Something I don't quite understand...

[Tom_Benjamin]

Because they know that if they get to keep their "free market" BS system, they will make back all of this money (and then some). Its the same reason they stuck to their "principle" in 1994, pure greed.

None of the players I named will get all of this money back and then some. How many years will Sundin have to play to make an extra $13.5 million? He won't get his money back. Neither will Guerin or Linden or Alfreddson.

Reconcile that with greedy. After the last lockout, about 70 NHL players did not return. The same thing is going to happen this time. What on earth are these guys thinking?

If you can't answer the question, you don't understand their position. If you don't understand their position, your opinion is an ignorant one, isn't it?

Tom

 

[txomisc]

You missed the point entirely. I'm referring to the $$$ the players have lost to date in salary from not playing.

And, BTW, giving back 24% of any salary is nothing? Honestly, have you ever worked a day in your life? Maybe on the Monopoly board foregoing 24% is meaningless, but not elesewhere.

It's so, so easy for some to casually tell other people how to spend their money, how much money they should make. And so unseemly.

That 24% salary rollback may have very well been a "sham" proposal and the owners certainly didn't go for it, as is their right. But the logic of some fans (i.e., "these guys make millions, what's 24%?!") smacks of class envy.

It is also apparently very easy to tell someone how to run their business.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

None of the players I named will get all of this money back and then some. How many years will Sundin have to play to make an extra $13.5 million? He won't get his money back. Neither will Guerin or Linden or Alfreddson.

Reconcile that with greedy. After the last lockout, about 70 NHL players did not return. The same thing is going to happen this time. What on earth are these guys thinking?

If you can't answer the question, you don't understand their position. If you don't understand their position, your opinion is an ignorant one, isn't it?

Tom

There are 700 members of the NHLPA, in the big picture Sundin doesn't mean squat. And by the way, he knows that he would lose a lot less money by holding out for half a year or a whole year than he would by accepting a cap. If the NHL gets its cap, Sundin and other stars will have their paychecks cut in HALF and they know it. It's 100% Pure greed, it boggles the mind that you don't understand that.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

You missed the point entirely. I'm referring to the $$$ the players have lost to date in salary from not playing.

And, BTW, giving back 24% of any salary is nothing? Honestly, have you ever worked a day in your life? Maybe on the Monopoly board foregoing 24% is meaningless, but not elesewhere.

It's so, so easy for some to casually tell other people how to spend their money, how much money they should make. And so unseemly.

That 24% salary rollback may have very well been a "sham" proposal and the owners certainly didn't go for it, as is their right. But the logic of some fans (i.e., "these guys make millions, what's 24%?!") smacks of class envy.

I didn't miss your point in any way shape or form. I answered your question as clearly as is humanly possible. They know that by holding out for their "free market" bulls*** system, they stand to make FAR more cold, hard cash than by accepting a cap. It's all about money, you don't actually choose to be so gullible as to think these guys give a rats ass about principle, do you?

And perhapd you didn't even bother to read what I wrote about the 24%. What is it you don't get about most players losing between 33% and 100% of their total salary if the season is cancelled? Is it hard to grasp? It's very easy to offer to give back 24% of your salary when the alternative is 33%, 50% or 100%. Very simple math.

 

[shveik]

I'm pretty sure it was Trevor Linden crying about how insulted he was when someone said the players were employees and not partners in the company.

Yeah, during these "partnership" talks Linden was told that the players would have absolutely no say in the economic matters of the NHL. No more so than GM auto workers. He found this comparison insulting.

Either way this does not contradict the statement of the initial poster that the owners want players to share their business risks as if they were partners. But that's as far as this "partnership" would go. It is the NHL that repeatedly uses "partnership" hammerword *).

*) hammerword - n., a word which seems to mean something after being repeated a million times through the media.

 

[R0CKET]

Illuminating rebuttal.

Now, can you address Tom's point? That is, with a modicum of substance?

How is an individual who forfeits hundreds of thousands of dollars for a principle - one that can be questioned, no doubt, but a principle nonetheless - greedy?

Actually its quite easy.

No reply to a false premise is or should be required.

You say that its princple? How can you prove this? You can't. You have no more evidence of this than you do that Aliens crashed at Roswell. Its simply your beleif that they are doing it out of principal and nothing less.

