Pronger the Idiot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mackdogs*

Guest
Bicycle Repairman said:
Are you sure about that?
You sure they can?

What happens when the sky falls? Or when the martians invade?

Try to stay on topic, save the musings for yourself.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
mackdogs said:
...when the martians invade?
Some say they walk amongst us, but that's neither here nor there...

If we're discussing players crossing the line, surely this effects their agents too, no? It's grist for the mill.

Does anyone think the NHLPA will just sit idly by and let all this happen without ramifications?
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Bicycle Repairman said:
If we're discussing players crossing the line, surely this effects their agents too, no? It's grist for the mill.

I don't think the NHLPA will pull an agent's ticket if his client decides to cross the line. They could, but I don't think they will.

Does anyone think the NHLPA will just sit idly by and let all this happen without ramifications?

There is zero chance. If the NHLPA wants to be really nasty, all the players will report. Then a different team will go on a rotating strike. Every week it could be someone else. How hard would it be to sell tickets if the fans don't know from week to week whether the team will play?

Or they might come back and then pull the pin in January when replacements will be impossible again. Or they could play all year and then go on strike just before the playoffs.

Tom
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Or they could play all year and then go on strike just before the playoffs.
I'd be suprised if they did that. If the PA thought they were getting no love from the fans now...

How would the players feel about this? That would be tough to make the playoffs, and then strike. I wonder how the Expos felt a while back, being in first place then going on strike. Thats gotta be the absolute definition of mixed feelings.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Tom_Benjamin said:
There is zero chance. If the NHLPA wants to be really nasty, all the players will report. Then a different team will go on a rotating strike. Every week it could be someone else. How hard would it be to sell tickets if the fans don't know from week to week whether the team will play?


Tom

Or yeah, that rotating strike idea is an interesting one. I bet, the owners would cave in pretty quickly.

I know it's been used in some places by hospital personnel, e.g. one week say anaesthesia doctor is on strike, but not the surgeon etc., next week vice versa. Nothing can be done, but most of the salaries will be still be paid.

They could go on for ever with players on their turn from teams being paid helping financially those who aren't being paid.

Nice idea!
 
Last edited:

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Cawz said:
I'd be suprised if they did that. If the PA thought they were getting no love from the fans now...

Right, they care. If they read what most people on these boards say about them - their greed, their performance, their integrity, their desire - they could give a flying fig about us. If we are such clucks we'll accept minor league replacements, we don't deserve the real thing. Why should they care what we think?

What are you going to do about it? Scream? Yell? Boo? Stay home? Say really, really nasty things about the players? So what else is new?

I think that is what bothers me most about the tenor of the remarks on this board. I admire hockey players for their skill and for their courage. I'm glad the best 500 players in the world make millions. They have overcome such incredible odds to make it they deserve every penny they can get. I've never met a hockey player that I have not liked as a person. I'd much, much rather see Ed Jovanovski get my money than John McCaw. Okay, that's a minority view.

But I can't understand hockey fans expressing such vitriol towards hockey players. If I hated them as much as some who post here, I wouldn't be a hockey fan.

And anybody who doesn't think that hockey players will do anything that is required to win, doesn't understand what it takes to play the game at the NHL level.

Tom
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
I think that is what bothers me most about the tenor of the remarks on this board. I admire hockey players for their skill and for their courage. I'm glad the best 500 players in the world make millions. They have overcome such incredible odds to make it they deserve every penny they can get. I've never met a hockey player that I have not liked as a person. I'd much, much rather see Ed Jovanovski get my money than John McCaw. Okay, that's a minority view.

But I can't understand hockey fans expressing such vitriol towards hockey players. If I hated them as much as some who post here, I wouldn't be a hockey fan.
Well, most people are just frustrated. I lost a lot of respect for the players that are playing elsewhere. I know people that have had their hockey careers disrupted by this, so I have a vested interested in that aspect of it. But I understand that they all chose a temporary career playing a super fun sport, so they have to accept the risks involved.

I think the people in charge (Bettenow) are more concerned with breaking each other than they are concerened with hockey. I think nothing will be resolved with them in control of their respective groups. They have a fued that has lasted for over a decade. Their personal vendettas seem to be bigger than the sport itself now. At this point, neither can back down. Not with how far they've come.

