Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

[Puckhead]

And when my team sucked in the 70's and 80's I didn't blame Montreal or the Islanders or Edmonton. We had crap ownership, and crap players that we drafted or acquired. It took 14 years for Ilitch and Devellano to build them into a champion.

Now onto my selfishness vs. my enjoyment of the game. Why does anybody here watch hockey? Is it for enjoyment? Do you not have more enjoyment if the team you like wins? Isn't the main reason people want a cap-because thats the only way they think their teams can win? Isn't that selfish? I want my team to be able to continue to build throught he draft and contend for Cups. I don't theink they, or anybody else, can do that under a cap. If someone could show me realistic examples of how they could, I'd be happy to listen.

Isn't it selfish to endorse a lockout, when that same lockout will do more harm to the game than Detroit or the Rangers ever could? Why is this point so hard to understand? Maybe people in Canada don't realize the lack of interest in hockey in the US. The World Cup drew a .4 rating on ESPN. Thats about 600,000 people. How can the game survive canceling a season?

Here's one of my proposals. Tell me how unfair it is, or how selfish I'm being. The league made $2.1 billion last year. Pool all of it, and divide it 30 ways. $70 million per team. No cap, no excuses. You spend more than $70 million, you lose money. Too bad.

That is the most beautiful part of the salary cap! Every team that hopes to win, MUST draft well and build from within. As it stands now, you have teams like NYR, and TML who are horrible for the most part at drafting, but it doesn't matter because they can go out and pick up free agents and address their needs that way. With a cap, you can't go out and buy players, because you only have so much money to spend. If you have a great minor league system, you can fill holes in your roster with the young guys from the farm. I think it is an absolute no brainer for the league.

Personally, I am all for folding atleast 4-5 teams, but with a cap those teams actually have a chance at being viable.

 

[joechip]

Well, Marx was a philosopher, not an economist. And I don't beleive in what he wrote.

But what you're not understanding is that under communisim, all of the stored value, etc. of gold is meaningless. There is no money. The basis for exchange is a product's usefulness(use value) The process of creation is what gives an object use value. Going back to my other example: I'm a baker, you're a plumber. You come and unclog a drain in my house, and next week I give you a loaf of bread. This is the cooperation and total equality part. Everyone has everything they need provided to them, all they have to do is use their abilities to produce something someone else needs.

in theory, production exists to satisfy immeiate need. once that need is satisfied, the surplus is traded and society is corrupted.

HT, I see what you're getting at, but the Theory is absolutely flawed because money has usefulness (i.e. stored value is not something you can wish away (a point I'll explain later), otherwise it would have never been created. Something was needed to measure the difference between the quality of my plumbing skills/availability and your baking skills/availability... and that something was money, the most liquid of commodities and that thing transportable and convertible enough to be used to asses all aspects of an individual's immediate, or marginal, needs. The alternatives are certainly legion, and in many circumstances direct barter will work to 'clear' a market, and I have no issue with that.

Stored Value is a measure of the past effort it took to bring a particular thing into being, be it gold from the ground or the flour, water yeast and salt to make bread. Without a system by which we can measure and compare these efforts there is no way for people to assess how much of each to produce. Prices are inherently not arbitrary, as you asserted earlier in this discussion, for precisely this reason. Prices are a reflection of a variety of things, including, but not limited to, as Marx asserted, the
labour that went into its production.

How do you know how much bread to bake without this kind of feedback? Barter and other forms of market 'clearing' can and do function to provide you with that information, but, a competitive pricing system is one that will transmit the most information per transaction than any other, and which you can in turn, transmit to your suppliers and so on. This is so, simply because, those involved in the transactions will be able to best leverage their particular skill set (known as the "Division of Labour") to their greatest effect, maximizing not only their current sense of satisfaction but those that they transacted with, by definition.