If they are so principal'd then why would they pursue such a cours of action resulting in a sure loss of permanant NHL jobs (10-15%) in order to preserve the state of ever escalating player slaries? Most Unions exist for the primary reason to ensure that the maximum number of their member remain gainfully employed. Does this one? Fat chance.

So on the other hand what the players are potentially forfieting (though I prefer to consider it paying down, had thier scam roll-back worked) is to pass on present value for an expanded future value. Nearly all of the high paid vets would be easily making more later in the future. So by seemingly passing on potential earning today it would clearly provide them sustancially more in the future.

That could be a logical explanation to their game plan.

One that would obviously define them as the spoiled, out of touch, sport killing pigs that they are.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I'm pretty sure it was Trevor Linden crying about how insulted he was when someone said the players were employees and not partners in the company.

He was upset that Hotchkiss siad they were employees becuase they are much more than that. Whether you think the players are the product or not isn't relevent. Thats why he got mad.

Now, where does the NHL get off constantly extolling the virtues and necessity of a partnership, then tell the players they have no say in how things are run? Does that sound like a partnership to you?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So on the other hand what the players are potentially forfieting (though I prefer to consider it paying down, had thier scam roll-back worked) is to pass on present value for an expanded future value. Nearly all of the high paid vets would be easily making more later in the future. So by seemingly passing on potential earning today it would clearly provide them sustancially more in the future.

This is clearly wrong. There is no way Mats Sundin was going to get a raise at his age no matter what the CBA. He's hit his homerun contract, and it's downhill for sure from this point on. He's lost half a year on that contract. It brings him half a year closer to taking a pay cut. Or Yzerman. He's on record as saying he hasn't seen anything he'd vote for yet. He's losing the last $5 million of his career.

Trevor Linden has taken one very big pay cut, and it's downhill for him, too. Think Guerin will get a raise when this contract expires? Get a grip. The leaders among the players - the player reps - are the big losers in this labour dispute. Furthermore, if the star players bail on the NHLPA on this issue, the dispute is over. They are the ones the owners have to convince. They have not been convinced.

Bobby Holik has lost 10% of his homerun contract. Nobody seriously thinks he's going to get a raise at age 37? He's never going to get this money back. There is zero chance.

The NBA won their lockout and got a salary cap because the best players in the league forced the NBAPA to capitulate. In the NHL the best players in the league are the leaders on the player side. How come?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If this season is cancelled, every player with 4 years left on his contract will have given up 25% of his total earnings, players with 3 years left will have wasted 33.33% of their total earnings, players with 2 years left will have thrown away 50% of their total earnings, players with 1 year left or who are free agents will have pissed away 100% of their paycheck.

Exactly! That doesn't seem very greedy to me. These guys aren't just kicking way a few thousand bucks here, either. They are tossing millions away. It is ludicrous to call them greedy. Brett Hull. How does he get his money back? Jeremy Roenick? Keith Primeau? Tie Domi. All of these guys can count the years they have left with the fingers of one hand.

Why aren't they jumping up and down demanding a settlement? Surely a greedy person would do that. These players are standing fast. They are leading the dispute on the player side. These are also the players who picked up the biggest part of the tab on the player offer.

Greed simply does not work. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that these veteran stars, the 15% of players who actually make it to age 30, the team leaders, the league leaders, the most famous guys in the league are behaving in a manner that is contrary to their own self interest.

That is not greed, unless up is suddenly down. If you can dismiss the player case as merely greed then I'm the person who is missing something.

Tom

 

[Wetcoaster]

He was upset that Hotchkiss siad they were employees becuase they are much more than that. Whether you think the players are the product or not isn't relevent. Thats why he got mad.

Now, where does the NHL get off constantly extolling the virtues and necessity of a partnership, then tell the players they have no say in how things are run? Does that sound like a partnership to you?

Harley Hotchkiss never said that and he would not.

It was said by Bob Batterman outside legal counsel who has a reputation as bull in a china shop from his handling of labour matters in the new York hospitality industry as a hired gun for management when they want to try to play hardball with a union.

I agree with you on the partnership issue.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Exactly! That doesn't seem very greedy to me. These guys aren't just kicking way a few thousand bucks here, either. They are tossing millions away. It is ludicrous to call them greedy. Brett Hull. How does he get his money back? Jeremy Roenick? Keith Primeau? Tie Domi. All of these guys can count the years they have left with the fingers of one hand.

