What owners might the players boycott?

[Brooklyndevil]

Although, there will be a bunch of free-agents, especially if the new CBA does not honor 2004/2005 contracts and we all know that money is usually the deciding factor, however, are there certain owners that players might have a grudge with over the new CBA? The most obvious one is Harry Sinden from Boston. Any others?

Click to read more...

 

[Sicilian]

harry sinden is the president, not the owner. jeremy jacobs is the owner.

but anyway, i don't think that's going to be the case at all. i mean, the only reason they would be TRULY bitter and boycott an owner would be if they were honestly too selfish to see the damage the current cba was doing. if they're of that kind of mindset, they likely will go to whoever gives them more money, regardless of who is offering it.

 

[Judge Smails]

99.9% of the time, it's All About the Money!!

 

[Skk82]

yeah, it'd be foolish business for an individual owners to hold such grudges that it weighs down their franchise (and eventually fans) by not signing players.

not every team is going to be able to get elite guys like modano, demitra, niedermayer and kariya, the supply of true franchise players is too short, but their are plenty of impact players like stillman, rafalski, kovalev, gonchar that can improve teams.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

harry sinden is the president, not the owner. jeremy jacobs is the owner.

but anyway, i don't think that's going to be the case at all. i mean, the only reason they would be TRULY bitter and boycott an owner would be if they were honestly too selfish to see the damage the current cba was doing. if they're of that kind of mindset, they likely will go to whoever gives them more money, regardless of who is offering it.

Thanks for the correction. My bad.

 

[ranold26]

Although, there will be a bunch of free-agents, especially if the new CBA does not honor 2004/2005 contracts and we all know that money is usually the deciding factor, however, are there certain owners that players might have a grudge with over the new CBA? The most obvious one is Harry Sinden from Boston. Any others?

I think you have it all wrong. I think you'll see a flood of guys wanting to go to Boston. They have major cap room, they have been a solid club and make the playoffs....just need to win some rounds. Plus they have a solid young nucleus.
If there's any ignoring.......it will be the GM's ignoring players, not the other way around.

 

[Master Shake*]

Although, there will be a bunch of free-agents, especially if the new CBA does not honor 2004/2005 contracts and we all know that money is usually the deciding factor, however, are there certain owners that players might have a grudge with over the new CBA? The most obvious one is Harry Sinden from Boston. Any others?

The better question is, what players might the owners boycott.

 

[cjbhab*]

The better question is, what players might the owners boycott.

Agreed.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

I'm not so sure. In past players have signed with teams because of quality of life issues, a good chance to win the cup and of course, money! However, I can see a player receiving an offer from a certain team and saying screw that hard-line S.O.B. And this isn't an anti Bruins thread. The Boston owner just came to mind due to the meeting were I believe he caused a bit of a scene.

 

[Judge Smails]

I'm not so sure. In past players have signed with teams because of quality of life issues, a good chance to win the cup and of course, money! However, I can see a player receiving an offer from a certain team and saying screw that hard-line S.O.B. And this isn't an anti Bruins thread. The Boston owner just came to mind due to the meeting were I believe he caused a bit of a scene.

Here's a scenario:

Agent: Nashville is offering a 2 year deal for $1.5 million/year and Boston is offering a 3 year deal worth $1.8 million/year. Boston is guaranteeing you over $2 million more. Which offer do you want?

Player: Well, that Jacobs was a real sour puss during the lockout. I'll take the Nashville offer.

Agent: (in a state of panic) Really?

Player: (laughing hysterically) Hell no!!!! Show me the money!!

 

[Bruwinz37]

Although, there will be a bunch of free-agents, especially if the new CBA does not honor 2004/2005 contracts and we all know that money is usually the deciding factor, however, are there certain owners that players might have a grudge with over the new CBA? The most obvious one is Harry Sinden from Boston. Any others?

They wont boycott anyone.

 

[Brooklyndevil]

Here's a scenario:

Agent: Nashville is offering a 2 year deal for $1.5 million/year and Boston is offering a 3 year deal worth $1.8 million/year. Boston is guaranteeing you over $2 million more. Which offer do you want?

Player: Well, that Jacobs was a real sour puss during the lockout. I'll take the Nashville offer.

Agent: (in a state of panic) Really?

Player: (laughing hysterically) Hell no!!!! Show me the money!!

Well, if you put it like that. But, lets say team A and team B make a similar offer, then a certain owner might make a difference in where a player decides to go.

 

[ej_pens]

Well, if you put it like that. But, lets say team A and team B make a similar offer, then a certain owner might make a difference in where a player decides to go.

Doubtful. It'll be because of the team, the city, their playoff chances, the player's role on the team. There are plenty of reasons players can choose a particular offer that doesn't involve the owner

 

[Mess]

Although, there will be a bunch of free-agents, especially if the new CBA does not honor 2004/2005 contracts and we all know that money is usually the deciding factor, however, are there certain owners that players might have a grudge with over the new CBA? The most obvious one is Harry Sinden from Boston. Any others?