Together, they've put a stop to a billion dollar industry. One of them cant now say "oh, ok, we'll fold and do it your way". I say have a meeting without them. Whats the worst that can happen? Someone actually talks to the other side?

So to answer your post (its funny how threads never seem to stay on the titled topic) I dont think the players deserve the vitriol. Some do, but for the most part it should be saved for the people in charge. Most players just want to play hockey.
 

bling

Registered User
Jun 23, 2004
2,934
0
Cawz said:
Well, most people are just frustrated. I lost a lot of respect for the players that are playing elsewhere. I know people that have had their hockey careers disrupted by this, so I have a vested interested in that aspect of it
.

What can be more of a vested interest than to have ones livliehood taken away? I am presently out of a job because the Owners chose to lock the players out.

According to your thinking I should be angry with the players, how and why people support the billionaire owners and trash the millionaire players makes no sense to me. I agree with Tom, give my money to the players they are much nicer people and work much harder to earn their pay than the team owners.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
Cawz said:
So to answer your post (its funny how threads never seem to stay on the titled topic) I dont think the players deserve the vitriol. Some do, but for the most part it should be saved for the people in charge. Most players just want to play hockey.

Don't kid yourself. The players are in charge. Trevor Linden is one of the finest people I've had the pleasure to meet. He is very smart. He knows exactly what is going on. Goodenow and Saskin work for the players. It isn't the other way around.

I think this is very on-topic. The title of the thread is "Pronger the Idiot". On the other hand, there is this Chris Pronger.

Tom
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
Don't kid yourself. The players are in charge. Trevor Linden is one of the finest people I've had the pleasure to meet. He is very smart. He knows exactly what is going on. Goodenow and Saskin work for the players. It isn't the other way around.

I think this is very on-topic. The title of the thread is "Pronger the Idiot". On the other hand, there is this Chris Pronger.

Tom
Yes and someone as smart as Trevor should not pen an article in THN telling us a luxury tax is wonderful, just like baseball. If baseball is where we are headed then i'll be happy to stay locked out for as long as it takes for the owners to get what they want. I have no problem with any of these guys making money but the owners deserve cost certainty for the investment they have made. Some owners do not deserve cost certainty they deserve a kick in the ass but same could be said for some players. There just has to be a reasonable solution and if it takes two years i'm willing to wait until they get it right.
 

I.am.ca

Guest
The NHL players should not be allowed to play over in Europe. They are soo dead set on calling guys that cross the line scabs, then what are the jackasses over in Europe? High Priced Scabs?

NHL is stupid and crap. I've started to become a CHL fan, at least these guys aren't going on strike cuz they dont make enough money, they play because they love the sport.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
Bicycle Repairman said:
Again, (and I'm sure I will have to countlessly repeat this because some continue to mis-use the word, for that is the burden I bear) those particular NHLers you mention are not playing in leagues having a labor dispute, now are they?

now who is it that they play for?... it's surely not the nhl at the moment, so therefore you calling them 'nhlers' is surely misusing the word/term is it not? obviously such a league isn't having a labor dispute or else they wouldn't be playing now would they, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out

Please do take care in the future in using words that properly describe their meaning. Thank you.



I see.



Who's "on strike?" Again, do employ correct terminology. It would make your arguments much more credible.

Perhaps those CHLers should organize then? Nobody should be underpaid simply because they enjoy their job. That's called exploitation.

on strike, locked out not too big of a difference, just depensd of what side of the table you're looking from, IMO sports athletes are playing the games they love and have loved since they were children. true or untrue?

as kids and young adults they continued to play because they loved the game. true or untrue?

now they come to the nhl and expect 7 figure salaries for the game they supposedly love, it's absolutely insane, to them it's all about the money now, or so they claim. But look at where they are now, over in another league making a salary that's on par with what the rest of the working class world makes. Every time anything comes up about a cap (which would still leave players far above the regular working class) they throw a temper tantrum about it pausing only long enough to remind everyone of us that it's not about the money. well if it's not about the money then why so much crying about the money... simple reason. IT IS about the money.

yes i know there's all this lack of trust and blah blah blah. who cares, that line is getting really old really fast. still with the money the league pulls in as i've said, the players would still be paid far better than working class america, so there should be no complaints IMO

one last thing. you saying the chl should organize so they can get paid far better and become greedy imbeciles..... why not go one better, all HS and college players should be paid too right?.. they play and entertain the fans right?.... :shakehead:

and before you start believing this.... IM BEING SARCASTIC at least about the last segment
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
NataSatan666 said:
:handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

We have ourselves a winner. How people have turned against the players so bad is beyond me.

