Roenick - "We've agreed to some kind of deal."

[Chadd 916]

Goodenow can kiss his job goodbye as well as the PA executive committee.

Irbe and Damphousse aren't going to be back in the league again next year anyway, so it's no big shock that they will be off the executive committee. Saskin and Gartner will be leading the NHLPA by this time next year. Goodenow supposedly has an offer from Donald Fehr to join the MLBPA when the CBA is complete. I rememebr reading last spring that is what would happen after the negotiations were completed.

[chippa13 1844]

I saw that and would commend him with having the balls to come out and actually show what (some) players think of the whole thing. I can't really see what he said causing the NHL to lose fans because the bottom line is it's still a shitty product they're going to re-sell to people.

But it might turn off some of the fringe people who were on the fence about coming back. The smart play, regardless of what players actually think, is to kiss the fans behinds. Especially with linkage purported to be in the CBA.

[chippa13 1844]

Goodenow can kiss his job goodbye as well as the PA executive committee.

Irbe and Damphousse aren't going to be back in the league again next year anyway, so it's no big shock that they will be off the executive committee. Saskin and Gartner will be leading the NHLPA by this time next year. Goodenow supposedly has an offer from Donald Fehr to join the MLBPA when the CBA is complete. I rememebr reading last spring that is what would happen after the negotiations were completed.

If they do play the membership will definitely vote a total change in leadership.

[chippa13 1844]

Don't get me wrong....I am sick of the fans complaining about player salaries and do agree with what JR said. After they gave back all this stuff for the new CBA, it will be hard to question them as much.

Also, perhaps this is a little PR stunt by him.

The worst part is, it was the big budget guys that were the problem. I guarantee that a majority of the membership would have gladly taken the February if they were allowed to vote on it.

[chippa13 1844]

They had to know the offers weren't going to get better.

[ktang 34]

Don't get me wrong....I am sick of the fans complaining about player salaries and do agree with what JR said. After they gave back all this stuff for the new CBA, it will be hard to question them as much.

Also, perhaps this is a little PR stunt by him.

I think Roenick was pushing, on-the-record, for a vote by the players about the Feb deal back in Feb. So I can understand his and Brisebois' frustrations now. It must have been hard for a lot of players to entrust their livelihoods to others, and not to have been able to participate, even by voting.

[Fletch 219]

Goodenow can kiss his job goodbye as well as the PA executive committee.

Irbe and Damphousse aren't going to be back in the league again next year anyway, so it's no big shock that they will be off the executive committee. Saskin and Gartner will be leading the NHLPA by this time next year. Goodenow supposedly has an offer from Donald Fehr to join the MLBPA when the CBA is complete. I rememebr reading last spring that is what would happen after the negotiations were completed.

Where did you read Damphousse was done? He signed with the Av's, but it was a one year deal. I'm thinking he'll be back for one more year somewhere.

[mack 44]

I saw that and would commend him with having the balls to come out and actually show what (some) players think of the whole thing.  I can't really see what he said causing the NHL to lose fans because the bottom line is it's still a shitty product they're going to re-sell to people.

But it might turn off some of the fringe people who were on the fence about coming back. The smart play, regardless of what players actually think, is to kiss the fans behinds. Especially with linkage purported to be in the CBA.

I see the point in that but I loved the NHL as much as anyone but the last couple years have just been brutal. Die-hards are who they should worry about and these comments aren't what would push me away from the NHL - what it's turned into is what would push me away. I do miss the NHL at times but as long as I can keep playing on my own I can see not having it around at all.

[chippa13 1844]

Don't get me wrong....I am sick of the fans complaining about player salaries and do agree with what JR said.  After they gave back all this stuff for the new CBA, it will be hard to question them as much.

Also, perhaps this is a little PR stunt by him.

I think Roenick was pushing, on-the-record, for a vote by the players about the Feb deal back in Feb. So I can understand his and Brisebois' frustrations now. It must have been hard for a lot of players to entrust their livelihoods to others, and not to have been able to participate, even by voting.

He definitely wanted a vote back then. The leadership screwed the membership.

[Chadd 916]

Goodenow can kiss his job goodbye as well as the PA executive committee.

Irbe and Damphousse aren't going to be back in the league again next year anyway, so it's no big shock that they will be off the executive committee. Saskin and Gartner will be leading the NHLPA by this time next year. Goodenow supposedly has an offer from Donald Fehr to join the MLBPA when the CBA is complete. I rememebr reading last spring that is what would happen after the negotiations were completed.

