NHL Conspiracy Theory

[ubrakto]

Just so you know, in general I side with the players here.

I just don't see how the NHL players can feel they deserve to be paid like NFL players when their sport is so unpopular.

The players (and their agents) are guilty of making unreasonable salary demands, that's true. But ultimately the owners sign the contracts and cut the checks so I think they bear more responsibility. They want to whine about salaries being too high, but when the players proposed a 20-25%(?) rollback across the board did the owners even try to use that as a starting point? No. From what I understand they just said, "no cap, no deal." (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.) That's not negotiating. That's saying that no matter what kind of immediate pay cut the players make the owners won't be responsible enough to pay players what they can afford to pay.

I know free agency makes thing difficult for the owners and that there's a lot of aspects to this I probably don't understand, but when you own a professional sports franchise and you say you can't be trusted to manage your own checkbook then you're not getting any sympathy from me. The players aren't blameless, but the owners just make themselves look incompetent. (IMO, of course.)
---Todd

[GROGtheNailer]

Interesting read on how getting rid of 10 teams wont improve the play:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/20 ... 03386.html[/quote]

[dbdynsty25]

They want to whine about salaries being too high, but when the players proposed a 20-25%(?) rollback across the board did the owners even try to use that as a starting point? No. From what I understand they just said, "no cap, no deal." (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.) That's not negotiating.

The big deal with the "no cap, no deal" statement is that the owners are the ones 'locking out' the players. They don't have to let them play, and they won't, until they accept what the owners are willing to give them. If the players reject those proposals, then the owners have the right to say, "the players are striking so lets bring in some scabs." That's what will happen in my opinion. Next year, hockey will be played...it just won't be with NHLPA players.

[jimd]

That's saying that no matter what kind of immediate pay cut the players make the owners won't be responsible enough to pay players what they can afford to pay.

I know free agency makes thing difficult for the owners and that there's a lot of aspects to this I probably don't understand, but when you own a professional sports franchise and you say you can't be trusted to manage your own checkbook then you're not getting any sympathy from me. The players aren't blameless, but the owners just make themselves look incompetent. (IMO, of course.)
---Todd

You make some relevant points. The problem is that you can't have the owners police themselves when it comes to spending on players--it would be be collusion and the palyers union would quickly call them out on it. It also wouldn't work because the there will always be at least one owner who has the funds and desire to be the best team no matter what the cost and he will spend. Thus, bidding wars start happening among the big-market clubs and we end up where we are now.

I understand why players are against the cap and in theory it is un-American, un-capitalistic, etc., but sports are an anomaly. These guys are still going to be making millions of dollars to play a game. The players "union" is a joke. Most of these guys have gone overseas and are making a pretty decent buck while enjoying a vacation in Europe. Doesn't really compare to steelworkers picketing day after day for better health-care coverage or higher hourly wages while struggling to make ends meet--now that is a union, that is unity.

I am a huge fan, but this whole situation has really pissed me off almost to the point where I don't give a crap anymore.

[rubba19]

The simple fact is that the business model for both sides making money is severly broken. Every business wants cost certainty to project expenses and revenues as close as they can.

I am still stunned why the players are so against a cap. The cap only really hurts the superstars, who now have a limited earnings ceiling. Yes, everyone will make less, but none will head to the soup kitchen. Maybe their agents should help them understand how to make that $700,000 a year work for them, like investments and the like. You can have a cap and still have both sides make tons of green.

So, as a matter of compromise, how about the NHL use the old "Larry Bird Rule" the NBA had and make one player exempt from the cap, maybe even designate him a "franchise player" or something. Another issue I would use is to have a "slush fund" of a limited amount to cover signing players due to injury,w hich the NFL doesn't have.

IMO, a cap fosters even more competition because players are not fighting for a roster spot AND a bigger portion of the cap space, which is another reason the players union is against it. More competition means a better product, which the NHL sorely needs right now.