Any player that goes out of his way to take out his frustrations on a player that crosses over is a f***wit. They are entitled to play whether or not Pronger likes it.
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
I.am.ca said:
The NHL players should not be allowed to play over in Europe. They are soo dead set on calling guys that cross the line scabs, then what are the jackasses over in Europe? High Priced Scabs?

NHL is stupid and crap. I've started to become a CHL fan, at least these guys aren't going on strike cuz they dont make enough money, they play because they love the sport.

If Forsberg is willing to PAY a 1-2 US$ million in taxes (income tax 50-60% on past 1 year earnings + property tax, also for overseas properties) just for his desire to play in his native land for one more season, you call him a scab? Interesting to see, if any of the possible NHL replacement players will pay an equilevant amount of their salaries.

Or Olli Jokinen (ex-Panther) knowing that under current CBA rules players without a contract cannot return to NHL that season if playing for a European team? A lot of players also pay for their own insurance policies (NHL contracts), so quite a few don't make that much money from playing in Europe. But that's free market, they're getting the best deal they think can get in these circumstances.

And in addition to that, what's wrong for European players to wish to play for the teams where it all started for them, it's even beneficiary for the teams of their respective countries if the local fans can see these players live. And who are you to tell to any of these players that they shouldn't play now, with the attitudes of NHL and NHLPA as they now stand, the players might otherwise miss a whole season or even two.

On the whole, I'm all for the as much free market as possible, if in Europe some fringe 18-year old longshot benchwarmer misses a roster spot and a few thousand dollars in salaries, it's not a big loss for hockey world.

And if some teams make notable profits, why should the billionaire owner be forced to pocket most of that even if he wanted to use that profit for his hobby and build a better Stanley Cup contender by paying his employers (players) more and to hire even better employers? Just because some other ("poorer" billionaires?) people don't want/can't to do that, or want to pocket the money instead? Nothing good will come out on a long run from an artificial communist system, not even in hockey.

If you think that your (billionaire?) employee isn't making enough profit, feel free to offer to lower your salary, so he can pocket more of the revenues. And you can also volunteer to pay more taxes for your favourite communist state and goverment official of choice, I'm sure it will be much appriciated.

As said on these boards before, if everybody and every team is dragged down to the level of the poorest teams and managements so that even those "horrible" franchises and poor hockey markets can break even financially and produce a cup contender, everything will average in the league in a few years. With a constant player movement, no team identitity as teams change every year, practically nothing to separate teams from each other, nothing to go down in history. Mediocrity all over the place. In a league, where only one team wins every year, all the teams cannot by definition be great, or even good, there has to be under average teams with poor players and bad deals, bad drafts and money seemingly down the drain. If some hockey "fans" don't want that, they might as well wish for a lottery to decide a Stanley cup winner each year.

How can any hockey fan want that, just because some players make huge money compared to an average guy? And they want the even richer billionaire owner to get that money?

As for the actual topic of this thread, I don't think Pronger is an idiot for wanting what he believes is best for him, on the contrary, that to most people is normally considered to be the smart thing to do. That some people don't agree with him, is an other ballgame altogether.
 
Last edited:

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Splatman Phanutier said:
... I'd tell Pronger to #%^$ off and go some tissues with his $10 million a year.

If I'm someone like Chris Clark (for example), I'm looking at how much I stand to lose this year and how much I stand to lose in the future vs. how much I have to gain (if any) for my holdout.

I'll bet there are 10 times as many Chris Clark's out there as there is Whiner Chris.

It's not that simple and all the Chris Clarks are not that stupid either, they know that it is the star players who are the actual attractions of this and any league, and the lesser players probably gain more financially than the top players, who would make their buck, CBA or not.

Goodenow et co. have actually done an excellent job for the average and lower tier players, who if anybody are being overpaid in the NHL.

