GDT: Around the League 2023-2024 "Off Season??!! What off season??!!"

[K1984]

I believe they make more money for whatever the cause is by auctioning off player used warmup jerseys. Not sure how much more, but apparently more.

I’d imagine that they could just auction the game worn sweaters from the night and probably get even more money if they wanted. I think there are lots of avenues to make up any shortfall.

 

[bellagiobob]

I’d imagine that they could just auction the game worn sweaters from the night and probably get even more money if they wanted. I think there are lots of avenues to make up any shortfall.

Maybe, but it’s the uniqueness of the jerseys that attract the collectors. The Canucks had some sharp warmup jerseys for their various nights this year.

 

[BlackDogg]

I don’t think it’s the role of any NHL team to force any NHL player to wear something they don’t want to wear whether I like the cause or not. The whole thing is ridiculous, they’re still having the theme nights, just not the warmup jerseys. It makes complete sense as a compromise, but we all know that certain folks don’t understand the concept. The Canada/US thing is silly too because I’m not sure a single American player backed out of wearing the jerseys, but some Canadians sure did.

I’m not sure when wearing a theme warmup jersey (that not all teams had in the first place) became sacrosanct, but the reaction to this is silly. They’re jerseys for Christ sakes and the theme nights are still ongoing. The over reaction is exactly why the NHL dropped this, but people still seem unable to recognize it.

At the end of the day I think that certain people like to use the jerseys to vet which NHL players are guilty of wrong think and now they’re mad they don’t get the chance anymore.

Just play hockey. As far as I'm concerned, it's a hiatus in the politics of daily life. Or used to be a break at least.

 

[BardownMagic]

Just play hockey. As far as I'm concerned, it's a hiatus in the politics of daily life. Or used to be a break at least.

Yet we can involve national anthems, cancer nights, various charities in the 50/50, etc. This is not an argument they should use to justify this.

 

[Beerfish]

Well in our every polarized world if you are not 100% for something you are viewed as being 100% against it. Which of course is ridiculous.

Seinfeld was well ahead of it's time on issues like this. 'Wear the ribbon.'

 

[Fourier]

Why are jerseys so critical? Not all teams even wore them to begin with. The nights are ongoing. I’m sure certain players are welcome to express their support for whatever the cause on their accord.

It may well be that a team chooses not to wear a jersey for certain celebratory events. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the ban should a team choose to do so. And lets not ignore the fact that this ban has nothing to do with honouring vets or fights against cancer. It is 100% about pride nights and the fact that the league was embarrassed that a small number of players refused to wear the jersey. If the NHL had been honest enough to admit this and simply ban pride jerseys becuase they don't like the bad publicity, I would have had very slightly more respect for the decision in the sense that at least the motive would have been transparent even if I would still have very much disagreed with it. But it is corporate cowardice to ban all jerseys just so they did not have to telegraph the real motivation.

 

[BlackDogg]

Yet we can involve national anthems, cancer nights, various charities in the 50/50, etc. This is not an argument they should use to justify this.

All people benefit from those things I suppose. Well maybe not the anthems. Get rid of them too.

 

[BlackDogg]

Connor have you considered a pre-nup?

I kid.

Maybe.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Who would you rather have.

Kevin Hayes - 31 years old - 7.14 M$ cap hit for 3 years

Pierre-Luc Dubois - 25 years old - RFA but looking for a mega contract. Possible 9 M$+ over 6 or 7 years.

The correct answer is probably neither but if you had to choose one.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Who would you rather have.

Kevin Hayes - 31 years old - 7.14 M$ cap hit for 3 years

Pierre-Luc Dubois - 25 years old - RFA but looking for a mega contract. Possible 9 M$+ over 6 or 7 years.

The correct answer is probably neither but if you had to choose one.

Dubois represents a ton of potential wrapped inside a petulant player who seems to pout often and play poorly when his mood swings in that direction. Hayes is aging out and the last year of that deal wont be any good but still probably gets you some decent points in the next couple of seasons and is consistent in his play, and his deal is less than Dubois. I go with Hayes as I can always move that last year on his deal and it opens the cap space up faster to sign another top end player in 2-3 years. I can see Dubois not being a happy camper by Year 3 on the deal because the trainer keeps putting the wrong shade of white laces in his skates.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Maybe, but it’s the uniqueness of the jerseys that attract the collectors. The Canucks had some sharp warmup jerseys for their various nights this year.