And finally to the players.....it's a privledge to be an NHL player and all that hard work it took to get you there was shared by many a player who never sniffs a minute in the NHL.

[jimd]

I am still stunned why the players are so against a cap. The cap only really hurts the superstars, who now have a limited earnings ceiling. Yes, everyone will make less, but none will head to the soup kitchen. Maybe their agents should help them understand how to make that $700,000 a year work for them, like investments and the like. You can have a cap and still have both sides make tons of green.

I would bet you that most of the players are not against the cap. They are just blindly following what Goodenow tells them, and afraid of any potential backlash from their peers if they spoke out. That's what kills me about this "union". It really only benefits the small % of top players who have the big-money contracts. After all is said and done, if and when hockey returns, the majority of the players will be making about the same amount of money--cap or no cap.

[ScoopBrady]

They want to whine about salaries being too high, but when the players proposed a 20-25%(?) rollback across the board did the owners even try to use that as a starting point? No. From what I understand they just said, "no cap, no deal." (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.) That's not negotiating.

The big deal with the "no cap, no deal" statement is that the owners are the ones 'locking out' the players. They don't have to let them play, and they won't, until they accept what the owners are willing to give them. If the players reject those proposals, then the owners have the right to say, "the players are striking so lets bring in some scabs." That's what will happen in my opinion. Next year, hockey will be played...it just won't be with NHLPA players.

That's what I think will happen as well and it should speed up the process of bringing the NHLPA back into the fold. Of course the entire Blackhawk team could cross the picket line and play as the scrubs and nobody would notice.

[ubrakto]

The big deal with the "no cap, no deal" statement is that the owners are the ones 'locking out' the players. They don't have to let them play, and they won't, until they accept what the owners are willing to give them.

db - I agree with you that the reality of the situation is that if the players want to be back on the ice in the NHL the union is going to have to cave. But while the players and their union are no angels, I find less fault in them than I do in the owners.

jimd - Not sure I entirely agree. I'm not schooled on the legalities but it seems to me it's only collusion if the owners collective got together and said this is what we're going to pay regardless of how much money any specific team makes. (How that's different from a cap I have no idea.) But I don't see how each owner taking responsibility for knowing what they can afford to pay their players is collusion. That's just business 101, isn't it?

Yeah the "rogue" owner thing is a problem, but it seems like there are more ways to mitigate that effect than just having a cap (revenue sharing, luxury taxes, etc.). Supposedly even the big market teams aren't so far in the black that they could afford a huge luxury tax each year. Even the Wings claim not to make money if they don't get the bonus dollars from the team going deep into the playoffs.

As for the players being in Europe instead. Yeah, that's all true and I have much more sympathy for small business owners that depend on local NHL arenas for business than I do for the players. But like db noted, the players aren't on strike. The league is locking them out.

Regardless, all parties are certainly doing their league more harm than good as fans decide to just move on.
---Todd

[wco81]

I am still stunned why the players are so against a cap. The cap only really hurts the superstars, who now have a limited earnings ceiling. Yes, everyone will make less, but none will head to the soup kitchen.

I don't think this jives with the post-cap experiences in football and basketball. Team salary expenses are capped, not individual contracts. Superstars will still make exorbitant salaries because they help fill the seats and boost the egos of the owners. The middle class of journeyman veterans are the losers in a capped environment. In an uncapped sport like baseball, even long relievers and fourth outfielders with good luck and timing can sign ridiculous contracts. But in the NBA and especially the NFL, these guys get squeezed out in favor of younger players closer to the league minimum salary.

Contraction goes completely against Bettman's vision of expanding the league's base. I agree hockey remains a hard sell in cities that don't have the frozen pond tradition to fall back on. But the NHL will never get a US television contract without some presence in the Sunbelt. The casual fan is crucial to increasing popularity of the sport beyond the hardcore of expat Northerners and Canadians. The lockout presents a terrible image to potential corporate box buyers and advertisers that Bettman has been trying to woo since taking the Commissioner's job.