Economics and philosophy are inextricably linked because both are, at their most fundamental, ways in which to describe human behaviour relative to their environment. I'm a capitalist (and a Libertarian, btw) and as such see capitalism as both an ethos and a predictor of behavior, much like Marx did with the Labor Theory of Value and its outgrowth Communism.

Good discussion, BTW. I've enjoyed it.

ta,

 

[hockeytown9321]

HT, I see what you're getting at, but the Theory is absolutely flawed because money has usefulness (i.e. stored value is not something you can wish away (a point I'll explain later), otherwise it would have never been created. Something was needed to measure the difference between the quality of my plumbing skills/availability and your baking skills/availability... and that something was money, the most liquid of commodities and that thing transportable and convertible enough to be used to asses all aspects of an individual's immediate, or marginal, needs. The alternatives are certainly legion, and in many circumstances direct barter will work to 'clear' a market, and I have no issue with that.

Stored Value is a measure of the past effort it took to bring a particular thing into being, be it gold from the ground or the flour, water yeast and salt to make bread. Without a system by which we can measure and compare these efforts there is no way for people to assess how much of each to produce. Prices are inherently not arbitrary, as you asserted earlier in this discussion, for precisely this reason. Prices are a reflection of a variety of things, including, but not limited to, as Marx asserted, the
labour that went into its production.

How do you know how much bread to bake without this kind of feedback? Barter and other forms of market 'clearing' can and do function to provide you with that information, but, a competitive pricing system is one that will transmit the most information per transaction than any other, and which you can in turn, transmit to your suppliers and so on. This is so, simply because, those involved in the transactions will be able to best leverage their particular skill set (known as the "Division of Labour") to their greatest effect, maximizing not only their current sense of satisfaction but those that they transacted with, by definition.

Economics and philosophy are inextricably linked because both are, at their most fundamental, ways in which to describe human behaviour relative to their environment. I'm a capitalist (and a Libertarian, btw) and as such see capitalism as both an ethos and a predictor of behavior, much like Marx did with the Labor Theory of Value and its outgrowth Communism.

Good discussion, BTW. I've enjoyed it.

ta,

I totally agree Marx's argument is flawed. There are real reasons why his ideas could never work. What he would tell you is that the quality of your plumbing skills and the quality of my bread are equal, becuase htye both serve to meet the needs of a society. Marx's theoiry was that money was created because of the surplus you talked about. It is that surplus that corrupts the system. The reason the suprlus is created is because production occurs for reasons other than social need, namely profits.

I've enjoyed the discussion too. At least I'm getting some use out of my college education.

 

[hockeytown9321]

That is the most beautiful part of the salary cap! Every team that hopes to win, MUST draft well and build from within. As it stands now, you have teams like NYR, and TML who are horrible for the most part at drafting, but it doesn't matter because they can go out and pick up free agents and address their needs that way. With a cap, you can't go out and buy players, because you only have so much money to spend. If you have a great minor league system, you can fill holes in your roster with the young guys from the farm. I think it is an absolute no brainer for the league.

Personally, I am all for folding atleast 4-5 teams, but with a cap those teams actually have a chance at being viable.

I understand your argument, I really do. My point is that those teams that draft well will not be able to retain all of the good players they draft under a cap. Its not possible. If they can get a system like the NBA's with the Larry Bird rules, I'd be all for it.

A cap also does not ensure total parity. the Clippers choose not to compete. They will always suck. The Lions have won one playoff game since 1957. They haven't benfitted from the cap at all. A cap isnt this pancea that automatically makes everyone a contender every year.

Another point to remember when comparing the NFL's cap to a proposed NHL one. In the NFL, big stars (excluding QB's) can generally come in and contribute right out of the draft, and drafting in the NFL is much less of a crapshoot than in hockey or baseball. For example, the Lions lost a pretty good LB due to the cap, so they drafted a new one, who looks real good. He's probably not as good yet as the previous one, but he does contribute. In hockey, it takes a while for players to develop. So when a player develops into a star over the last 1-2 years of his contract, and his team doesn't have the space to sign him, they lose a lot more than a football team would. They haven't gotten much of a beneft for developing a good player, and now they have to wait another 3-5 years to develop another one, if they're even lucky enough to draft someone they can develop.

