Dear Stupid, I mean... Dear Kris Draper

Status
Not open for further replies.

adurn

Registered User
Dec 22, 2003
407
0
The players aren't worse than they used to be, they're better. So, expansion hasn't hurt the league, there are a myriad of things that have hurt the league--a lack of time and space, caused by the trap and by the general size of players today (plus an added official), the reduction in neutral-zone space in order to implement the "Gretzky Rule" behind the net (one of the least forward-thinking moves in sports history, I might add), and the combination of players too easily getting hurt and not 'hungry' enough to bring it night in, night out are the main culprits for why the game is the way it is today. IMHO, of course.

Actually, expansion HAS hurt the league. The increase in the amount of teams leads to an increase in the amount of players, and without enough talented players to play on all those teams, more and more middle to low range talent players make it to the league. In order for teams with these players to be competitive, they have to employ the trap or some other defensive system to at least have a chance.

The players are better, but theres also a lot more players who wouldn't be in the league without the expansion teams.
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Jag68Vlady27 said:
It's not expansion that has hurt the game, it's the fact that we're now seeing guys getting paid $5-10 million to score MAYBE 30 goals. The overall product has declined yet the salaries have all risen. It seems these days that ONLY the goaltender is worth his salary. We get MAYBE 1 50-goal man per year, and MAYBE 1 100-point man. That's not good enough.

The players aren't worse than they used to be, they're better. So, expansion hasn't hurt the league, there are a myriad of things that have hurt the league--a lack of time and space, caused by the trap and by the general size of players today (plus an added official), the reduction in neutral-zone space in order to implement the "Gretzky Rule" behind the net (one of the least forward-thinking moves in sports history, I might add), and the combination of players too easily getting hurt and not 'hungry' enough to bring it night in, night out are the main culprits for why the game is the way it is today. IMHO, of course.

All these players continue to talk about expansion being a bad idea in an effort to paint the commish in a negative light, but it has little to do with any potential solutions to the lockout. The game needs fixing, that much I think EVERYBODY can agree on.

But we won't get to that stage of the game without some form of linkage between revenues and salaries.

I agree completely that players today are better than they used to be from the top of the league to the bottom. But now let's assume that there are 26 teams instead of thirty. How many currently 4th liners would be pushed out of the league to make room for the surplus of more talanted players with the subtraction of four teams? I'm willing to bet that it would be quite a few, and with more talant, we would stand a better chance at seeing a more skilled and more exciting game, imo.

However, none of that really has much to do with what I am asking. The way I read Draper's comments, I didn't think they had much to do with the quality of play, but with the effect on salaries that expansion may have caused, and it's a line I've seen many others draw in this thread, and others.

The basic line is that expansion has driven up salaries=Draper is paid well for what he does=he partially owes his (possibly inflated) salary to expansion=he is against expansion=he's an idiot.

What I am asking is why can't Draper see that while expansion may have helped him personally, why can't he also see how it might have still been bad for the league?

It's just an opinion and I don't think it is an entirely ridiculous one for him to have; and I just don't see why it's incited the response it's had.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
It doesn't fall just on the rank and file. If the company is losing money it sometimes cuts the least promising projects. By that token, the NHL would be cutting teams, not player salaries.
So you'd rather see teams getting cut instead of salaries? I thought you were pro-union. :dunno:
BlackRedGold said:
As well, there would be cuts to management. But in the NHL, that doesn't seem to be happening. How many team presidents have been fired for losing money?
That would make sense if management made the most money in the company - like other companies. But in the NHL, the players make as much if not more than those fat cat CEOs out there. We need to start cutting there.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
When I hear people explain to me why a luxury tax is worse than a cap, I'll reconsider, but until then, I prefer the players proposals/ideas.
Well, just look at baseball and its luxury tax. Working pretty good, huh? If it was a cap, the Tigers would have a better chance at reaching the World Series just by virtue of not having the Yankees and the Bo Sox spend like crazy on top of their luxury tax.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Scheme said:
So you'd rather see teams getting cut instead of salaries? I thought you were pro-union. :dunno:

I'm just saying how things work in other industries.