Why aren't they jumping up and down demanding a settlement? Surely a greedy person would do that. These players are standing fast. They are leading the dispute on the player side. These are also the players who picked up the biggest part of the tab on the player offer.

Greed simply does not work. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that these veteran stars, the 15% of players who actually make it to age 30, the team leaders, the league leaders, the most famous guys in the league are behaving in a manner that is contrary to their own self interest.

That is not greed, unless up is suddenly down. If you can dismiss the player case as merely greed then I'm the person who is missing something.

Tom

Okay then Tom, what is it? Stupidity? Sheer arrogance? Or are these players just ideologues (all NHLPA players and supporter feel free to take this time to look the word up in the dictionary) hell bent on proving a point considered noble to no one but them?

When the players from the past come forward and shake their heads at the stance these players are taking it should tell you they are not doing anything noble. When you have an active player like James Patrick come forward and comment that the young players are all about money, well that says it all. Its about greed and nothing more.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Exactly! That doesn't seem very greedy to me. These guys aren't just kicking way a few thousand bucks here, either. They are tossing millions away. It is ludicrous to call them greedy. Brett Hull. How does he get his money back? Jeremy Roenick? Keith Primeau? Tie Domi. All of these guys can count the years they have left with the fingers of one hand.

Why aren't they jumping up and down demanding a settlement? Surely a greedy person would do that. These players are standing fast. They are leading the dispute on the player side. These are also the players who picked up the biggest part of the tab on the player offer.

Greed simply does not work. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that these veteran stars, the 15% of players who actually make it to age 30, the team leaders, the league leaders, the most famous guys in the league are behaving in a manner that is contrary to their own self interest.

That is not greed, unless up is suddenly down. If you can dismiss the player case as merely greed then I'm the person who is missing something.

Tom

During an interview on CBC during the World Cup, Steve Yzerman said that exact thing.

He said in summary he knew in 1994 that a number of veterans were putting money and their careers on the line and that they personally were not gaining in the dispute. His final point was that having watched veterans in 1994 how could he now do anything else.

Sounds like a principled stand to me.

 

[quat]

Is it the players fault that ownership went and expanded the league, thus deluting the on ice product so that the only way that teams could compete would be to trap?The last group that needs to get blamed for the quality of the on ice product is the players. Start with the League office, then go after the owners for being greedy and wanting expansion dollars, then blame the GM's and Coaches for playing that style, and then you can curse the players for being selfish enough to try and win at all costs.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with players being much larger, better conditioned, goalies who have their own coaches and padding a fraction of the weight and grossly oversized to say nothing of the quality of the minds behind the coaching of hockey. Nope... it's just too many teams. Funny, but those NHL guys playing in Europe are hardly heads and tails better than the guys who play there regularily.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Exactly! That doesn't seem very greedy to me. These guys aren't just kicking way a few thousand bucks here, either. They are tossing millions away. It is ludicrous to call them greedy. Brett Hull. How does he get his money back? Jeremy Roenick? Keith Primeau? Tie Domi. All of these guys can count the years they have left with the fingers of one hand.

Why aren't they jumping up and down demanding a settlement? Surely a greedy person would do that. These players are standing fast. They are leading the dispute on the player side. These are also the players who picked up the biggest part of the tab on the player offer.

Greed simply does not work. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that these veteran stars, the 15% of players who actually make it to age 30, the team leaders, the league leaders, the most famous guys in the league are behaving in a manner that is contrary to their own self interest.

That is not greed, unless up is suddenly down. If you can dismiss the player case as merely greed then I'm the person who is missing something.

Tom

Sigh... these players are locked out, they are not on strike. It was not their decision to forgo this years patcheck. They have two choices, accept a cap and have their future earnings cut drastically (to a sane level) or stay locked out and fight to keep the insanity going and make as much cold hard cash as possible. Older players would probably accept a cap and play out their last 2 years, I mean we all know Modano would, but they can't say that or they get beaten down by their union. I'm not saying every single player is acting only on greed, just about 99%, thats all. If you believe the NHLPA bulljive about principle, you should head over to the Eklund blog because you are one gullible mofo.

 

[Trottier]

It is also apparently very easy to tell someone how to run their business.

For some, yes. Not this poster. Might wish to get that point straight.

