why do we hate players?

[simonus]

Looking at this most recent poll and many of the postings to this site I see an all too common trend of player bashing, especially in reference to the business side of the game. Why do people hate players so much? Because they are well paid?

I see some logical disconnect - we watch many of these players give up their bodies on a regular basis, perform feats that can truly only be motivated by pride, desire and heroic perfectionism, only to turn around and call those same players greedy. Why arent the owners ever bashed for being greedy? How many site members have bought a ticket to see George Gillett? How many goals has he scored? Isn't he very greedy?

Here is what the players desire that pisses us off so much:

1) Freedom of movement. Players want to be able to switch teams at the end of their contract. Players in any other major sport can do this with no problem. Now, I obviously want Michael Ryder playing in Montreal, but it seems very mean to force him. What would you say if you had to work at your company for the next 4 years and if you ever decided to quit, no other company in the country would hire you? Basically, players want to have the same freedom that we all enjoy and would litigate the out of it were ever taken away.

2) Freedom of market. This one astounds me more than anything else - people are angry at players for wanting freedom to negotiate a contract with their employer. Just like you, I, or any basically any other professional athlete has the right to do. Why should we prevent the Rangers from spending like idiots? Why should we help the florida panthers? Basically, owners are being crypto-communist in their desire that players should receive proximate salaries in a fixed market - it is simply un-american. It is simply un-western. If you believe in capitalism you must allow freedom of market movements.

Why should we help the Florida Panthers? Because the rich teams need other teams to play against.

Keeping the Florida Panthers in business in a poor economic climate is tantamount to New York City rent control, it keeps cronically unable ownership in the market and reduces supply of hockey players (the supply of nhl talent must be spread to one more team, eating up ~25 players). This raises prices because resources are scarce and forces more teams into economic crisis because they are forced to compete in an artificially crowded market.

Contraction should be seen as no more sad than any other medium sized bankruptcy. Oh well, they couldnt compete, la vie c'est dur.

Honestly, I hate to be a mean capitalist (Im actually an NDP'er), but em.

So please respond, why do you side with ownership, why do you display an essential dislike of players? Where is my reasoning faulted?

[Tony_]

I don't side with anyone. Closest thing I have to criticize anyone is the owners for being stupid enough to spend money like crazy and then complain they're flat broke.

[huzer]

I don't hate players, I don't hate ownership, but there are many things wrong with both groups. And obviously, the Rangers are a bad example, but when you have a hockey team with 25 or so players that has a higher team salary than any team in the NFL, that says a little something, about both the state of salaries (I know, I know, it's the owners fault, right?), and the misguided state of management. Lets not forget the NFL has 53 players on their roster, and is a much more lucrative venture than hockey.

Every other major sport has some form of salary control, and for the NHLPA to greedily stick by its guns to say they won't accept any form of "cost certainty" is just asking for a lockout. There needs to be some form of compromise on both sides of the issue, and it looks like neither is willing to budge, or at least blink first.

Are the owners also greedy? Sure, as an owner why would I go into a business proposition and not want to make money. I think everyone is greedy. Hell, I want more money. The owners are also responsible (in my mind, so is the commissioner) for the ridiculous contracts that have been dished out in recent years. From a player standpoint, why would I want to give up the chance that I could end up like Bobby Holik and make 9.5M a year? Welcome to greed on the players end.

I'm so sick of hearing professional athletes thank God for their talent, and that they are playing the game they love for a living, then threaten to sit out the final year of their contract because they think they just get an extra 1.2M on the 5M they already make. That's not all athletes, but they are the ones that make everyone's eyes roll. I don't have a contract with my employer, nor do most people. Most folks are happy to keep their jobs. If I signed a 3 year deal with a company, I would expect both to honor that deal, that pout and whine that after 1 potentially good season, maybe I shoulda asked for more money. Negotiate all you want, but when you sign a deal, you've signed it. Right, Mr. Yashin?

As far as player movement, go ahead and lower the UFA age, or take it away altogether. I don't care, but if the players want that, they better be willing to budge on other issues (Hello, salaray cap).

Contraction? I've been on the boat about that ever since some of these teams have been added. Take me back to, at a maximum, the 21 team league and I'd be much happier. While you're at it, give me back the real division names, since Mr Bettman couldn't figure out what the Adams, Norris, Patrick, Smythe were.