Oh, and I'm not pro-union. I'm pro-fan.

That would make sense if management made the most money in the company - like other companies. But in the NHL, the players make as much if not more than those fat cat CEOs out there. We need to start cutting there.

How do you know how much team presidents make? Their salaries never seem to be published anywhere.

And it isn't just about money, it is about responsibility. If a players plays like crap, he usually gets shipped out of town. If a team president loses tons of money while running a team, shouldn't he also be held accountable?
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
Scheme said:
Well, just look at baseball and its luxury tax. Working pretty good, huh? If it was a cap, the Tigers would have a better chance at reaching the World Series just by virtue of not having the Yankees and the Bo Sox spend like crazy on top of their luxury tax.

The Tigers would have a better chance at reaching the Series if they had drafted/developed worth a damn during the 90s :D (and I'm a Tiger fan)

The baseball luxury tax is so ridiculously weak, though. An NHL equivilant would be to set a tax at $60 million and penalize you a dime a dollar for going over. It's damn near worthless and, if I remember right, a lot of baseball writers said so when it came about. I'm guessing MLB just wanted something implemented to prop the door open to syphon more concessions from the MLBPA down the line.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Winger98 said:
I agree completely that players today are better than they used to be from the top of the league to the bottom. But now let's assume that there are 26 teams instead of thirty. How many currently 4th liners would be pushed out of the league to make room for the surplus of more talanted players with the subtraction of four teams? I'm willing to bet that it would be quite a few, and with more talant, we would stand a better chance at seeing a more skilled and more exciting game, imo.

Nothing would change unless the four COACHES you eliminated when you got rid of 4 teams were Jacques Lemaire, Pat Burns, Jacques Martin and Ken Hitchcock (just using four 'trapping' coaches as the example, there are more and probably worse offenders, I know).

All 26 teams would do is see slightly more talented players trapping, instead of slightly less talented players.

The coaches' mindset has to change, first and foremost, otherwise boring hockey will continue to prevail.
 

Scheme

Registered User
Feb 14, 2003
284
0
Vancouver
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
And it isn't just about money, it is about responsibility. If a players plays like crap, he usually gets shipped out of town. If a team president loses tons of money while running a team, shouldn't he also be held accountable?

You can fire team presidents and GMs. You can't fire a player because he gets a guaranteed contract, no matter how good/bad he plays. Plus team presidents don't get guaranteed 10% qualifying raises every year or the possibility of arbitration.
 

I.am.ca

Guest
X8oD said:
Draper is a primere Defensive Foward and just won the Selke Award. He broke into the league when he was With winnepeg and was traded to Detroit for a Dollar. He never left Detroit's Major League Roster.

He had a job with or with out expansion. So thats not a valid slam. He wasnt a late bloomer, hes played this style of game for the past 6 years. This is the first year he got rewarded for it.


Take away 14 teams and at that point in time, Detroit has a better player to fill that spot than Draper, so yes Draper should be thanking bettman.
 

CorneliusBennet

Registered User
Nov 29, 2004
114
0
Jag68Vlady27 said:
It's not expansion that has hurt the game, it's the fact that we're now seeing guys getting paid $5-10 million to score MAYBE 30 goals. The overall product has declined yet the salaries have all risen. It seems these days that ONLY the goaltender is worth his salary. We get MAYBE 1 50-goal man per year, and MAYBE 1 100-point man. That's not good enough.

(edited for brevity)

But we won't get to that stage of the game without some form of linkage between revenues and salaries.

Who offers the $5-10 million dollar contracts to these players? Please just answer me that simple question. Who?
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Scheme said:
You can fire team presidents and GMs. You can't fire a player because he gets a guaranteed contract, no matter how good/bad he plays. Plus team presidents don't get guaranteed 10% qualifying raises every year or the possibility of arbitration.