I have an opinion about the hardcap (that differs from your's), but otherwise, I am clearly on the owner's side.

Truth is, I don't think any fan has any right to "expect" either side to act any particular way. Clearly, other fans do, just read the many vitriolic, over-emotional threads. You know: "How dare those slimy, scuzzy, greedy pigs do this to me?!" :lol

Only expectation here, as has been all along, is that both sides will ultimately negotiate an equitable agreement. Very confident of that to this day.

Which is why I laugh at the doomsayers, those who harbor HATRED! towards one side or the other (most prevalent among a few anti-player wackos), and especially, the small but loud group of self-important, ultra-delusional fans. The latter segment has reeked of hypocrisy throughout this entire sordid episode.

I didn't miss your point in any way shape or form. I answered your question as clearly as is humanly possible. They know that by holding out for their "free market" bulls*** system, they stand to make FAR more cold, hard cash than by accepting a cap.

All good...except many of your ilk keep insisting with certainty (unfounded smugness) that the players are sure to lose this CBA battle. In which case, they won't realize the free market bonanza of which you speak.

BTW, is the free market concept "BS" all the time, or only when you don't like how it's applied? And why do some on your side get defensive when it is pointed out that, indeed, a hardcap reflects an anti-free market approach?

 

[thinkwild]

The market system is a BS system now?

It would seem that the players principle is to ensure that the market, even a restricted one, allocates the proper share of the leagues revenues to the players. And this market principle must be very important to the long term of the players union that the current PA soldiers in the war are willing to die for it. (oh I know that analogy will rile)

It must be hard for Holik to determine what he would get offered as an UFA. Who knew someone would place such value in him as to offer that much money. The system probably skews it. But better that NYR spends the money on holik, than Heatley, Lecavalier, Iginla or Thronton, none of which are attainable by NYR for any amount of money. Well I guess technically in a 5 year period, one would be.

I find the excuse that the owners had no choice but to pay more for their players than they wanted to pretty lame. If salaries were to be reset, and arbitration ensures the RFA benchmarks are stable, that the owners wouldnt be end up allocating more than 54% to the players must mean thats the proper amount.

What they maybe should do is determine the natural amount the market would spend, and revenue share it to mnimize the disparities between teams. Or better, minimize the correlation between spending and on ice parity so that it continue without being overly distorting. That seems the smarter choice of action to me.

Surely Battermans battering definitively puts the lie to any notion the owners are seeking a partnership in any way that anyone of us would define the term.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Sigh... these players are locked out, they are not on strike. It was not their decision to forgo this years patcheck.

Error in consistency here. If they have the choice you outlined, then it was their decision to forego the paycheque, wasn't it?

They have two choices, accept a cap and have their future earnings cut drastically (to a sane level) or stay locked out and fight to keep the insanity going and make as much cold hard cash as possible.

This is just flat out wrong. There are maybe 200 players who earn the league average of $1.8 million. All but a relative handful are at least approaching 30 if not beyond. The majority have achieved free agency at least once and the first time the player achieves free agency is usually the player's biggest contract.

They did freely offered to have their future earnings cut drastically. If these 200 players wanted to make as much cold hard cash as possible, the obvious choice is to reject any idea of a rollback, demand full payment on freely negotiated valid contracts, and accept a cap. The cap really won't affect them.

This is a no brainer. It is impossible for this to be a greedy decision. They've chosen to act against their own best interests! There can be no denying this. It can't be greed. It can't be stupidity either - they all get expensive advice from lawyers and agents. They all know exactly what they are doing.

I think this is great. None of the owner apologists can explain the player position! Have none of them the intellectual curiosity to puzzle out the behaviour of these people? C'mon. It isn't like the position hasn't been explained. Somebody? Anybody?

Teehee.

Tom

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think this is great. None of the owner apologists can explain the player position! Have none of them the intellectual curiosity to puzzle out the behaviour of these people? C'mon. It isn't like the position hasn't been explained. Somebody? Anybody?

Teehee.

Tom

if i may ..

i think the very quality that made these players elite at what they do is the same that is keeping them from accepting a cap.

they are fiercly determined. they will stop pucks with their face to win. for whatever reason, valid or not, they have determined they will not accept a cap.

who expects NHL hockey players to back down from a battle they have been told to win ?

they have been bred to follow their coachs and captains and to sacrifice for what the coach tells them to.

if linden says its an acceptable deal, the players will take it. they will not until he endorses it.

at least according to this player. with thanks to CalgaryPuck.com

" ....If Trevor came to the players and said, 'Fellas, I think whatever they proposed is a good deal. I recommend it,' then of course, that's where we'll be. But until Trevor recommends it and says we got a fair deal there will be no deal."