[simonus]

how about instead of a salary cap they have a luxury tax or revenue sharing or both? Doesn't that make more sense than some arbitrary absolute limit that handcuffs teams?

Argument against hard cap: let us say that the canadiens win the stanley cup next year. Let us say that this team cost $40 million.

Quite understandably, many players in the organization would be in for bonuses and raises and since the habs just sold out like 15 playoff games and have new sponsorship and TV deals they are in a perfect position to resign the team and give out bonuses. In fact, they would be smart to do so, because this is a high quality team that brings in fans and sparks community and national interest. In fact, they could spend maybe $50 million on next years team and make more profit - a smart business decision. Too bad the salary cap is hard set at $41 million. Certainly some combination of the 25 players on the roster have an increased total value of over 1 million and thusly the league is basically forcing the habs to break up their team against their wish. This screws the habs, it screws hab fans, it screws the players who want to come back to montreal but can't logically make that decision when boston is offering that same player 2.5 - 3 mil more. In fact, it turns out that the salary cap has just done what caps are restriction are supposed to prevent - players switching teams and thusly dilluting team loyalties. More players will per force be unloyal because the cost will be higher.

The phrase cost certainty has as many meanings as "Weapon of Mass Destruction" or "tax reform" and the players accept many forms of relative cost certainty (PS no other industry in the western world has true cost certainty, certainly in the way the owners mean it). Players have offered many impressive un-greedy and unselfish systems to the owners who rejected them. They have offered 5% pay reduction, luxury tax, and revenue share. The owners haven't budged. They offered to leave restriction (which I think is basically illegal...) alone as a concession and the owners say you. The owners are convinced that by holding still and ignoring the players and turning on their pr machine they can sweat them out. And judging NHL history they are correct. The NHL has historically hads the worst labor relations and conditions of any sport in US history. I too liked it when the divisions had names, but read just a little about adams, norris (any of them), Patrick, or that bastard smythe and maybe it wasn't such a good idea to honour them in the first place.

[huzer]

I've no problem with a luxury tax, but it needs to be set at a reasonably low limit to have any kind of real effect. The Yankees are still the only team in baseball that has paid out any tax. Both sides are stubborn, and quite frankly, I don't care if 20 out of 30 teams go bankrupt. Regardless, a cap system, and possibly a tax system, is something that would be phased in over a little time. I doubt a CBA sill be signed that says all teams must be within a certain salary structure immediately. I've never been a big fan of revenue sharing either, to be quite honest (even though that is essentially what a tax is doing). If a team needs hand outs because they are in Columbus or Nashville, instead of a city like New York, Detroit, or LA, then that team shouldn't be there in the first place. The idea of having a franchise is that you are going to be able to keep your on your own, not require handouts from everyone else in the industry. If I bought a McDonalds franchise in a tiny hick town, I wouldn't expect the McDonalds in Denver to have to share their revenue with me because they make more money. That's just silly.

The economic system has to be fixed somehow, but unlike baseball, where fans finally started to come back and watch games, the NHL is going to find that it's going to lose fans that just aren't going to come back.

[Zowpeb]

One major issue is that in professional sports the product is, in part, the players. The product AND employee are the same thing. I begrudge players earnings more then ownership making money...simply because I EXPECT people who own businesses to make money and not lose it. When players earn extravagant salaries and would still be considered very wealthy if they made 5 times less then obviously there are salary issues which have resulted in the need for this "cost certainty".

I'm all for capitalism but professional sports leagues are very different then any other industry. Because of the product/employee issue as well as the fact that while independant franchises must compete the league as a whole must be successful. One franchise wants to squish the other teams on the ice but can't afford to have unsuccessful franchises in other cities. They are interdependant on each other. No other industries work in this manner so standard capitalism does not hold.

As for players leaving successful teams...so be it. These players who have "upped their value" are probably no better then the year before and smart management will effectively replace them or have already signed these guys to staggared long term deals to limit player losses.

The issue of player movement is a tough one. When a team drafts it's players it's obvious that they must retain some rights to that player while they are in the minors. It's rare that young players aren't paid in the NHL...it's usually in the teams best interest to sign them or trade them. I could see them becoming UFA's a year or two sooner but more then that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense from the perspective of why bother holding a draft otherwise...EVERY league has some form of restricted free agency and/or team rights to draft picks. Simonus, I dunno where you think they don't...the NFL, NBA and MLB all have these RFA type set-ups.