Coaching and GM contracts are guaranteed as well. All contracts in every industry are guaranteed. That's why they call them contracts.

Team presidents don't get automatic 10% raises, but very few of them will make less then the league average, and every one of them can go work for any another team if they want.

If you aren't going to give players a raise every year or arbitration, what do you give them in exchange for them agreeing to a system where they are giving up basic rights - to work for whoever they want to work for? Nothing?

Tom
 

CorneliusBennet

Registered User
Nov 29, 2004
114
0
Tom_Benjamin said:
Coaching and GM contracts are guaranteed as well. All contracts in every industry are guaranteed. That's why they call them contracts.

Team presidents don't get automatic 10% raises, but very few of them will make less then the league average, and every one of them can go work for any another team if they want.

If you aren't going to give players a raise every year or arbitration, what do you give them in exchange for them agreeing to a system where they are giving up basic rights - to work for whoever they want to work for? Nothing?

Tom

It is pretty clear that the fans simply want to punish the players for making so much money. The fans (at this site at least) don't want the players to be able to determine where they can play, don't want the players to have the rights that many of the rest of us workers have. I find it amusing how much these passionate fans truly HATE the players. Again no player has EVER forced an owner to offer him a contract. Can't afford to pay a player 10 million a year? Then don't. It's very simple. I'm sorry if your competitors can afford to offer a player that salary, maybe you should try to figure out what they're doing right to be able to afford to do so. If you cannot compete under your current operating circumstances, then fold your team. If you can't run a business succesfully then get out. Don't make the employees scapegoats for your inability to manage or succesfully build and market a team.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
CorneliusBennet said:
It is pretty clear that the fans simply want to punish the players for making so much money. The fans (at this site at least) don't want the players to be able to determine where they can play, don't want the players to have the rights that many of the rest of us workers have. I find it amusing how much these passionate fans truly HATE the players. Again no player has EVER forced an owner to offer him a contract. Can't afford to pay a player 10 million a year? Then don't. It's very simple. I'm sorry if your competitors can afford to offer a player that salary, maybe you should try to figure out what they're doing right to be able to afford to do so. If you cannot compete under your current operating circumstances, then fold your team. If you can't run a business succesfully then get out. Don't make the employees scapegoats for your inability to manage or succesfully build and market a team.
The NHL is not like your normal business model. It is not starbucks V Dunkin donuts V big lou's coffee and candy shop. While you want to defeat your competition it is better for all if all teams are viable and healthy. Starbucks do not care if Big Lou folds up shop. So the NHL has to have cost certainty and some revenue sharing to a degree. I do not hate the players, i do not like the owners. I want a healthy league not the runaway train( wreck) we have now. The players have the hammer in every end right now- the game has to be played more evenly.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Goodenow should install a gag order to prevent players like Draper from making the whole PA look like a bunch of idiots. Everytime they open their mouths their public support wanes even more (well I'm not sure if they have any left).
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
Scheme said:
Well, just look at baseball and its luxury tax. Working pretty good, huh? If it was a cap, the Tigers would have a better chance at reaching the World Series just by virtue of not having the Yankees and the Bo Sox spend like crazy on top of their luxury tax.


Sorry but the Yanks and Sox payrolls has no effect on the reasons why the Tigers have sucked for the last decade. Here's the reason...
Here are their 1st round picks since 1992 to 2002

1992
Rick Greene (bust)

1993
Matt Brunson (bust)

1994
Cade Gaspar (bust)

1995
Mike Drumright (bust)

1996
Seth Greisinger (bust)

1997
Matt Anderson (bust)

1998
Jeff Weaver (traded)

1999
Eric Munson (ineffective)

2000
Matt Wheatland (bum arm)

2001
Kenny Baugh (bum arm, still hope)

2002
Scott Moore (could be a player)

Only one player could be considered a decent MLB players at the time. Thats why they sucked plus they have spent money, on a lot of bad players.
 