They are still making and selling the unique cause related jerseys and I am sure players who wish to do so will still be autographing them for auction and collectors will continue to purchase them. The only difference is the players aren't being forced to wear something they don't want to which is their right.

Until we are living in a society where freedom of expression and freedom of speech is no longer allowed, like Russia for example, the NHL made the right decision to keep their political and social initiatives off the ice for warmups.

Sports and politics make for poor bedfellows. There is a reason they ban political and religious topics on forums like these, as they are very divisive. To bring them into sports divides the fans whose commonality is the team they cheer for.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Dubois represents a ton of potential wrapped inside a petulant player who seems to pout often and play poorly when his mood swings in that direction. Hayes is aging out and the last year of that deal wont be any good but still probably gets you some decent points in the next couple of seasons and is consistent in his play, and his deal is less than Dubois. I go with Hayes as I can always move that last year on his deal and it opens the cap space up faster to sign another top end player in 2-3 years. I can see Dubois not being a happy camper by Year 3 on the deal because the trainer keeps putting the wrong shade of white laces in his skates.

You captured it perfectly.

 

[MoontoScott]

The buyout window closes in 5 days so I guess we'll see this week if Chicago picks up Yams contract or he gets bought out. My guess is bought out. If he stays at 3.1M then I think the Oilers chances of signing all three RFAs are remote. Its going to be an interesting few days.

In other years there has been a second buy-out window? Is that the case this year?

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

The buyout window closes in 5 days so I guess we'll see this week if Chicago picks up Yams contract or he gets bought out. My guess is bought out. If he stays at 3.1M then I think the Oilers chances of signing all three RFAs are remote. Its going to be an interesting few days.

In other years there has been a second buy-out window? Is that the case this year?

I believe the 2nd buyout window is only for teams whose players filed for and recieved arbitration awards higher than about 4.5M.

 

[Fourier]

I believe the 2nd buyout window is only for teams whose players filed for and recieved arbitration awards higher than about 4.5M.

It just requires a player to file for arbitration. Chances are the Oilers will have a second window this year.

 

[PULSATING]

Just play hockey. As far as I'm concerned, it's a hiatus in the politics of daily life. Or used to be a break at least.

See that's the thing though, hockey isn't an escape from politics for a lot of people, it's a reminder of the box society forces them into.

The NHL should be embarrassed, they banned the warm up jerseys because the holdouts show everyone how empty their "hockey is for everyone" message is.

"Hockey is for everyone, oh, except you"

 

[PULSATING]

They are still making and selling the unique cause related jerseys and I am sure players who wish to do so will still be autographing them for auction and collectors will continue to purchase them. The only difference is the players aren't being forced to wear something they don't want to which is their right.

Until we are living in a society where freedom of expression and freedom of speech is no longer allowed, like Russia for example, the NHL made the right decision to keep their political and social initiatives off the ice for warmups.

Sports and politics make for poor bedfellows. There is a reason they ban political and religious topics on forums like these, as they are very divisive. To bring them into sports divides the fans whose commonality is the team they cheer for.

Ah yes the extremely divisive idea of "hockey is for everyone".

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Ah yes the extremely divisive idea of "hockey is for everyone".

It is for everyone. Nobody has said otherwise.

Nothing is changing except for the players - who have the right not to wear a cause related jersey - and now that choice is moot as the jerseys, available for purchase for those who do choose to do so - aren’t worn by the players during team cause nights.

Players have the same rights as everyone else. To force even 1 to wear something he doesn’t wish to wear is taking away his rights.

The cause is still being celebrated.

It just requires a player to file for arbitration. Chances are the Oilers will have a second window this year.

Ah ok I thought they had to get awarded over 4.5 in arbitration. Isn’t there a 4.5 minimum buyout limit?

 

[bellagiobob]

It is for everyone. Nobody has said otherwise.

Nothing is changing except for the players - who have the right not to wear a cause related jersey - and now that choice is moot as the jerseys, available for purchase for those who do choose to do so - aren’t worn by the players during team cause nights.

Players have the same rights as everyone else. To force even 1 to wear something he doesn’t wish to wear is taking away his rights.

The cause is still being celebrated.



Ah ok I thought they had to get awarded over 4.5 in arbitration. Isn’t there a 4.5 minimum buyout limit?

Players have always had that right, as we saw this year.

 

[Fourier]

It is for everyone. Nobody has said otherwise.

Nothing is changing except for the players - who have the right not to wear a cause related jersey - and now that choice is moot as the jerseys, available for purchase for those who do choose to do so - aren’t worn by the players during team cause nights.