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/sports/story.html?id=afb7ca58-f109-4ecc-88d8-a4a5629ab10e&page=2

dr

 

[shveik]

Okay then Tom, what is it? Stupidity? Sheer arrogance? Or are these players just ideologues (all NHLPA players and supporter feel free to take this time to look the word up in the dictionary) hell bent on proving a point considered noble to no one but them?

When the players from the past come forward and shake their heads at the stance these players are taking it should tell you they are not doing anything noble. When you have an active player like James Patrick come forward and comment that the young players are all about money, well that says it all. Its about greed and nothing more.

Are these players greedy? In that case it was shown many times that the currently locked out players are better off financially if they negotiate the best possible deal NOW and get on the ice. So, greed=make the deal fast. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it must not be greed, no?

I think you have to pick something else to hate the players for. You even have a couple of more plausible candidates in your own post: stupidity, arrogance. Pick your poison.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

they are fiercly determined. they will stop pucks with their face to win. for whatever reason, valid or not, they have determined they will not accept a cap.

Everything you said is true, but whatever reason (valid or not) is not a reason. Why did they determine they will not accept a cap?

Tom

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Everything you said is true, but whatever reason (valid or not) is not a reason. Why did they determine they will not accept a cap?

Tom

i think with 700 players, there will be a number of different reasons. im certain many of them dont even know why they shouldnt accept a cap, but know that their captains and coaches (in the PA) havent given the go ahead on it and thats how hockey players operate.

do you think there is one primary reason ? feel free to explain it.

dr

 

[MarkZackKarl]

For the betterment of those players who come after them. And (ironically enough) in the fans best interest as well. I am glad that the players are holding firm with their "no cap stance".

It would be disgraceful to give in to someone like Gary Bettman. I figure Hockey Players have more pride than that.

And anyone who tries to pass off the players as greedy are clearly misunderstanding the situation. You really think they'd still be locked out if they were greedy? No. They would cut the best possible deal and the stars would sell out the "average' NHLers. Kindal ike what the NBA did in 1998-99. Gladly the average NHL player's personality is far more team-oriented... set out a goal to achieve and at any cost they will get it.


The owners will evenutally cave or they will lose a 2.3 billion dollar industry. You really think fans , even in Toronto and New York will stick through more than one season of locked out hockey? You can't be serious. I really could care less if the NHL decides to commit suicide... there would be a league to come along and replace it. Although I dont think they are that stupid, who knows, they haven't exactly been acting rationally.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Error in consistency here. If they have the choice you outlined, then it was their decision to forego the paycheque, wasn't it?



This is just flat out wrong. There are maybe 200 players who earn the league average of $1.8 million. All but a relative handful are at least approaching 30 if not beyond. The majority have achieved free agency at least once and the first time the player achieves free agency is usually the player's biggest contract.

They did freely offered to have their future earnings cut drastically. If these 200 players wanted to make as much cold hard cash as possible, the obvious choice is to reject any idea of a rollback, demand full payment on freely negotiated valid contracts, and accept a cap. The cap really won't affect them.

This is a no brainer. It is impossible for this to be a greedy decision. They've chosen to act against their own best interests! There can be no denying this. It can't be greed. It can't be stupidity either - they all get expensive advice from lawyers and agents. They all know exactly what they are doing.

I think this is great. None of the owner apologists can explain the player position! Have none of them the intellectual curiosity to puzzle out the behaviour of these people? C'mon. It isn't like the position hasn't been explained. Somebody? Anybody?

Teehee.

Tom

You are living in a fantasy world of your own and have clearly lost any grasp on reality. You use these sweeping generalizations about the NHLPA being principled, yet you continue to use less than 30% of players as your one and only example. You need to realise that there is AT LEAST 30% of the NHLPA willing to accept a cap and end this fight... most of them the older star players. You misunderstand peer pressure and union bullying with principle. You also act as if 30 year olds are NHL dinosaurs. Sorry pal, maybe in 1956, but not now. Star players can last untill they are 40 years old on pretty much name value alone. Matts Sundin has at lest 2 contracts ahead of him and he is willing to flush hockey down the toilet to insure he squeezes every penny out of those contracts.

