Could the players revolt? (MOD: if no NHL participation in Pyeongchang)

[Reindl87]

If the NHL doesn't go, you can expect to see some very interesting spin from fans of whatever team wins. I predict claims that "an Olympic gold is an Olympic gold, no matter who plays". Basically an attempt to equate that win with Olympic wins from the past five tournaments. Hopefully we don't have a chance to see.

You can't blame the winner for those who don't show up. The Olymics allow NhLers to play. If North American NHlers decide not to show up while others would, you could hardly blame that on those who show up.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I know but Finnish has so few relatives.

As an Estonian I say hei!

You can't blame the winner for those who don't show up. The Olymics allow NhLers to play. If North American NHlers decide not to show up while others would, you could hardly blame that on those who show up.

You can hardly expect players to show up if they'd be required to breach the terms of their contract to do so. Nobody's "blaming the winner", celebrate all you want. If you think a Gold Medal that's won while the best players in the world are doing something else I'm happy for you.

 

[JackSlater]

You can't blame the winner for those who don't show up. The Olymics allow NhLers to play. If North American NHlers decide not to show up while others would, you could hardly blame that on those who show up.

What does this have to do with what I said? I am saying that an Olympic medal has far less value if the best players don't show up, and yet I expect that some people from the winning country will try to claim that it has the same value as it did with all the best participating. That has nothing to do with blaming the players who did show up.

 

[Reindl87]

What does this have to do with what I said? I am saying that an Olympic medal has far less value if the best players don't show up, and yet I expect that some people from the winning country will try to claim that it has the same value as it did with all the best participating. That has nothing to do with blaming the players who did show up.

It means that gold will have the excact same value than it always has had since NHLers are allowed. If you think you are the best, proof it on the ice. If you prefer playing the puppet for your millionar owner of a random business franchise over answering the call of your country to perform on the biggest stage, well that's your decision. But don't go around and say if I had been there things would be different.
This is not like up to 1992 were pros from the west were unfairly excluded. Today pros have all the freedon and power in the world to compete in the Olympics. If North American players really want to go, a solution will be found. The players have the power they only have to use it and be willing to pay a few bucks for competing. That really shouldn't be asked too much.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It means that gold will have the excact same value than it always has had since NHLers are allowed. If you think you are the best, proof it on the ice. If you prefer playing the puppet for your millionar owner of a random business franchise over answering the call of your country to perform on the biggest stage, well that's your decision. But don't go around and say if I had been there things would be different.
This is not like up to 1992 were pros from the west were unfairly excluded. Today pros have all the freedon and power in the world to compete in the Olympics. If North American players really want to go, a solution will be found. The players have the power they only have to use it and be willing to pay a few bucks for competing. That really shouldn't be asked too much.

Sure thing buddy.

 

[jj cale]

It means that gold will have the excact same value than it always has had since NHLers are allowed. If you think you are the best, proof it on the ice. If you prefer playing the puppet for your millionar owner of a random business franchise over answering the call of your country to perform on the biggest stage, well that's your decision. But don't go around and say if I had been there things would be different.
This is not like up to 1992 were pros from the west were unfairly excluded. Today pros have all the freedon and power in the world to compete in the Olympics. If North American players really want to go, a solution will be found. The players have the power they only have to use it and be willing to pay a few bucks for competing. That really shouldn't be asked too much.

Ah.................no.

Far Inferior athletes at a supposed best in the world competition=lesser value.

That's just the way it is. There is no smoke and mirrors trick or excuse that can be made to change that.

 

[Reindl87]

Ah.................no.

Far Inferior athletes at a supposed best in the world competition=lesser value.

That's just the way it is. There is no smoke and mirrors trick or excuse that can be made to change that.

So does that mean that Jagrs scoring titles in 98-01 actually have no meaning what so ever because they only happened because the best player in the world chose not to show up?
Or does it mean that the USA's world cup victory in 96 and the Czech win in 98 don't mean **** for the excact same reason.

 

[Atas2000]

The players want it. The fans want it. The NHL doesn't. They face a decision they could regret.

 

[JackSlater]

It means that gold will have the excact same value than it always has had since NHLers are allowed. If you think you are the best, proof it on the ice. If you prefer playing the puppet for your millionar owner of a random business franchise over answering the call of your country to perform on the biggest stage, well that's your decision. But don't go around and say if I had been there things would be different.