Not owners but teams .. NHL teams that are struggling to get above the Hard Cap floor of $22 mil . At least if the goal is contention for the Cup .

 

[Gee Wally]

99.9% of the time, it's All About the Money!!

damn straight !

 

[Mighty Duck]

damn straight !

Better tell that to Crosby, show him the money, Swiss bucks, or US bucks?

 

[abracanada]

99.9% of the time, it's All About the Money!!

And that .1% would be Kariya. I could see some of the free agents who have made a lot of money over the years, and want to win a cup, would snub a team who would pay a few hundred grand more a year, and make your life miserable.

There is also the old goat factor - players wanting to re-establish themselves in areas where they would like to retire.

I think the quality of life will have a bigger effect on these decisions than they have in a long time.

 

[Mess]

People forget that the team's depth chart and your expected role makes a difference .. If you are an Centre and the team you are going to has 2 All Star centres like Sakic and Forsberg under contract already ..

How much ice time will you get and or PP time if you sign a contract based on performance bonuses ..

 

[reckoning]

Wasn`t Jacobs under investigation for tax fraud by the state of Massachusetts? Who wouldn`t want to work for such a classy individual?

As much as the pro-owner sheep love to paint all players as greedy bastards who only go where the most money is, the fact is respect for your boss does play a role in the decision. Before the lockout, Phoenix had put together what looked like on paper to be a very competetive team for a fairly small payroll compared to the rest of the league. You don`t think respect for Gretzky was a factor for any of the players who signed with them?

 

[Gee Wally]

Before the lockout, Phoenix had put together what looked like on paper to be a very competetive team for a fairly small payroll compared to the rest of the league. You don`t think respect for Gretzky was a factor for any of the players who signed with them?

I think respect of Gretzky was a tremendous factor .All things and dollars being equal...

But I don't think for a minute that the vast majority of players are going to turn their backs on millions for a GM....as a rule of thumb.

That isn't an indictment..hell...we all do it . The players just have more zeros attached to it.

 

[HockeyCritter]

What owners might the players boycott?

None --- players, if they want to play, will go to which ever team can 1- pay them, 2- needs them, or 3- wants them. Some players will only sign with the highest bidder, some will sign with a team that gives them a chance at a ring, some will sign with a young team to be a mentor . . . . those reasons (along with intangibles such as quality of life) will weigh heavily in their decision making more so than "I want to screw this owner because he was such a hard ass during the negotations, so I won't play for him"

 

[HockeyCritter]

And that .1% would be Kariya. I could see some of the free agents who have made a lot of money over the years, and want to win a cup, would snub a team who would pay a few hundred grand more a year, and make your life miserable.

There is also the old goat factor - players wanting to re-establish themselves in areas where they would like to retire.

I think the quality of life will have a bigger effect on these decisions than they have in a long time.

Those are all very valid reasons for signing with or not signing with a team . . . . . that has nothing to do with boycotting a particular team because the player doesn't like the owner's stand during the negotation.

 

[dedalus]

Well, if you put it like that. But, lets say team A and team B make a similar offer, then a certain owner might make a difference in where a player decides to go.

Then you're not talking about a boycott anymore. You're talking about maybe a handful of player who are devouring a serious load of sour grapes.

It's not going to happen. Guys like Jagr, Avery, Roenick, and Legace are pointing the way for embittered players. They're not going to blame the owners; they're going to blame their own leadership. (And rightly so.)

 

[tmangos]

Well, if you put it like that. But, lets say team A and team B make a similar offer, then a certain owner might make a difference in where a player decides to go.

Doubtful. It'll be because of the team, the city, their playoff chances, the player's role on the team. There are plenty of reasons players can choose a particular offer that doesn't involve the owner

This is all true, and would be so under any type of CBA - old, new, any sport. Who the owner is might only be one part of the decision, if at all.
And besides, are all owners that involved in the day to day management of the team? Many are (and those that are are probably the focus of the question posed in this thread), but I'd think most are hands-off owners. It's probably most likely that the player wouldn't even deal with the owner that much ... no?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Wasn`t Jacobs under investigation for tax fraud by the state of Massachusetts? Who wouldn`t want to work for such a classy individual?

Uh, "fraud"? To answer your question, "No, he was not". He was engaged in a dispute over the manner of application of tax laws. Tax laws are disputable,and particularly open to various interpretations. They get disputed and taken to court all the time. That is what Jacobs did. He lost. No fraud was involved. Please get your facts correct prior to engaging in libel.

As much as the pro-owner sheep love to paint all players as greedy bastards who only go where the most money is, the fact is respect for your boss does play a role in the decision. Before the lockout, Phoenix had put together what looked like on paper to be a very competetive team for a fairly small payroll compared to the rest of the league. You don`t think respect for Gretzky was a factor for any of the players who signed with them?

To answer your second question, "Nope". Last time I checked, no one was playing in Phoenix for less than they can get elsewhere.