a stiff luxury tax. The point is to generate revenue, a hard cap does not do that. Most of the teams that are struggling financially are well below that cap anyway. The best system is one in which player salaries are directly linked to club revenue. A hard cap is about as far from that policy as having no cap system at all.

THats a good point about raising cash. A 50% tax might raise more money than than a 100% tax. If the point is to raise some revenue to stop owners from bleeding, a lower rate is probably better. Especially when the deterence is not really needed for Calgary as they dont big name UFA's.

And the buzz is that the players initially proposed a higher level of revenue sharing, but the owners rejected that much money being redistributed. WHen they proposed a lesser amount, Billy accused them of taking a step backwards.


Linking to club revenue seems the fair way to do it. Agents could make that tough. Players have to feel they aren't forever stuck like Yashin thought he was. He was rare, but I would want to guard against making that even more enticing