Well, you've proven my point at least. Olympic medals don't have an intrinsically high value. This is the reason that no one values the gold medal in soccer that much. Your basic premise is off though. Olympic medals don't inherently prove who/what is the best. Actually competing against the best does that, or at least as close as possible. Without the best players on their respective national teams, the Olympic medal becomes a nice golden trinket. I don't understand who you are talking to with regard to the last two sentences... I'm skeptical that any NHLers are reading your post.

This is not like up to 1992 were pros from the west were unfairly excluded. Today pros have all the freedon and power in the world to compete in the Olympics. If North American players really want to go, a solution will be found. The players have the power they only have to use it and be willing to pay a few bucks for competing. That really shouldn't be asked too much.

All players were allowed to participate in the 1992 Olympics, but the NHL wouldn't release them. The players do not simply have the freedom to do as they wish. They are contractually obligated to play for their teams, and there would be a huge problem legally if players just abandoned their teams without consent from that team. You seem t be living some fantasy with regard to what the players can do. The players can put pressure on the NHL to go, but they can't force it and they can't all just breach their contracts to play in the Olympics.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So does that mean that Jagrs scoring titles in 98-01 actually have no meaning what so ever because they only happened because the best player in the world chose not to show up?
Or does it mean that the USA's world cup victory in 96 and the Czech win in 98 don't mean **** for the excact same reason.

What are you even talking about here?

 

[tfong]

What are you even talking about here?

Mario didn't play those 2 years as he retired (for the first time).

 

[Gary Nylund]

Mario didn't play those 2 years as he retired (for the first time).

So he retired, so what? I'm still baffled by the 96/98 references too. I mean 98 is slightly devalued in my eyes because of the shootout but meh, by that standard all the Olympic hockey medals are devalued but that's a discussion not worth having again IMO. The Olympic rules are what they are, what can you do.

 

[BruinLVGA]

You can't blame the winner for those who don't show up. The Olymics allow NhLers to play. If North American NHlers decide not to show up while others would, you could hardly blame that on those who show up.

True!

 

[BruinLVGA]

What are you even talking about here?

So he retired, so what? I'm still baffled by the 96/98 references too. I mean 98 is slightly devalued in my eyes because of the shootout but meh, by that standard all the Olympic hockey medals are devalued but that's a discussion not worth having again IMO. The Olympic rules are what they are, what can you do.

So, I guess then that Canada beating Switzerland in a shoot out only in Vancouver 2010 is devalued too?

They are perfect, that's what they're.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So, I guess then that Canada beating Switzerland in a shoot out only in Vancouver 2010 is devalued too?

They are perfect, that's what they're.

Isn't it obvious - everybody decides for themselves that they value and what they devalue. That game had no impact on Canada winning the gold so IMO, Canada's Olympic victory is no more devalued than any other. Shootouts suck though, as far as I'm concerned, the final results of all Olympic hockey tournaments should have an asterix next to them. That said, the rules are what they are and you don't hear me complaining when Canada loses in a best on best ever, even if it is by shootout. Hasek beat us, good for him, he was awesome.

You're the one who's always complaining, your whining about a 3 game final is beyond hilarious, perhaps you could expound on your views in that regard.

Edit - all the Olympics without NHL players are close to irrelevant to me, it's like a WHC with extra hype.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

I've heard so many different things. Only players with five caps. This. No repeat Olympians. Oh well ...

You are correct about the five caps

However, as agreed with FIFA to preserve the primacy of the World Cup, the Olympic competition was restricted to players with no more than five "A" caps at tournament start, regardless of age.

Also found this

For the first time, professionals were allowed to play in the Olympic Football Tournament. Players from Europe and South America who had performed in the World Cup could not partake in the tournament, which helped teams such as Canada and Egypt, who reached the quarter-finals.

 

[Jablkon]

Ovechkin isn't the only one who will go to the next Olympics. Kuznetsov said recently "We're going there.". I don't know if by saying "we" he was including someone other than Ovechkin, but I'm sure a few other Russian NHL players will follow them.

They won't be playing against college kids, this isn't "Miracle on Ice" anymore. There are pro players of every citizenship outside of NA, even Canadians. The Olympics will be disputed between the pros from the European leagues + KHL guys + some Russian NHL players.

I guess this will cause some controversy among other teams. I can imagine preasure on Capitals to stay consistnet and not to allow them to go. But It would be sweet to beat such a russian team with Nhlers...

Would be also interesting if they consider to have a break in AHL. Quite a lot of players could be picked from there in case of NHL ban...