If Sundin and the rest of these "principled" star players demanded their contracts in full and played under a cap, the bonanza of cash would die after their current contract expires (many of whom only have 1 year left or are free agents as we speak so they aren't giving up anything for "principle"). They know that and thats why they're fighting a cap tooth and nail. Anyone over the age of 7 knows union negotiations, especially with a union as rotten and powerful as the NHLPA are about money, not pie in the sky principle. Like I said, go over to the Eklung blog, his sources tell him a deal will be announced tomorrow.

 

[R0CKET]

This is clearly wrong. There is no way Mats Sundin was going to get a raise at his age no matter what the CBA. He's hit his homerun contract, and it's downhill for sure from this point on. He's lost half a year on that contract. It brings him half a year closer to taking a pay cut. Or Yzerman. He's on record as saying he hasn't seen anything he'd vote for yet. He's losing the last $5 million of his career.

Trevor Linden has taken one very big pay cut, and it's downhill for him, too. Think Guerin will get a raise when this contract expires? Get a grip. The leaders among the players - the player reps - are the big losers in this labour dispute. Furthermore, if the star players bail on the NHLPA on this issue, the dispute is over. They are the ones the owners have to convince. They have not been convinced.

Bobby Holik has lost 10% of his homerun contract. Nobody seriously thinks he's going to get a raise at age 37? He's never going to get this money back. There is zero chance.

The NBA won their lockout and got a salary cap because the best players in the league forced the NBAPA to capitulate. In the NHL the best players in the league are the leaders on the player side. How come?

Tom

Lets do a little comparison shopping here. Sundin compared to Messier. When Messier was 30-31 and in his prime was the league salary structure paying him more or less than when he was an over the hill 40 year old? He got 7 Mil per season when he was a 30% shell of his former self. Doug Gilour also got this huge increase late in his career and Dimitri Khristich got it in Arbitration as well (didn't his team walk away from his contract as a result?).

They all got huge pay increases while being able to perform a fractions of thier what they did get payed during their prime. Anyone would just have to be really dense not to agree with this result.

The preservation of this system is what its all about here - they are willing to do just about anything to keep this model in order cuz they know it can yield HUGE money increases later. You are confusing a calculated investment with principle regarding a financial negotiation.

I might add also, that this is much the same as during an election time - believing what these people are saying (on both sides) is naive and sophomoric to say the least.

I make up my mind on what I find rational about the dispute and discount heavily what the 2 sides issue as public comments.

The reality is that this game will collapse if its present financial model continues and its not due to the greed of the owners with the PA taking 70% of every dime you and I can pay to take our kids to games.

BTW - you also offered no evidence that justify your belief that what the players are doing is out of principle, unless you think that telling me what a the highest paid elite players are saying its about. Somehow I got the feeling that all they really represent is a minority of the real feeling for the entire PA.

I notice that they are so principle that they have yet put anything to a vote of the "Union". Hmm...doesn't sound like they are looking for principled majority rule there, but then agian, I could be wrong.

 

[RangerBoy]

It seems very clear to me. I think it is very easy to understand. Lots of people do understand it because it has been explained by many different people in many different threads on this board. It is one thing to say that you do not agree with the player position.

But you don't understand the player position? When I don't understand a position, I keep working at it until I do. I condemn Osama bin Laden for who he is and what he has done, but I understand why he did it and why he became who he became. How can we expect to beat him if we do not understand him?

Perhaps you should keep at it until you do understand the player position. Once you do, feel free to reject it. If you reject it without understanding, your opinion is clearly irrational. How do you know the information you are missing is not critical?

Tom

Since you know everything,why did UBL slaughter nearly 3,000 people on 9/11?What did those people have to do with his cause?They were just going to work or were on a plane trip and ended up getting killed in a matter of hours.Too bad a friend or family member of yours was not killed that day so you could explain to their husband,wife,son,daughter,mother,father,friend,cousin,aunt,uncle and grandparents why he did what he did

I understand the players position.They have had a great ten years and don't want to give up anything significant.They think the owners will cave because their union leadership tells them that will happen.They don't trust the numbers and don't like Gary Bettman.They want a free market system with no hard cap