quat said:
I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread, but I find I disagree on several points. This post I'm taking bits from was a response to Iconoclast's response to you... and I find I agree with most of what he wrote.
Hi quat,
I tend to find that mainly alcoholics and/or womanizers tend to agree with the majority of my points - so you're in good company
I am
definitely open to the possibility that I'm not right... as this is all just my opinion...
quat said:
In this senario, the Owners have given up far to much to get a cap. They certainly would be well aware of the negative effects of losing star players they just finished developing for nothing, so I find it very unlikely they would sign anything like this. I think you may underestimate the postition of strength the Owners are negotiating from this time.
I do agree that they will accept something different than they have offered to date, but it will be nothing like this.
I don't think that I am underestimating the position of strength the owners are negotiating from... I was very careful to use the word
negotiation in my previous post... If the owners
negotiate the terms of a hard cap, then I think that they will need to
severely concede control of player rights... IMO, that's the
only way that they'll get a hard cap through
negotiation...
But the owners do have outstanding leverage to get whatever CBA they
prefer implemented -
if they are willing to utilize this leverage fully... And that will, IMO, mean 2+ years without hockey (as Gretzky also predicts)... That will likely mean taking the steps to break the union... IMO, it will be
disasterous to the league - and
very expensive (in terms of opportunity cost and legal fees) and exhausting for the owners to follow through with...
If the owners can get their hard cap cost certainty
without having to drag this out for a
significant amount of time (and with losing the
least amount of money as possible), IMO, they will... If the players cave to the owners outstanding leverage a year from now, and say, ok you'll get your hard cap - you won -
strictly tie or salaries to an arbitrary number - but in exchange, we control our rights - we live in North America, where slavery is dead... We will fight to the bitter end if you want to control
both our earning power,
and where we will work... We will do whatever we can to prevent this from happening, as it is inhumane this day and age - we will
not concede both and this may bring the whole ship down if need be- You may end up winning when all is said and done, but what you've won will be a shadow of it's former self... I think that the owners would concede the point... To not will cost the owners millions and millions more...
From my point-of-view, $ means more to the owners than keeping a home-grown star on their team... If both can happen, even better (as fans will be happier), but if they had to choose one or the other, $ will win the battle every time... Cost certainty is the quest, with as
minimal hardship as possible to achieve it... If the players offered a hard cap cost certainty CBA to end the war (and prevent further causalties on either side), IMHO, the owners would go for it...
quat said:
I don't think you are being very reasonable here. You expect a GM to stand up to a star player for years at a time, pretty much regardless of what other GM's are doing around the league?
Maybe I'm not being very reasonable, but I think that I am being
fair, IMO... As it's nothing that I don't expect from myself... which may explain my ulcer
Perhaps I do have an unrealistic expectation for GMs (and myself)...
IMO, some environments are
very difficult to operate in... I appreciate that... But, IMO, a competent individual finds a way to make the environment work for them... A competent individual can
always find success - no matter the terrain... A GM will keep his job if he can develop a
high quality on-ice product at a
minimal cost... An owner would love that most of all... IMO, the tools were there in the last CBA to make it work -
IF the GM's used the tools to make it work... Yes, there is great pressure to not 'do the right thing'... But such is life, IMO... If a GM doesn't have the balls to do what is needed, he should find work elsewhere...
I don't (nor can't) believe that an environment is
so difficult to operate in that success is out of an individual's control...
The environment (and outside forces) doesn't determine your destiny, IMO... Your environment doesn't determine your success or failure (it only plays in
how difficult it will be to achieve your destiny)... IMO, your
ability to utilize the environment to get the
most you can out of what you have available, determines your destiny...
We don't have control over
everything, but we do, IMO, have control over our own success and failure...
Lowe believes that he lives in a dismal predetermined world (NHL environment) where he is just a pawn... How can any other outcome but mediocrity be inevitable?
IMO, there is no coincidence in the universe. IMO, nothing 'just' happens - rather, we make them happen...
It is my contention that we create our reality in more ways than we can understand...
But with this said, I'm all for making the NHL environment easier to operate in - if for no other reason, than the owners have the power and ability to make it easier... IMO, anything but a hard cap...