TexSen

Registered User
Nov 20, 2003
1,043
0
Schaefer..Beer..mmmm
Sorry, but when a 30-40 point a season player is making more a year than the new US TV deal then I think we know that there is a problem with player salaries (regardless of blame for awarding of contracts......... ;)
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
The more I hear from the players the more I'm surprised at how ignorant they are.
They really don't seem to understand the situation at all.
 

kenabnrmal

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,241
0
the beach or rink
Visit site
Bauerkraut said:
Hey Kenabnrml,

How's your reading comprehension?

Could you please explain to us how "I don't care if I ever see some of these idiots play again" equates to 'I don't care to watch NHL hockey ever again.'

Thanks in advance for including that explanation in your next post.

I'd much prefer to see an NHL of players who are hungry and happy to play a game as a full time job, and to make a salary that will allow the league they play in and teams they play for to continue to operate. Even that salary will likely far exceed what 99% of these guys would make based upon their education or other marketable skills.

I'll be happy to watch an NHL with whatever players in it that fit that description. Would I feel cheated if that doesn't include Draper and Doan, or Yashin etc? No way.

Actually, my reading comprehension is pretty good. I'm fairly confident in it, to tell you the truth. I don't tend to get very cocky about things, but I'm quite comfortable with my ability to read and comprehend what I'm reading. I think I demonstrate it pretty well here actually, if I do say so myself. Sure, he inserts the word "some", which I admit I missed when reading the post, however he quickly suggests that he wishes there were some good minor league hockey or college hockey in his area. That suggests to me that he might not have any desire to watch NHL hockey any longer. Sure, I took a small step to make a point. Considering his hatred of the NHL players, I don't think its a terribly unreasonable step.

Heres my question for you...wheres Draper and Doan's link with Yashin? I can't say much about Draper, but Doan is a guy I've watched and followed since his junior career. He's been nothing but a stand-up guy, leader, and has never once played with less than 100% of his effort. He's also one of the better, nicer, more fan-friendly players in the league, and is also a pretty bright guy. There are zero similarities between him and Yashin. Doan simply spoke his mind on an issue at hand. I'm sure you have friends who don't agree with you on some pretty contentious issues. I'm sure your opinion of them being your friend wouldn't change all that much if that were the case. Why should someone's opinion on a contentious issue change your view of them as a person or as a hockey player.

I stand by my misguided rage point. I miss hockey and hate the lockout as much as anyone. However, hating the individuals involved, short of possibly the two leaders of the sides who are really what is making this such a difficult, drawn out process, is completely misguided imo.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
kenabnrmal said:
Doan is a guy I've watched and followed since his junior career. He's been nothing but a stand-up guy, leader, and has never once played with less than 100% of his effort. He's also one of the better, nicer, more fan-friendly players in the league, and is also a pretty bright guy. There are zero similarities between him and Yashin.

To be fair to Yashin, the guy might not know what the word contract means, but from all accounts I've heard, and I've heard quite a few, he's nothing but a class act when it comes to fans.
 

HckyFght*

Guest
Don't you love hearing multi-millionaire players adopt union-speak? Talking about "food-on-the-table" and "feeding-my-family" and calling themselves a "workin-man" ? What a laugh, you'd think they all worked down at the plant...
-HckyFght!
 

Bauerkraut

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
157
0
Visit site
kenabnrmal said:
...That suggests to me that he might not have any desire to watch NHL hockey any longer. Sure, I took a small step to make a point.

...but Doan is a guy I've watched and followed since his junior career. He's been nothing but a stand-up guy, leader, and has never once played with less than 100% of his effort. He's also one of the better, nicer, more fan-friendly players in the league, and is also a pretty bright guy....Why should someone's opinion on a contentious issue change your view of them as a person or as a hockey player.