 

[joechip]

I totally agree Marx's argument is flawed. There are real reasons why his ideas could never work. What he would tell you is that the quality of your plumbing skills and the quality of my bread are equal, becuase htye both serve to meet the needs of a society. Marx's theoiry was that money was created because of the surplus you talked about. It is that surplus that corrupts the system. The reason the suprlus is created is because production occurs for reasons other than social need, namely profits.

I've enjoyed the discussion too. At least I'm getting some use out of my college education.

Right, and what Marx failed to realize is that 'profit' is the only reason we continue to breathe. One way of looking at the situation is that as long as we can profitably fix oxygen in the bloodstream and transport to the cells we can continue to live. The second that process becomes energetically unfovorable... well, that's a different discussion.

Profit, as expressed above, is simply the opportunity to re-prioritize our scarce time to reduce uncertainty about the future. That he failed to grasp this concept (and worse, his disciples failing to do the intellectual work to realize this b4 they implemented his theories to the ruin of millions of lives) as being a 'net good' to an individual and, by extension, the society the indiviudal lives cements his status as neither a philosopher nor an economist, but , as I said earlier as just someone with a chip on his shoulder.

In other words, without profit, there is no human advancement, striving, or society, the maximization of which he was trying to formulate, but failed at miserably.

... and this is why the NHLPA is wrong, just to bring things back around to what it was we are truly discussing (and keep the wrath of the mods off our 'collective' backs, as it were)

ta,

 

[Seachd]

I understand your argument, I really do. My point is that those teams that draft well will not be able to retain all of the good players they draft under a cap. Its not possible.

Why not? The cap applies to all teams, not just the team that drafted you.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Right, and what Marx failed to realize is that 'profit' is the only reason we continue to breathe. One way of looking at the situation is that as long as we can profitably fix oxygen in the bloodstream and transport to the cells we can continue to live. The second that process becomes energetically unfovorable... well, that's a different discussion.

Profit, as expressed above, is simply the opportunity to re-prioritize our scarce time to reduce uncertainty about the future. That he failed to grasp this concept (and worse, his disciples failing to do the intellectual work to realize this b4 they implemented his theories to the ruin of millions of lives) as being a 'net good' to an individual and, by extension, the society the indiviudal lives cements his status as neither a philosopher nor an economist, but , as I said earlier as just someone with a chip on his shoulder.

In other words, without profit, there is no human advancement, striving, or society, the maximization of which he was trying to formulate, but failed at miserably.

... and this is why the NHLPA is wrong, just to bring things back around to what it was we are truly discussing (and keep the wrath of the mods off our 'collective' backs, as it were)

ta,

But if the NHL is right to want to implement a system that maximizes thier profit(which there is nothig wrong with), why is it wrong for players to want to do the same?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Why not? The cap applies to all teams, not just the team that drafted you.

Yes, but is it not possible one team has more cap space than another?

Lets say the Red Wings and Predators draft equally good players over a 10 year period. Both teams have a Vezina caliber goalie. Nashville's goalie makes $5 million, Detroit's $6 million. Detroit's goalie decides he doesn't want to play anymore, and retires. The same year he retires, Nashville's goalie becomes a FA. Detroit has $6 million in cap space, but Nashville only has the $5 million created by the expiration of their goalie's deal. Detroit offers Nashville's goalie $6 million, while Nashville can only offer the same $5 million he was already making. Being a selfish professional athlete, $1 million is enough of a difference for Nashville's goalie to come to Detroit. Wouldn't it be more fair for Nashville to be allowed to go over that limit in order to keep the all star goalie they developed?

 

[Seachd]

Yes, but is it not possible one team has more cap space than another?

