Something I don't quite understand...

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Why bother making this type of stupid post? Either address the issue or admit defeat and slink away. These players got pushed under a bus if you think the entry level system is unfair. They did not get pushed under the bus if you think it is fair to limit the salaries of young players until they prove themselves.

Which is it?

Tom

It's all about greed, end of story. The PA needed someone to sacrafice so the top 8% can continue to make huge sums of money. They pushed the rookies under the bus to protect their phoney baloney position. Its standard negotiating practice. This has always been about money and insuring the players have an opportunity to make the most the can during their "short careers". Even though when a deal is offered up that would guarantee the players with the "shortest careers" the best opportunity to get a decent pay check during their brief careers, it is shot down because the top 8% isn't guaranteed the opportunity to extort the owners for the same level of salaries they have been making. Again, the top 8% matters the most and their greed is the most important factor in this debate.

Now from your position, the only other possible option you can consider is sheer stupidity on the player's part. The whole "noble cause" argument doesn't hold water. Pushing the young players and the majority of the membership under the bus so the big name players can continue to make stupid money is not noble. I know of no union that would consider this a noble fight, nor find it a righteous fight. When the majority of the union is not looked after it is not considered the good fight and the membership fights back. But in this particular instance you have a bunch of less than bright union membership taking advice from an even less than bright union executive who cannot defend their stance. I have yet to see a single comment from the union that gives a realistic explanation for their stance and refusal to accept linkage. But hey, I guess no explanation is better than an explanation that makes the union look... greedy?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Why bother making this type of stupid post? Either address the issue or admit defeat and slink away. These players got pushed under a bus if you think the entry level system is unfair. They did not get pushed under the bus if you think it is fair to limit the salaries of young players until they prove themselves.

Which is it?

Tom

If the players pushed all the rookies under a bus by agreeing to a rookie cap, wouldn't it stand to reason that all of the players are pushed under a bus if they agree to a full cap?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

But in this particular instance you have a bunch of less than bright union membership taking advice from an even less than bright union executive who cannot defend their stance. I have yet to see a single comment from the union that gives a realistic explanation for their stance and refusal to accept linkage.

I have just given you the explanation. It has been explained by many players. All you have to do is listen. If you doubt that explanation, then it is your obligation to explain those doubts. You can do that by:

a) Showing that players like Chris Pronger, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, Mats Sundin or Trevor Linden ever recover the money they are losing. If these guys can make thie money back, show us how. Tell me what kind of a contract Mats Sundin can sign in 2007 that will give him back $13.5 million. Or show how Chris Pronger can make back $15 million. It isn't going to happen. It most particularly isn't going to happen because revenues - and therefore salaries - are going to take a real hit if the season goes down.

b) Offering a different, equally credible explanation for the behaviour for these players.

The entry level system - and any other stupid smokescreen - is irrelevant.

You have to explain why these players are behaving so irrationally if not for the greater good. These guys say they are doing it to preserve the right of future players to get as much money as they can from the owners. They will change the bargaining levers each party has, but they will not accept an artificial limit on total salaries. They are putting their money where their mouth is, so you have to do a lot better than this if you want to discredit their position.

They've explained themselves, there is absolutely no reason to doubt their words because their actions confirm their words.

It is not about money. It is about fairness. Without a fair offer, the NHL has no players. Without a fair offer, there is no NHL.

Tom

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

It's all about greed, end of story. The PA needed someone to sacrafice so the top 8% can continue to make huge sums of money. They pushed the rookies under the bus to protect their phoney baloney position. Its standard negotiating practice. This has always been about money and insuring the players have an opportunity to make the most the can during their "short careers". Even though when a deal is offered up that would guarantee the players with the "shortest careers" the best opportunity to get a decent pay check during their brief careers, it is shot down because the top 8% isn't guaranteed the opportunity to extort the owners for the same level of salaries they have been making. Again, the top 8% matters the most and their greed is the most important factor in this debate.