Yup, the cap squeezes out players earlier and shortens careers unless vets agree to take minimums. In fact, there is talk about Joey Harrington being cut because his cap number is so high. He's only been around what 3 or 4 years?

Cap results in parity and lower quality of play and it emphasizes getting young players into the lineup earlier instead of giving them time to develop. So besides greater free agency, you have younger rosters. Whether that will be better for hockey, I don't know. But its value is questionable for the NFL and the NBA.

[jimd]

Cap results in parity and lower quality of play and it emphasizes getting young players into the lineup earlier instead of giving them time to develop. So besides greater free agency, you have younger rosters. Whether that will be better for hockey, I don't know. But its value is questionable for the NFL and the NBA.

This is certainly a debatable topic. It's hard to argue with success the NFL has had over the past decade. Many would say that it is a direct result of the cap and the parity it produces. Every year, no matter what city you live in, what team you cheer for, there is always hope (look at San Diego this year, Carolina last year). Is that a good thing? Sure, I think so. Does parity equal mediocrity? Maybe, but look at New England, they are close to winning their third title in four years.

Now compare that to baseball. I mean if you are a Brewers or Pirates fan, what's the point? Usually by the end of May your team is out the pennant race and the big market teams are looking to take away any decent players that you have developed. Is that a good thing? Unquestionably, no. (And I am a Yankees fan!)

I guess my point is that ultimately, with a cap, the good outweighs the bad, at least from the perspective of a fan.

[JRod]

Jim,

Even though NE is about to win their 3rd in 4 years that doesn't mean that parity hasn't helped them to be a dynasty. Is the league stronger than it was a decade ago. That's debatable. Personally I think New England isn't one of the NFL greatest teams but parity has kept the quality of the NFL rather low allowing for mediocre teams to flourish. That's my personal belief.

Anyway my point I wanted to make is even though every NFL has a chance, this system only really works for football. With FA in baseball and all the turnover in basketball, a casual fan would now be able to keep up with the turnover. I think that alone is hurting sports and is the reason for the decling of viewship. When you don't know who's playing or who is on your team you just stop watching. When you have these 5 person three team trades, the fan is one that loses.

I know the unions would never go for this but instead of a salary cap, maybe we need a player salary cap. A starting Center in NHL can only make X amount of dollars. Or there needs to be incentives for players to stay on a team. I don't know what the solution would be but I don't all the responsiblity should be placed on the owners. Salary caps are fine but you don't solve the problems of players taking too much which hurts the team in the long run.

[ubrakto]

Yup, the cap squeezes out players earlier and shortens careers unless vets agree to take minimums. In fact, there is talk about Joey Harrington being cut because his cap number is so high. He's only been around what 3 or 4 years?

I'm going totally off-topic here, but I'm a Detroit fan so I can't not take the bait. Apologies in advance.

Everything coming out of the Lions front office (as reported in the Detroit papers) says that the Joey Harrington story (that he will be cut) is bunk. The Lions would probably love to have more of a sure thing at QB, but who are they realistically going to get? Plus backups McMahon and Mirer are FAs that reportedly will both be gone and even Detroit wouldn't be crazy enough to go into next season with not one returning player at the QB position. (knock on wood) They're pretty much married to Joey right now (who was publicly volunteering to restructure his contract to reduce his cap number for next year even before the "he's gonna be cut" story broke).

He just finished his third year, btw, so he's gonna have the Drew Brees coming out party next year. Jump on the bandwagon now while there's still plenty of good seats!
---Todd

[James_E]

I know the unions would never go for this but instead of a salary cap, maybe we need a player salary cap. A starting Center in NHL can only make X amount of dollars. Or there needs to be incentives for players to stay on a team. I don't know what the solution would be but I don't all the responsiblity should be placed on the owners. Salary caps are fine but you don't solve the problems of players taking too much which hurts the team in the long run.

See TSN... they dreamed up something like this:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897