I appreciate your follow up to explain your point and admission that you took a bit of a leap with what I was saying. My comment about not having any other hockey to watch locally reflected on missing having any hockey to watch now. I certainly hope to see NHL hockey again.

I mention Doan because of quotes like this --

On Bettman --
"I don't know what happened to him in the last lockout (1994). Maybe he feels embarrassed and is trying to prove himself in this one."

If that isn't a snide little personal dig I'm not sure what is. It certainly doesn't help create sympathy for the player's in the eyes of the fans. In fact it makes Bettman look like the bigger man when he doesn't respond in kind, and deflects it by saying -- "In the course of collective bargaining, it's not uncommon for a union that's not getting what it wants to attack or have its members attack the negotiators on the other side,'' Bettman told LeafsTV. ''And those are sounding like words of desperation on behalf of the union. But I don't make anything of it.''

It makes Doan look like an immature little kid who is in over his head.

And how many fans are really going to agree with this comment by Doan--

"(The owners) don't want guaranteed contracts. What they want is, if they make a mistake, they want to be able to cut a guy and not have to worry about it."

I've read literally hundreds of posts where fans are sided with the owners on this issue. And here is Doan throwing out the opposite viewpoint to the press. Shane, since you seem to be completely out of touch, let's state again that most people agree when you aren't performing in the role you were hired for, it's reasonable for you to be let go to pursue other employment.

Making this an issue just shows how pampered NHL players are compared to the average employee, and yes fans get upset due to the dollar figures involved and having these guys act like they are getting the shaft.

Getting to the NHL is a great personal and financial acheivement, but these guys seem to have found a way to be unhappy about it. Most people just can't relate to that.

So yes, when someone speaks their mind with a viewpoint that makes them look dumb or ill-informed or unappreciative of great circumstances (IMO) it can't help but change your opinion of them.

Do I hate these guys on a personal level? Of course not.
Do I think they are out of touch? Definitely.
Would it bother me if I was watching other players who would appreciate playing for less money take their jobs? No, not at all.

Whenever the NHL restarts, with or without the players union the vast majority of these guys are going to be back under whatever new deal they can get. Why? Because it's still going to be way better than their option B and most of them seem to appreciate that fact, other than a few who are making ill-advised comments to the media. The fans certainly do.
 
Last edited:

kenabnrmal

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,241
0
the beach or rink
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
To be fair to Yashin, the guy might not know what the word contract means, but from all accounts I've heard, and I've heard quite a few, he's nothing but a class act when it comes to fans.

Yeah, I mean I know very little about Yashin besides the whole contract debacle with Ottawa. I do know fan's perception of him, which is why it irks me considerably to see Doan grouped with Yashin by a fan. Not really intended as a knock on Yashin, but Doan's never given a fan a reason to dislike him besides being a part of the union and voicing his opinion over the matter at hand.
 

Bauerkraut

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
157
0
Visit site
HckyFght said:
Don't you love hearing multi-millionaire players adopt union-speak? Talking about "food-on-the-table" and "feeding-my-family" and calling themselves a "workin-man" ? What a laugh, you'd think they all worked down at the plant...
-HckyFght!

Amen...My point exactly. Just makes them look ridiculous. Unless their family has about 80 kids :joker:
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
CorneliusBennet said:
Who offers the $5-10 million dollar contracts to these players? Please just answer me that simple question. Who?

Answer: A HANDFUL of owners in the NHL. NOT ALL, but a handful. If they ALL did it, nobody would even know how to spell lockout right now because we'd be playing hockey. AND, if they were all spending that kind of money, hockey would be more visible than Seinfeld reruns in the U.S.
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
As a Nashville fan, I hate Draper now, just like I do Chelios and Modano.

What's real funny is Nashville isn't one of the big money losers, not even close, sure the last two seasons weren't all that great but it's getting better here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->