Where did you read Damphousse was done? He signed with the Av's, but it was a one year deal. I'm thinking he'll be back for one more year somewhere.

Given his age and recent performance levels I can't imagine a team signing him. Then again, if he's willing to swallow his pride and play for a fraction of what he used to play for, he can probably get a job somewhere.

[Eazy_b97 1]

He definitely wanted a vote back then.  The leadership screwed the membership.

I don't mind what JR said, and his statements seem to be true about a better deal, but he also made it much more difficult for the PA to get a better deal. The union needed to be willing to loose it all if they wanted a free market, and they weren't. Players starting buckling by X-mas. JR, Iggy and Pronger started to eat away from the inside with their "fear" tactics. Whether they could've gotten a "better deal" had they held out longer and stronger will never be known, but its generally how it goes. Either way I am glad hockey is back, I just wish JR would point that blame finger in his own direction. The membership told Goodenow and such they wanted a free system, and he tried to get it to them, but they started buckling. At that point he has to decide if the players are just nervous, or if they actually want to sign that deal.

[ktang 34]

Thanks for the update above, Theo, now things are more in context.

Another example about why athletes recycle cliches...

[Jason Harris 31]

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=129049

He brings up a good case against media outlets. Also, about how much the players gave back to the greedy, control freak, idiot owners.

Theo,

I don't believe it's so one-sided that the owners are greedy and the players aren't.

Ownership groups have invested $100M to $700M (I'm considering all major sports, here) in these teams. If this was any other industry, no one here would begrudge the owners wanting a return on their investment. In fact, most manufacturers strive to earn a 10%-15% profit annually.

Now, it's quite probable that teams massage their books to hide sources of income. We know Hollywood does it when they claim they lost money on $350M blockbusters. So, if in fact teams are actually earning $50M a year and claiming they lost $25M, then you are absolutely correct that they are greedy. But, what if the truth is they lost $25M (although they cooked the books to make it look like they lost $40M for tax purposes)? Would that be greedy to want to actually earn a profit on their investment?

So that really becomes the question. Are the owners lying, in which case they are greedy, or have they actually lost money, in which case it's short-sighted to suggest they are greedy.

Obviously, I fall under the camp that enough owners have lost money, because I can't believe they would have presented such a unified front otherwise.

[chippa13 1844]

Actually, several players have done just that. Holding out for more money because they know that the team can't afford to have a gaping hole in their roster.

[Chadd 916]

Some of the teams are run to lose money as a write off against other interests those owners have. The Rangers are a write-off against cablevision income and are a prime example.

The NHL wanted a fool-proof system where even the worst-run franchise (Chicago?) could make a profit.

[KillerCarlson 0]

Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a minute...not saying I agree with either side, just a thought...

Years back, when I felt I was HORRIBLY underpaid for the job I was doing, I had a co-worker explain something to me. Something that I argued, and argued against for a long time. Yet, now...I have to admit I mostly understand him.

If the player's don't like how much money they are making...leave. Play somewhere else. There are other opportunities to play for good money, all around the world. If you choose to stay here for less money, then by market economics, you have just admitted that what you are being paid is worth it to you. If you had it so bad, and it just wasn't worth it for all of your hard work and sacrifice...you would seek emplyment elsewhere.

Even if it comes down to the intangibles...family, language, standard of living, etc. You were offered a salary, and you "chose" to accept it. Now it's on you. Fair or not.

An employer - especially an owner, with a financial stake at hand - is not responsible for making sure you are paid the maximum amount possible. In fact, it's most often quite the opposite, they are there to maximize profits for themselves or the company the represent. Many times this entails keeping payrolls down. So, if you're in that position, and no one is leaving...why pay them more? If they're staying, why offer to pay more? As an owner, who started the team, and has large financial responsibilities, that is their prerogative. Unfortunately, the player's are in many way's more dependant on the team than the other way around...which gives the owner's a bit more power.

Again...I'm not saying I agree with this (like I said, I had a hard time with it...still do to an extent) - but often times, this is how it works.

After this, you get into: fair wages, how much money does the individual actually bring in / are they compensated fairly compared to this...many other things.