Lets say the Red Wings and Predators draft equally good players over a 10 year period. Both teams have a Vezina caliber goalie. Nashville's goalie makes $5 million, Detroit's $6 million. Detroit's goalie decides he doesn't want to play anymore, and retires. The same year he retires, Nashville's goalie becomes a FA. Detroit has $6 million in cap space, but Nashville only has the $5 million created by the expiration of their goalie's deal. Detroit offers Nashville's goalie $6 million, while Nashville can only offer the same $5 million he was already making. Being a selfish professional athlete, $1 million is enough of a difference for Nashville's goalie to come to Detroit. Wouldn't it be more fair for Nashville to be allowed to go over that limit in order to keep the all star goalie they developed?

Yeah, it's possible. But I thought you meant young players just coming off their first contract sort of thing. By the time players become UFAs, all bets are off anyways.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Yeah, it's possible. But I thought you meant young players just coming off their first contract sort of thing. By the time players become UFAs, all bets are off anyways.

it will be in alot of cases guys coming off their first contract. unrestricted free agency age would have to be lowered if a cap is in place, and teams will sign any decent prospects to long term deals. 6 or 7 year deals are not uncommon for NFL draft picks.

 

[Westlander]

See: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=103310&page=1&pp=15

"No union, no CBA means no entry draft, no standard player contract, and every player is a free agent from day one."

Also, it's illegal to impose anything (like a cap) that imposes limitations on wages without the consent from those whom it's imposed on.

You missed my point. I was not suggesting that there should be no union, or that I thought getting rid of it was a solution. I'm not against unions in principal, and I think the NHLPA has a place.

What I was pointing out is the inconsistancy of people who are anti-salary cap because it is communistic, yet seem to have no problem with the existence of a union, which by it's very nature is communistic or socialist because it restricts the freedom of the individual owner to deal each player as an individual. To oppose one and not the other does not make sense from an ideological perspective. The NHL will not just now become 'communistic' if a salary cap is introduced, the fact is we're way beyond that point.

Personally, I have no problem with either unions or salary caps, but I think as the NHL stands now, the system is slanted too much in favour of the players. This isn't the 1950's where these poor guys need to take on second jobs in the summer, and they 'just want to to earn a decent wage.' Obviously it's a million dollar business, and they're entitled to their piece of the pie, but 75% of total revenue??? Gimme a break.

 

[BobMckenzie]

Marx? Communism? Co-determination? A 10-page thread on isms? What the hell are you guys talking about? Way over my big head. I liked it better when you were making fun of how much I weigh. I do, though, like the title of the thread.

Bob McKenzie

 

[habitual_hab]

You missed my point. I was not suggesting that there should be no union, or that I thought getting rid of it was a solution. I'm not against unions in principal, and I think the NHLPA has a place.

What I was pointing out is the inconsistancy of people who are anti-salary cap because it is communistic, yet seem to have no problem with the existence of a union, which by it's very nature is communistic or socialist because it restricts the freedom of the individual owner to deal each player as an individual. To oppose one and not the other does not make sense from an ideological perspective. The NHL will not just now become 'communistic' if a salary cap is introduced, the fact is we're way beyond that point.

Personally, I have no problem with either unions or salary caps, but I think as the NHL stands now, the system is slanted too much in favour of the players. This isn't the 1950's where these poor guys need to take on second jobs in the summer, and they 'just want to to earn a decent wage.' Obviously it's a million dollar business, and they're entitled to their piece of the pie, but 75% of total revenue??? Gimme a break.

Well, I'm anarcho-syndicalist and being anti-cap and pro-collective bargaining is quite natural. The anarchist in me rejects the authority of the owners to coercively impose one on me and the syndicalist in me is attracted to collective bargaining as a means to an end.

 

[joechip]

But if the NHL is right to want to implement a system that maximizes thier profit(which there is nothig wrong with), why is it wrong for players to want to do the same?

I never said that it was. What I have a problem with is the players calling what they are arguing for a 'free market,' when it is the very definition of a 'regulated' market.