Of course in team sports no player can do it alone, but moneywise the really top players are worth much more than average 3rd-4th liners, who would stand to lose most under cap or under a total free market. So it is actually the absolute star players who are making financial consessions for the stake of "competive balance".
 

gary69

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
8,181
1,602
Then and there
Tom_Benjamin said:
I think that is what bothers me most about the tenor of the remarks on this board. I admire hockey players for their skill and for their courage. I'm glad the best 500 players in the world make millions. They have overcome such incredible odds to make it they deserve every penny they can get. I've never met a hockey player that I have not liked as a person. I'd much, much rather see Ed Jovanovski get my money than John McCaw. Okay, that's a minority view.

But I can't understand hockey fans expressing such vitriol towards hockey players. If I hated them as much as some who post here, I wouldn't be a hockey fan.
Tom

I agree, it's hard to understand how somebody can be a hockey fan if he despises the players so much.

But I wouldn't generalize as hockey players being necessarily "nicer" persons as owners. It depends so much on each persons position, the more at stake for each individual the more "distorted" the relationship tends to be. If there's an employee/employers (livelyhood) relationship or e.g. army ranks (war, life at stake), the less easy-going the relationship tends to be. That official position doesn't necessarily give the true picture of a person's individual characteristics though.

Of course, I don't deny that in most cases being a succesful businessman (as most owners are/have been) usually requires a different and a more ruthless mentality towards other people than being a hockey/team player does, but nevertheless I don't think should should count against either side from a fan's point of view.

Both aspects can be corporated for the good of an individual franchise at least, if not for the good of the whole league as well.
 

hunter1909*

Guest
Rob Paxon said:
The difference is huge.

In one case you're talking about what basically amounts to scab players (even though it is a lockout, not a strike... they are locked out because of their collective refusal, so it is the same concept). In the other case you're talking about players who go to a league and earn a roster spot over less talented players.

I LOVE THIS LAME...EQUATING "SCABS" WHEN TALKING ABOUT PRIMA DONNA BUMS LIKE PRONGER...
 

oilers_guy_eddie

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS!?
Feb 27, 2002
11,094
0
This is Oil Country!
Visit site
Tom_Benjamin said:
There is zero chance. If the NHLPA wants to be really nasty, all the players will report. Then a different team will go on a rotating strike. Every week it could be someone else. How hard would it be to sell tickets if the fans don't know from week to week whether the team will play?

Or they might come back and then pull the pin in January when replacements will be impossible again. Or they could play all year and then go on strike just before the playoffs.

Tom


For any of those plans to come into play, the NHLPA would first have to accept an agreement the owners find acceptable. I mean, they can't go on strike while they're locked out, right?

If you offered the owners a screwed up season in return for getting the deal they want, I think they'd probably jump at it.
 

Tom_Benjamin

Registered User
Sep 8, 2003
1,152
0
www.canuckscorner.com
oilers_guy_eddie said:
For any of those plans to come into play, the NHLPA would first have to accept an agreement the owners find acceptable. I mean, they can't go on strike while they're locked out, right?

If you offered the owners a screwed up season in return for getting the deal they want, I think they'd probably jump at it.

The owners can't use replacement players as long as there is a lockout. They are planning to get an impasse declared next September. At that point they will unilaterally impose a new CBA and lift the lockout.

That puts the ball in the player's court. They will most certainly have the right to strike. If they do the owners will attempt to sell minor league hockey as NHL hockey.

The players don't have to strike. They can return to work without signing or accepting the CBA. A week later, a month later, a regular season later, they can still go out on strike. They could run rotating strikes.

The owners can have a screwed up season and not get what they want.

Tom
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
garry1221 said:
on strike, locked out not too big of a difference, just depensd of what side of the table you're looking from,
No, they're legal terms describing vastly different situations.

garry1221 said:
one last thing. you saying the chl should organize so they can get paid far better and become greedy imbeciles..... why not go one better, all HS and college players should be paid too right?.. they play and entertain the fans right?

The Canadian Hockey League is the biggest racket in the sport. Some of those franchises make a mint. Those kids are often nothing more than indentured servants. I won't even dwelve into American College Sports.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,475
7,194
Ottawa
dawgbone said:
Not sure what the difference is between replacement players taking their jobs, and them taking jobs away from guys in Europe...

When someone figures that out, let me know.

The diffrence is that Scabs would technically not be taking anyone's job since no-one has any while the NHLers are actually taking away the jobs the euro player's had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->