Now from your position, the only other possible option you can consider is sheer stupidity on the player's part. The whole "noble cause" argument doesn't hold water. Pushing the young players and the majority of the membership under the bus so the big name players can continue to make stupid money is not noble. I know of no union that would consider this a noble fight, nor find it a righteous fight. When the majority of the union is not looked after it is not considered the good fight and the membership fights back. But in this particular instance you have a bunch of less than bright union membership taking advice from an even less than bright union executive who cannot defend their stance. I have yet to see a single comment from the union that gives a realistic explanation for their stance and refusal to accept linkage. But hey, I guess no explanation is better than an explanation that makes the union look... greedy?

Lanny

It takes two sides to sign a contract. If the players are greedy than what would that make the owners?
Stupid? yeah i think we can all agree they are stupid. How can you call one side greedy when another side gives them the money.

How do you know the majority of the union is not being looked after? You do realize if the nhlpa signs a deal with cost certainty a 42 million dollar cap is a mirage it would be more like a 35 million dollar cap. Perhaps if the owners proposed a cap without cost certainty the union would listen? You know a cap where it goes up a 10% or so every year? A cap that could work for both sides not just the owners. (yet the players are greedy)

I don't understand how you can call one side greedy yet not call the other side the same name. A lot of these owners don't mind losing money. (shock awe what could SOS be talking about he must have lost his marbles)

That's right kids some of these owners (not all) use these teams as tax shelters. They don't mind taking a loss because it covers up other investments gains.

Both sides can give a little and we could have a season but to call one side greedy just shows how brainwashed some people are. Both sides are greedy and at fault and both sides need to come up with a compromise that works. In a fight of billionaires Vs millionaires its laughable that anybody can point fingers and call one side greedy. :lol

 

[Wetcoaster]

Lanny

It takes two sides to sign a contract. If the players are greedy than what would that make the owners?
Stupid? yeah i think we can all agree they are stupid. How can you call one side greedy when another side gives them the money.

How do you know the majority of the union is not being looked after? You do realize if the nhlpa signs a deal with cost certainty a 42 million dollar cap is a mirage it would be more like a 35 million dollar cap. Perhaps if the owners proposed a cap without cost certainty the union would listen? You know a cap where it goes up a 10% or so every year? A cap that could work for both sides not just the owners. (yet the players are greedy)

I don't understand how you can call one side greedy yet not call the other side the same name. A lot of these owners don't mind losing money. (shock awe what could SOS be talking about he must have lost his marbles)

That's right kids some of these owners (not all) use these teams as tax shelters. They don't mind taking a loss because it covers up other investments gains.

Both sides can give a little and we could have a season but to call one side greedy just shows how brainwashed some people are. Both sides are greedy and at fault and both sides need to come up with a compromise that works. In a fight of billionaires Vs millionaires its laughable that anybody can point fingers and call one side greedy. :lol

Actually I like former NHL President Gil Stein's description of the NHL owners as the "Haves" and the "Have Mores".

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

Why bother making this type of stupid post? Either address the issue or admit defeat and slink away. These players got pushed under a bus if you think the entry level system is unfair. They did not get pushed under the bus if you think it is fair to limit the salaries of young players until they prove themselves.

Which is it?

Tom

What happened to "Mr. Free Market"? The "free market" should decide what a rookie gets paid, I mean, that is the "principle" these courageous hockey players are willing to lay down their lives for, isn't it? Why should a rookie have to prove anything to anyone? Just let the "free market" take care of things like it always does. Why should a business be allowed to have fixed labour costs? I mean, that is ourtrageous! I know that almost every business on the planet earth has fixed labour costs that are generally tied directly to revenue, but who cares, right? FREE MARLET! FREE MARKET! Oh wait... for a free market to exist you would need more than 1 business and the NHL is just one business with 30 franchises. Oops, so much for that idea.

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

I have just given you the explanation. It has been explained by many players. All you have to do is listen. If you doubt that explanation, then it is your obligation to explain those doubts. You can do that by:

a) Showing that players like Chris Pronger, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Rob Blake, Mats Sundin or Trevor Linden ever recover the money they are losing. If these guys can make thie money back, show us how. Tell me what kind of a contract Mats Sundin can sign in 2007 that will give him back $13.5 million. Or show how Chris Pronger can make back $15 million. It isn't going to happen. It most particularly isn't going to happen because revenues - and therefore salaries - are going to take a real hit if the season goes down.

b) Offering a different, equally credible explanation for the behaviour for these players.