Players have the same rights as everyone else. To force even 1 to wear something he doesn’t wish to wear is taking away his rights.

The cause is still being celebrated.



Ah ok I thought they had to get awarded over 4.5 in arbitration. Isn’t there a 4.5 minimum buyout limit?

The players already had the right not to wear the jersey. Banning all special jerseys is a significant over reaction to a very small number of players choosing not to participate. Especially since the only controversial jersey has been the pride jersey.

MLB has shown that this sort of thing can be handled in a positive way. And if MLB can do it so can the NHL. I am also curious to know what would be the reaction to a MLB player refusing to wear the number 42. If that happened should MLB abandon the tradition?

If a team loses the arbitration they can only walk away from the result if the award is over about $4.5M.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Players have always had that right, as we saw this year.

Yes but the NHL doesn’t want the blowback for when a player exercises their right to choose.

So they are leaving them out of it and if a player voluntarily chooses to do more, then great.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

The players already had the right not to wear the jersey. Banning all special jerseys is a significant over reaction to a very small number of players choosing not to participate. Especially since the only controversial jersey has been the pride jersey.

MLB has shown that this sort of thing can be handled in a positive way. And if MLB can do it so can the NHL. I am also curious to know what would be the reaction to a MLB player refusing to wear the number 42. If that happened should MLB abandon the tradition?

If a team loses the arbitration they can only walk away from the result if the award is over about $4.5M.

I don’t watch or follow MLB and never have so I’ve no clue what they do. What is so special about the number 42?

The NHL is a business and is taking the easy way out. There is no way they are going to single out Pride jersies, anyone with a functioning brain knows they’d be crucified and also that it may be cause for discrimination. So they all get axed equally for warmups but the cause can still be celebrated by the team without the distraction.

The NHLPA also is unhappy with players being trashed in the media and on social for upholding their right to choose.

Either way, Cause Nights haven’t ended and aren’t going anywhere

 

[Ritchie Valens]

I don’t watch or follow MLB and never have so I’ve no clue what they do. What is so special about the number 42?

The NHL is a business and is taking the easy way out. There is no way they are going to single out Pride jersies, anyone with a functioning brain knows they’d be crucified and also that it may be cause for discrimination. So they all get axed equally for warmups but the cause can still be celebrated by the team without the distraction.

The NHLPA also is unhappy with players being trashed in the media and on social for upholding their right to choose.

Either way, Cause Nights haven’t ended and aren’t going anywhere

Jackie Robinson, the first player to break the color-barrier. On Jackie Robinson Day, all players on all teams wear game jerseys with #42 on it as that was his number.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The players already had the right not to wear the jersey. Banning all special jerseys is a significant over reaction to a very small number of players choosing not to participate. Especially since the only controversial jersey has been the pride jersey.

MLB has shown that this sort of thing can be handled in a positive way. And if MLB can do it so can the NHL. I am also curious to know what would be the reaction to a MLB player refusing to wear the number 42. If that happened should MLB abandon the tradition?

If a team loses the arbitration they can only walk away from the result if the award is over about $4.5M.

It's a pretty common business strategy to align with social causes with objective to enhance corporate reputation, grow audience/customer base, support HR goals to attract and retain employees. There's a solid bottom line reason for doing such altruistic good things. It's no different than Bell advocating for mental health but without the corporate overreach and ability to force its workforce to wear tee-shirts or stump for what the company deems an important social issue (and brand enhancement tool).

What surprised me is not that big business NHL has embraced very worthy causes as league initiatives but that they did so without any formalized discussion with their unionized workforce on such things as imposed game day jerseys as a required team activation of these league initiatives. It's impossible to think that a global workforce with varied cultural backgrounds hold uniform (pun unintended) beliefs and obligated to do something corporate head office deems essential to business strategy and its bottom line. This is all well intended and the underlaying principle has some nobility but it is corporate overreach that bumped up against some individuals who's own belief they felt were compromised by something they didn't sign up for as professional hockey players. (I don't know if Ovechkin boycotts a Military Appreciation Day if one is held in Washington given his deep affinity to Putin. But that would be another extreme example. )

MLB gets a lot wrong with running their business. However Jackie Robinson Day truly has deep, direct meaning within the game itself (and its financial success) aligned with a significant cultural landmark event that has deep societal meaning and value.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Jackie Robinson, the first player to break the color-barrier. On Jackie Robinson Day, all players on all teams wear game jerseys with #42 on it as that was his number.

Ah ok thanks. I thought it had something to do with a player breaking the race barrier or similar.