Both should try and get as much from this as they can, without resorting to the courts/legislatures to do so. My argument/opinion is that if both sides had to operate in a 'free market' the owners would break the union in heartbeat and someone would be wearing those god-awful 3rd jerseys come October, not necesarily the ones who were wearing them last year.

Ta,

 

[hockeytown9321]

I never said that it was. What I have a problem with is the players calling what they are arguing for a 'free market,' when it is the very definition of a 'regulated' market.

Both should try and get as much from this as they can, without resorting to the courts/legislatures to do so. My argument/opinion is that if both sides had to operate in a 'free market' the owners would break the union in heartbeat and someone would be wearing those god-awful 3rd jerseys come October, not necesarily the ones who were wearing them last year.

Ta,

I agree its not a free market now. I also agree the player make too much. I think the biggest disagreement we're having is over the league's biggest problem. I think its lack of revenue for small market teams, and a cap does nothing to help that.

 

[joechip]

Well, I'm anarcho-syndicalist and being anti-cap and pro-collective bargaining is quite natural. The anarchist in me rejects the authority of the owners to coercively impose one on me and the syndicalist in me is attracted to collective bargaining as a means to an end.

The other side of that H_H, is the anarcho-capitalist (me) who opposes the owners use of local governments to secure sweetheart deals at the expense of the local citizenry to susidize their hockey operations, and then use that subsidy in a predatory manner to marginalize the smaller markets from competing. This point is also addressed by a Salary Cap. This, btw, is typical in a fascist marketplace... and an epidemic in American culture, btw.

I reject, also, the idea that the owners are 'coercing' the players into accepting anything. The players are free to play for whomever they wish (AHL, CHL, ECHL, EUro-EL's, etc.), start their own league (OSHL), or become carpenters. No one is putting a gun to their heads (the true definition of 'coersion') to play hockey. They don't have to work for the owners who make up the NHL. They've chosen that, and the owners have chosen not to employ their services under any terms that the players have offered.

I sympathize with the players from this standpoint -- They have worked their entire lives (made specific choices to achieve certain goals) to reach the place they are at, and the owners have changed the rules on them. But, the other side of the argument is that this was the risk that they themselves assumed when they made those choices... to become an NHL-quality Hockey player as opposed to anything else. With great reward comes great risk as well. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

When this situation is viewed from this perspective... this is what takes shape:

1) The owners have instituted a salary cap in the NHL. Period.
2) The NHLPA refuses to accept to play under it.
3) When the NHL has waited long enough to gain legal leverage (an artificial constraint on this market) and declare an 'impasse' the league will then be able to go forward with it's intentions.

As long as the owners remain comitted to point #1 the players position vis a vis it becomes more tenuous, and eventually powerless. The NHL is in control of this situation until such time as the players bring a competing product to bear that puts pressure on the league to cave.

Slightly OT: Anarcho-syndicalism is definately viable for the production of some things, and again, it is coersion that I have an issue with (pointing guns at peacable people to alter behaviour, not self-defense). Voluntary associations, be they guilds or unions, syndicates or companies, are the path to maximizing human potential and creativity. I love to see creative solutions to complex problems, and I'm smart enough and humble enough to know that if I don't have an answer for something that doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.

Ta,

 

[habitual_hab]

I reject, also, the idea that the owners are 'coercing' the players into accepting anything.


1) The owners have instituted a salary cap in the NHL. Period.
2) The NHLPA refuses to accept to play under it.
3) When the NHL has waited long enough to gain legal leverage (an artificial constraint on this market) and declare an 'impasse' the league will then be able to go forward with it's intentions.

As long as the owners remain comitted to point #1 the players position vis a vis it becomes more tenuous, and eventually powerless. The NHL is in control of this situation until such time as the players bring a competing product to bear that puts pressure on the league to cave.