Ultimately, the owners own (duh) the team and write the checks. Just as no one should guarantee the owner's a certian profit, no one should guarantee the players anything either. And whn athlete's are making as much as doctor's who are saving lives...blah, blah, blah...you've heard it all before.

The player's took a chance...they got called. Personally I hate it. I agree wholeheartedly with Theo when he said that hockey player's are, as a whole, the classiest athlete's anywhere.

Also, as I see this thread grow, it has become more owner / player as far as blame goes. With this in mind, I just don't see how Roenick's comments about fan's staying home can be anything bu counter-productive.

Just something to nitpick...feel free.

[Chadd 916]

Good points but there's a problem with that. There has just been a limitation put on what the larger market teams can pay players because of teams that were placed later in smaller or less profitable markets.

If it's fair for a team to pay less money, why isn't it fair for another team to pay more money? If one owner wants to pocket $25M a year that should be his choice. However, if another owner wants to put that money back into the team and try to put a better team on the ice, shouldn't he be permitted to do so as well?

BTW, Roenicks comments were directed at the "fans" who were bitching about the players. If you heard the question or saw the unedited interview, it sounded very different from what ESPN showed or quoted.

[ktang 34]

Now they're just picking on him and the NHL. Bettman should do something.

Remember when Hull said he wouldn't go to see NHL games because they were too boring, and how the media picked up on the negativity?

[dietzie27 0]

If it's fair for a team to pay less money, why isn't it fair for another team to pay more money? If one owner wants to pocket $25M a year that should be his choice. However, if another owner wants to put that money back into the team and try to put a better team on the ice, shouldn't he be permitted to do so as well?

well look at the rangers. they invest a ton of money into the team and still dont make the playoffs? i think teams who are struggling should be given a little extra cash (i.e. both of our teams chadd, pit and chi) but i dont think teams like detroit and philly should have to cut 30 million off of their payroll.

[KillerCarlson 0]

BTW, Roenicks comments were directed at the "fans" who were bitching about the players. If you heard the question or saw the unedited interview, it sounded very different from what ESPN showed or quoted.

Good point, Chadd...

Freakin' media. I just saw the footage of what Roenick said, and it is indeed quite different from what ESPN spun. The whole tone and direction of his comments come acroos quite differently when you hear them from his own mouth.

[KillerCarlson 0]

Also Killer, I definitely understand what your saying, but remember that the players did not strike (which would really imply they are unhappy w/ $$).

Agreed...but it seems kind of hazy to me. When you say they didn't strike, that is true. But they also didn't agree to a CBA in time to save the season. Is that a "strike?" No. But it did bring about the same result, and for mostly the same reason - money...fair / just compensation.

Chadd and Theo, you both make good points - and I agree (mostly) with you both. I guess I was just illustrating some of the salary arguments that mostly go un-noticed - or at least un-reported. Devil's Advocate to bring to light the whole picture.

And yes, I would be PISSED if my salary was cut in half after 8 or 10 years. But my point was just that, it would then be on me to do something about it...or not.

p.s. If I'm not mistaken - please correct me here - the idea behind not letting the "big" teams spend a ton of money (if they want to) is like that of a salary cap? The idea being that you don't get a hockey version of the Yankees? If so, I can understand that. While I think it's COOL that an owner in a big market would spend all that he has to win, I do see where it would make it hard for a team in a small market to compete with that team. Is that what you were talking about? I may have missed something, I just glanced at it real quick.

[chippa13 1844]

Two words: competitive balance. What is it that makes the NFL so popular? How about the fact that on any Sunday, any team can win. Fans in almost every NFL city start the season with confidence that their team has a shot. Contrast that with baseball where you have the Yankees, the Red Sox, and everyone else. Before spring training ends everyone knows who'll likely make the playoffs and who won't.

When the CBA expired the NHL was headed the way of MLB.

[chippa13 1844]

Trust me, you really don't need to try to look like a jackass. ;)

[chippa13 1844]

And how is hockey different? Commercial breaks every 4 minutes of playing time. 18 minutes between periods. I'd say that gives ample time for bathroom breaks, runs to get food, and trips to the beer line.

Really, the "American" generalizations are just a waste of bandwidth.

[chippa13 1844]

Laziness plays a role in why hockey struggles in some US cities? This is all a problem of obesity? Those are some of the dumbest assertions ever made.

Hockey struggles in some cities because noone wants to pay to watch a team lose, not at NHL prices. There are too many other options.