I also agree with what Huzer said about signing contracts vs. full time employment. The jobs just not the same as everyone elses...honestly, if someone wants to pay me 750,000+++ a year then I'll let them dictate that I have to work for them for a minimum of 6 years. The players are just cry babies. They are overpaid millionaires who are expecting ownerships to LOSE money to pay them.

The union thinks waaayyy too much of itself and in my opinion goes well beyond the entire point of what a union should be in the first place.

[simonus]

there is a difference between draft rights and restriction. In other leagues, once you are a free agent you are a free agent.

If someone wanted to pay me $750,000 so that they could make $8 million dollars off me, I would be pissed to shit, even if I loved what I was doing.

Zowpeb, I completely agree with you that habs need the panthers and thusly shared revenue makes a whole bunch of sense. Even though we should encourage the continued competition from other teams, we do not have either the right nor the responsibility to demand that they properly run their organization.

Perhaps a couple of dead franchises will teach some owners to be careful in their signings. Are many players overpaid? Sure, but are those same players wrong to take the contracts that are provided to them? I don't think so. If my boss came over to my desk and offered me a $40,000 raise I would take it even if I thought he was stupid for giving it to me. In a good marketplace idiots weed themselves out. Kovalev will go to the team that offers him the best deal according to his priorities - money, team organization, quality of life, fan adulation, chance to win - in whatever order. If he decides to leave, that sucks... we go and get someone else. Perhaps Mr. Gainey will curse himself for a second for shipping out Balej, but he will then go out and get what he needs somewhere else, or grow it at home.

[UWHabs]

If my boss came to me and offered me 50 grand so they could make 500 grand, I'd take the money and run. It's a win-win for everybody.

Most people make the players out to be greedy money-scumbags or whatever, but their offer in october was much better than what MLB ended up settling for. Of course, hockey is in worse shape than baseball is, so that's not a big surprise. As long as they settle sometime before January and can still keep almost every team afloat, it'll be fine.

[Zowpeb]

Simonus, I'd have no problem making 750000 a year while the company makes 8 million off of me. Hell, I make 90000 a year now and my company makes probably 600,000 off me. Am I pissed? No.

I actually do think that the NHL has a responsibility to ensure that teams run their organizations properly. That is why there are CBA's...to limit the idiot GM's from running franchises into oblivion and, as a result, detracting from the game. The problem right now is that the current CBA doesn't do enough...the league needs a salary cap. The NFL and NBA both have them and both leagues are more successful then the MLB and NHL. Both of those leagues also have more parity, have shown that salary caps don't limit strong organizations from winning multiple championships and players are still multi-millionaires.

Now, I do believe there are, at least 4 too many teams, but that's another thread on it's own. Having teams go bankrupt or contracted is not good for the sport, it hurts the overall fanbase, is bad PR for the NHL, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault the players from signing, or bargaining for, the best deals they can get. I don't solely blame the players for this mess. Obviously, the GM's, owners, players, agents, union and even the fans have all played their part in this mess.

Quite frankly, the league needs rules on the following:

1) No team should be allowed to lose money.

2) Revenue sharing or a salary cap should offer a greater balance for the benefit of the league, and therefore the product that the league supplies.

3) There should be no expansion teams considered for at least 20 years.

4) Better marketing needed. For example: there should be NO tv blackouts...in todays world it's easy for people to move and it makes supporting your team difficult. Technology is there to allow people to see the games but the NHL won't let them. Even the Center Ice packages are not effective...why should I pay to watch all these other games/teams I have no real interest in. Let me pay to subscribe to MY teams games only and I'll pay 1/3 of the Center Ice price for 1/15 of the games. The NHL has idiots running their marketing.

[Uwey]

I never read many of these posts, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.

The owners really want a salary cap to protect them, from themselves. How can anybody blame the players for signing contracts that a team agrees to??? Yes, the player has the right to sit out, but I say fine, sit & not play until you reach the proper age to be an UFA. The owners started this, tearing up contracts way back when & that was the start of all of this crap & Bruce McNall was the ring leader, but look where he is at today!!! It's all about greed & the owners can't get enough. I'll guarantee you, that if you run a bussiness at a loss for more than two years, you are out of bussiness & therefore in the NHL, the Leafs should be the only team standing. Plain & simple, the owners don't trust each & want a set of bullshit rules to try & manipulate to their advantage.

[Edited on 2004/8/21 by Uwey]