Slightly OT: Anarcho-syndicalism is definately viable for the production of some things, and again, it is coersion that I have an issue with (pointing guns at peacable people to alter behaviour, not self-defense). Voluntary associations, be they guilds or unions, syndicates or companies, are the path to maximizing human potential and creativity. I love to see creative solutions to complex problems, and I'm smart enough and humble enough to know that if I don't have an answer for something that doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.

Your first point above is partially true BUT: the owners, by locking out the players, are attempting to put economic pressure on the players to accept the settlement the NHL wants. I believe that to be coercive. But, semantics...

As I understand it, the NHL cannot unilaterally institute a salary cap on the players without the NHLPA's approval. After a certain time the NHL can offer last/best, declare an impasse and then "go forward with its intentions". But at that point the NHLPA could decertify and the NHL would not be able to "go forward with its intentions" as they need their "intentions" to be purified through the collective bargaining process -- unless they can get some scabs to form a players' association that is thoroughly subserviant to the owners (remember Eagleson?). Then I'd expect that owners would be open to lawsuits from former NHLers for collusion.

 

[joechip]

I agree its not a free market now. I also agree the player make too much. I think the biggest disagreement we're having is over the league's biggest problem. I think its lack of revenue for small market teams, and a cap does nothing to help that.

You are right in that a salary cap does not address that directly, but it does have a secondary effect narrowing the potential signing price of a particular player depending on market conditions, i.e. gauging a potential re-signing price is more predictable. Couple this with a revenue sharing plan for those teams that breach the cap (luxury tax) and now it becomes, I think, a much more predictable situation for those in the smaller markets and an environment where they can better field a competitive team.

Ultimately, what is needed is a system that improves competition within the league, because that increases the excitement and desirability of the product. A more desirable product means more fans, interest, revenue, ad nauseum ad infinitum. I think some version of a salary cap/luxury tax is the mechanism by which to achieve this. It'll allow truly privately-owned teams to compete more effectively against government-subsidised ones and create a more predictable environment for players' salaries. Equalization of talent will never happen... but moving in that direction is certainly possible. Maybe I'm wrong.

On another point -- A casualty in all of this mad investment in existing players, i.e. high salaries, is the huge hit taken by many scouting departments, as many teams have had to cut that portion of their operations just to pay for the players they have, leaving less capital available to find new talent and push the old out of the way.

This makes for complaints about watered-down teams and expansion on and on. With so much of the available capial going to maintaining the current crop of talent, there's less and less re-investment in the future, like a factory selling it's machines to pay it's salesforce..... stupid, IMO.

Ta,

 

[Seachd]

Your first point above is partially true BUT: the owners, by locking out the players, are attempting to put economic pressure on the players to accept the settlement the NHL wants.

But that's not even the actual point of the lockout. If there was no lockout, the season would begin using the old CBA. Because the economics of that CBA suck, the owners don't want to continue with the current system.

Economic pressure is just a side effect.

 

[joechip]

Your first point above is partially true BUT: the owners, by locking out the players, are attempting to put economic pressure on the players to accept the settlement the NHL wants. I believe that to be coercive. But, semantics...

H_H, what the owners are doing is not coersion, it may be unpleasant and disrespectful, but ultimately, coersion comes at gunpoint, and when the owners pull those out to get the players to play for them, then I'll side with the players. It's not semantics, it's definition. try a google search on the word. I'm not trying to be difficult about this, or disrespectful, just accurate in our use of the language.

If anything, the only reason the NHLPA hasn't been broken yet is 'fear of future retribution" on the ice on those who 'cross the picket line.' Hmmm.... So, in the end, who is it that that's practicing coersion, here?

Unions have always used the threat of violence to get their way and 'stand tall against the man!" But, the problem is the NHL isn't "the Man!" that title is reserved for the government and the police who have the ability to point guns and enforce their will (the right or wrong of which is a completely OT discussion). The NHL is a business partner, one with control over the working conditions but that is all. If the players don't want to work there, they reserve their right to not play there and I respect that. I disagree with them, but I respect their decision to not work under conditions they find unacceptable.