Tom

Wait a minute, are you Eklund? You must be because only he would talk all this nonsense. Stop trying to prove your point by using a handfull of players. Yes, some players lose out by not playing this year but that doesn't change the fact that the VAST majority win by trashing a year and hoping the owners cave next year and allow the players to keep their precious "free market" BS system. And another thing, 30 IS NOT OLD FOR AN NHL PLAYER! PLAYERS MAKE THEIR BIG BUCKS AFTER THE AGE OF 31 AND MANY PLAY UNTILL THEY ARE CLOSE TO 40!

The ONLY credible explanation for the players holding out is flat out greed. Not to mention that the union is forcing them to stick to the party line and never question the union. Remember some guy namded Modano? Or how about the other 50 players who all were "misquoted"? Read this very carefully, ok? A 30 year old player either decides to accept a hard cap and have all his future earnings cut in half or waits out a year and takes short term loss for long term gain. Even the damn players will admit that.

Are you saying the players are doing something that is against their own best interests out of some magical free market principle? So all NHLPA members are rabbid republicans all of a sudden. Give me a break dude, you lost this argument a LONG time ago. Go back to writing your made up blog, Eklund.

 

[Other Dave]

MANY PLAY UNTILL THEY ARE CLOSE TO 40!

Define many.

A 30 year old player either decides to accept a hard cap and have all his future earnings cut in half or waits out a year and takes short term loss for long term gain.

What about players who are 33, 34, 35 right now? What about players like Alfredsson who are under contract until they are 'close to 40'? Somebody's going to give Alfie six and half at age 36? Or Sundin nine at the same age?

Explain specifically why Alfie and Sundin back the PA's stance.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Define many.

For the record there were 268 players over the age of 30 who played at least one game in the NHL in 2003-04. More than half of those players are 30, 31 or 32. There were 16 players 38 or older.

If history is a guide (it isn't because the league is getting younger, not older) 4 of the 144 players between 30 and 32 will play when they are 40. About 10% of them will get "close to 40" if we call 38 "close to 40"

Tom

 

[Crazy Lunatic]

What is it with you people? You use one guy to explain the actions of a 700 + member union? Give it up, buddy. Your argument is that the players are doing something that is against their own financial interests out of a pie in the sky "free market" principle. Thats a typical Eklund reader for you, completely gullible and willing to beleive anything their hockey heroes tell them.

As for Alfie, if he turned his back on 700 players and sold out his own union, how long do you think he stays alive in the NHL? I give it one game before that clown is squirming on the ice in a pool of his own blood. That isn't the way unions work. Haven't you seen how players are traeted if they step out of line with the all mighty union?

And you don't think 36 year old players earn multi-million dollar contracts? Geez man, where have you been for the past 10 years? The typical 32 year old star player (or old dinosaur as your kind think he is) could have 3 contracts ahead of him, maybe a 4th if he signed a 1 year deal. At the least, he has 2 contracts and he wants them to be under an insane BS free market system and not under a cap.

p.s. Let's see just how much "principle" these same players have next January. I'ts very easy to sit out a few months, but lets see how "principled" these guys really are when their greed costs an entire NHL season.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

If the players are greedy than what would that make the owners?

How do you know the majority of the union is not being looked after? You do realize if the nhlpa signs a deal with cost certainty a 42 million dollar cap is a mirage it would be more like a 35 million dollar cap. Perhaps if the owners proposed a cap without cost certainty the union would listen? You know a cap where it goes up a 10% or so every year? A cap that could work for both sides not just the owners. (yet the players are greedy)

I don't understand how you can call one side greedy yet not call the other side the same name. A lot of these owners don't mind losing money. (shock awe what could SOS be talking about he must have lost his marbles)

That's right kids some of these owners (not all) use these teams as tax shelters. They don't mind taking a loss because it covers up other investments gains.