Lastly, I find it really funny that these same players who are so principled in their fight against a salary cap, and hate those working conditions, are willign to take the ice year after year when truly life-threatening stuff like:

1) the instigator rule
2) seamless glass
3) hard plastic forearm pads
4) touch-up icing
5) slush
6) non-enforcement of hits to the head

are still a part of the game, and could end their careers in a heartbeat.

Hmph.... The more I think about this, the more I say "Bring on the Scabs."

Ta,

 

[habitual_hab]

Let's see. I run a restaurant and in order to have "cost certainty" in my next CBA with my employees I want them to accept a salary cap. They don't like the idea so at the expiration of the current CBA I lock them out of work and pay them no salary - in hopes that they'll become fearful enough of the consequences (poverty) to accept my demands that they would normally not have accepted.

Sounds like coercion to me: intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

 

[Digger12]

Your first point above is partially true BUT: the owners, by locking out the players, are attempting to put economic pressure on the players to accept the settlement the NHL wants. I believe that to be coercive. But, semantics...

The way I look at it, nobody is holding a gun to the players' collective heads to play in the NHL...the owners want to implement a set of rules that in their opinion will fix their ailing league, and if the players don't want to be part of that, they're more than free to ply their trade elsewhere in the world market. Sure they'd only be making a small fraction of their old wages and wouldn't be competing for arguably the most prestigious trophy in north american sports, but the choice is there for them. The NHL isn't the only game in town, it's just the one that pays the most. They can be a part of it, or not.

As I understand it, the NHL cannot unilaterally institute a salary cap on the players without the NHLPA's approval.

I've seen you mention this quite a few times, and I apologise for my ignorance (not being cheeky, I seriously don't know), but how do you know with certainty that this would be the case? Anything concrete, or is this just your interpretation?

The way I understand it, weren't the caps in the NBA and NFL initially unilaterally instituted w/out first going through collective bargaining?

 

[Digger12]

Let's see. I run a restaurant and in order to have "cost certainty" in my next CBA with my employees I want them to accept a salary cap. They don't like the idea so at the expiration of the current CBA I lock them out of work and pay them no salary - in hopes that they'll become fearful enough of the consequences (poverty) to accept my demands that they would normally not have accepted.

Sounds like coercion to me: intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

Yeah, but couldn't said employees just give you the collective finger and go work at another restaurant? It's not like they're contractually obligated to work for you and you alone.

And it's not like your 'cost certainty' would be making them live on a Kraft dinner diet or hoarding the A&W coupons...their average salary would still be more than double what any other restaurant would be willing to offer them.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Ultimately, what is needed is a system that improves competition within the league, because that increases the excitement and desirability of the product. A more desirable product means more fans, interest, revenue, ad nauseum ad infinitum. I think some version of a salary cap/luxury tax is the mechanism by which to achieve this. It'll allow truly privately-owned teams to compete more effectively against government-subsidised ones and create a more predictable environment for players' salaries. Equalization of talent will never happen... but moving in that direction is certainly possible. Maybe I'm wrong.

Then we're in agreement. Nice doing business with you.

 

[Sammy*]

Let's see. I run a restaurant and in order to have "cost certainty" in my next CBA with my employees I want them to accept a salary cap. They don't like the idea so at the expiration of the current CBA I lock them out of work and pay them no salary - in hopes that they'll become fearful enough of the consequences (poverty) to accept my demands that they would normally not have accepted.

Sounds like coercion to me: intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

God almighty, what world do you work. Of course they can do that if their CBA allows them to do it. If their is no CBA , they can offer them whatever they want. Your cook doesnt have to accept it, nor do I have to accept my cooks outrageous demands.Its just as much "coercion" as the players wont play for anything that is a salary cap.
I get the impression (again) that you seem to feel the owners are required to give the players what they want . Players dont like it, leave my sandbox utilize your free market to go to some other sandbox(ie. Europe).