Both sides can give a little and we could have a season but to call one side greedy just shows how brainwashed some people are. Both sides are greedy and at fault and both sides need to come up with a compromise that works. In a fight of billionaires Vs millionaires its laughable that anybody can point fingers and call one side greedy. :lol

Hold it one minute. I think the owners are greedy SOBs as well, but the difference is that these greedy SOBs have invested millions in the franchises and deserve to run their business the way they desire. It is their league. If the players do not like the way the owner's league is run they have the option to go and play in any other league of their liking... if they can make a team and commit to it.

I think this is a no win situation for us fans. It is tearing us apart as we are forced to pick sides with those who offend us the least. And that's why I have sided with the owners for the most part. I find the players to be completely offensive in their approach. They are telling the people who have put up the money and treated them like kings, that they don't care about the challenges they face and that they (the players) deserve more than their fair share. As a professional, a businessman I cannot understand this and cannot condone the actions of employees taking this stance. They have been invited to become partners with the majority share of revenues and have turned their nose up at it. It really bugs the hell out of me that these players want so much but refuse to accept any of the risk. That is what drove me to the owners side.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Hold it one minute. I think the owners are greedy SOBs as well, but the difference is that these greedy SOBs have invested millions in the franchises and deserve to run their business the way they desire.

This is a great idea if the NHL could run their business without the players.

It is their league. If the players do not like the way the owner's league is run they have the option to go and play in any other league of their liking... if they can make a team and commit to it.

Apparently this is what the players are choosing to do. Which presents the owners with a problem. They have no league to sell.

They have been invited to become partners with the majority share of revenues and have turned their nose up at it.

No, the owners are trying to force them to be partners when by definition partners choose to join together.

As a businessman what do you think of the Gary Bettman negotiating strategy? Letting the season go by without tabling a single comprehensive offer? They can't even say "Why don't the players vote on it?" because there is no offer to vote on. After 17 months of discussion, you'd think they'd have presented their best offer before they tanked a season. So Gary has to negotiate against himself a little.

Table a fair CBA - what the players could have had if they negotiated his system hard - and plunk it down. Why hasn't Bettman done that? What's he waiting for?

Tom

 

[thinkwild]

He must be waiting for the last minute. Hopefully he's a deadline hunter.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

What a load. And the first bargaining chit offered up by the NHLPA? Rookies and entry level contracts. Yeah, this is all about protecting the young guys. This is all about protecting the top 8% of the PA membership and guaranteeing that they continue to make exorbidant salaries while the role players and youngsters take it in the kiester. If it were anything else the NHLPA would have put the NHL offer where the roll back was adjusted to a vote. But the NHLPA knew better because those players not in the top 8% would have been tickled to be guaranteed $800K er season.

Alright.....I'm highjackin' this screenname AGAIN, (REALLY need to register here....)

I've wanted to throw MY $0.02 in on this stance for a LONG time, (this "throwing the rookies/youngsters under the bus" argument).

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least a DOZEN "rookies/younger players" who were allegedly "thrown under the bus" when the "Big money earners" agreed to a rookie cap as part of the LAST Collective Bargaining Agreement, in essence "sacrificing" the kids for their OWN pocketbooks.

So I looked them up. Looked up their salaries from 1994, and their salaries from 2004.

I'm sure there are loads more of them out there who could be used as "examples" of how the "Rich, Veteran, Big Dollar Earners in the PA" sold out the kids, but here's what I came up with, (off the top of my head).

Martin Brodeur
Salary in 1994 - $140,000
Salary in 2004 - $6,891,103

Mats Sundin
Salary in 1994 - $645,830
Salary in 2004 - $9,000,000

Nik Lidstrom
Salary in 1994 - $200,000
Salary in 2004 - $10,000,000

Chris Pronger
Salary in 1994 - $1,600,000
Salary in 2004 - $9,500,000

Alexei Yashin
Salary in 1994 - $660,000
Salary in 2004 - $8,400,00

Darius Kasparaitis
Salary in 1994 - $475,000
Salary in 2004 - $4,200,000

Michael Peca
Salary in 1994 - $159,525
Salary in 2004 - $4,250,000

Owen Nolan
Salary in 1994 - $531,860
Salary in 2004 - $6,500,000

Jaromir Jagr
Salary in 1994 - $1,322,000
Salary in 2004 - $11,000,000

Keith Tkachuk
Salary in 1994 - $193,749
Salary in 2004 - $10,000,000

Doug Weight
Salary in 1994 - $175,475
Salary in 2004 - $8,500,000

Zigmund Palffy
Salary in 1994 - $325,000
Salary in 2004 - $7,000,000

Peter Forsberg
Salary in 1994 - $2,002,925
Salary in 2004 - $11,000,000

Markus Naslund
Salary in 1994 - $900,000
Salary in 2004 - $5,225,000


Again. That's just off the top of my head.

Point is.....if the "greedy, big money, veteran" players HADN'T stood their ground in '94, few, if ANY, of the aforementioned Players would be making anywhere CLOSE to what they currently are.

If THESE are the results of "sacrificing" the kids, "throwing the rookies/youngsters under the bus", I'd say these youngsters came out smelling like a rose in the end.

And they have the VETS in 1994 to thank for it.

Quid pro quo.

 

[Other Dave]

None of the players above were affected by the rookie salary cap.

Try these players:

Wade Redden
Starting Salary - $850,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $4,500,000

Shane Doan
Starting Salary - $800,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $2,800,000

Jarome Iginla
Starting Salary - $850,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $7,500,000

Derek Morris
Starting Salary - $875,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $3,500,000

Joe Thornton
Starting Salary - $925,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $5,500,000

Marian Hossa
Starting Salary - $800,000
Salary in 2003-2004 - $2,750,000

etc.

The trend for elite prospects signed under the '95 CBA seems to be higher starting salaries, and potentially lower top-end RFA salaries.

 

[Wetcoaster]

What is it with you people? You use one guy to explain the actions of a 700 + member union? Give it up, buddy. Your argument is that the players are doing something that is against their own financial interests out of a pie in the sky "free market" principle.

There is no "Free Market" in the NHL. On that point you can get both Bob Goodenow and Gary Bettman to agree.

John Moag, who is the chairman and chief executive officer of Moag & Company, a Baltimore based sports, media and entertainment investment banking firm, looks at it this way.

"Sports is not about capitalism," Moag told a sports management conference in Toronto recently. "It doesn't work in a capitalistic sense. That's why the NFL is a socialist entity."

Moag isn't alone. Hamish MacAulay wrote this in FFWD Weekly, a Calgary publication, just before the last Super Bowl.

"Half of the U.S. population and millions of Canadians will be sucked into watching the annual crowning of the National Football League’s champion as America’s most successful socialist experiment," he wrote. "The big-game hype will be full of jingoistic salutes to the American way, the American dream, the American military and the tough job it has bringing the dream to the unenlightened masses of the world. Yet the league itself and how it has risen from the periphery to the pinnacle of U.S. sports is a testament to socialist values."

When it comes to pro sports league, the NFL is highly socialistic. There is a hard salary cap to limit what teams can spend on player salaries. A vast majority of league revenues are shared equally among the teams. All of it in the name of parity.

Even New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose team has won two of the last three Super Bowls, would accept the socialist label.

"We're socialists, in that we all have the same budget to spend," Kraft once said in an interview with PBS. "And then those who manage their budget more efficiently and get the best value should over time do better, because we want everyone to be competing with the same ground rules."

"The only market in any sport for individual negotiations is the market that's defined by Collective Bargaining," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said earlier this summer at the NHL Entry Draft in Raleigh, North Carolina.

When the NHLPA talks about the marketplace it is careful not to call it a free market. That's because it isn't. It is, for the most part, far from it. It is a highly restrictive system that limits player movement and sets rules that govern various aspects of contract negotiations.

"In our game, you've basically got to be 31 years old before you can become unrestricted. In the other three major sports you can get free in three or four years, give or take. And so we thought our restricted free agency was going to be something that would slow down the inflation of salaries," Bettman notes.

And Goodenow agrees as he said in an interview with the south Florida's Sun-Sentinel newspaper:
"We have a very restrictive system. Players cannot become free agents until they're 31, so you take a top young player, like a Stephen Weiss, and you draft this player when he's 18, 19 years old and he comes to play for the team and they'll have him for 10, 12, 13 years sometimes. And that's a long time. There are tremendous controls."

There is NO "Free Market" in the NHL.