 

[tfong]

So he retired, so what? I'm still baffled by the 96/98 references too. I mean 98 is slightly devalued in my eyes because of the shootout but meh, by that standard all the Olympic hockey medals are devalued but that's a discussion not worth having again IMO. The Olympic rules are what they are, what can you do.

Think he was trying to put across that should people consider Jagr's scoring titles legit since Mario wasn't playing those years (because he came back in subsequent years).

Its just going back to comparing titles versus your peers or if a scoring title = scoring title.

 

[Tuoppi]

As an Estonian I say hei!

Tere!

But if Ovechkin and co play the whole season in KHL.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Think he was trying to put across that should people consider Jagr's scoring titles legit since Mario wasn't playing those years (because he came back in subsequent years).

Its just going back to comparing titles versus your peers or if a scoring title = scoring title.

Yeah I get that that was his point, it just seems like a stretch to compare that to NHL players not being at the Olympics. I guess it makes sense on some level though - everyone will decide for themselves how much they value/devalue any trophy/title/medal for whatever reason.

Do you have any idea what he's talking about re. "USA's world cup victory in 96 and the Czech win in 98"?

 

[jj cale]

So does that mean that Jagrs scoring titles in 98-01 actually have no meaning what so ever because they only happened because the best player in the world chose not to show up?
Or does it mean that the USA's world cup victory in 96 and the Czech win in 98 don't mean **** for the excact same reason.

I do not understand what you are talking about here. Lemieux was retired, out of the game, of course Jagrs scoring titles lose no value because of that.

I have no idea what the u.s win in 96 and czech win in 98 are referenced here for, maybe you can explain.

 

[RandV]

Seems like a pretty cut and dry situation to me. When everything lines up it's a great honour to represent your country and play in the Olympics. But when it doesn't and you have to forfeit multi million dollar contracts and face potential legal ramifications, suddenly nationalism doesn't seem so appealing.

If an NHL player wants to play in the 2018 winter Olympics, they will have to either a) breach their contract or b) not sign an NHL contract for the 2017-18 season. But with some IIHF agreements between leagues in place a) may not even be a viable option, they might not let suspended players play.

The NHL probably didn't want to go to Socchi, but they did face some legitimate revolt the players were used to going now having been in the last 4, and with the Canadians getting to win gold on home ice the Russians weren't going to be denied their turn. But for an Olympic games in China or Korea? Maybe a guy like Ovechkin who already who's already earned $100 million (?) in salary will push for it, but I doubt there will be many like him. Just look how important losing a year is for the players in CBA negotiations.

All that said, it won't be a best on best but I'm still very interested in seeing how team Canada will be put together without NHL participation. This means the league won't shut down to accommodate the Olympics, but what if teams want to let their younger players maybe in the AHL or even CHL go? Same thing with team USA and college players. If teams are allowed to choose whether or not to let certain players go it could still be a very interesting tournament worth watching.

 

[Xokkeu]

Seems like a pretty cut and dry situation to me. When everything lines up it's a great honour to represent your country and play in the Olympics. But when it doesn't and you have to forfeit multi million dollar contracts and face potential legal ramifications, suddenly nationalism doesn't seem so appealing.

If an NHL player wants to play in the 2018 winter Olympics, they will have to either a) breach their contract or b) not sign an NHL contract for the 2017-18 season. But with some IIHF agreements between leagues in place a) may not even be a viable option, they might not let suspended players play.

The NHL probably didn't want to go to Socchi, but they did face some legitimate revolt the players were used to going now having been in the last 4, and with the Canadians getting to win gold on home ice the Russians weren't going to be denied their turn. But for an Olympic games in China or Korea? Maybe a guy like Ovechkin who already who's already earned $100 million (?) in salary will push for it, but I doubt there will be many like him. Just look how important losing a year is for the players in CBA negotiations.

All that said, it won't be a best on best but I'm still very interested in seeing how team Canada will be put together without NHL participation. This means the league won't shut down to accommodate the Olympics, but what if teams want to let their younger players maybe in the AHL or even CHL go? Same thing with team USA and college players. If teams are allowed to choose whether or not to let certain players go it could still be a very interesting tournament worth watching.

Even if the AHL doesn't go you'd still see guys like Steve Moses, Brian O'Neill, Matt Gilroy, Casey Wellman, Clay Wilson, Bobby Butler, Jeff Taffe, Tim Sestito, Patrick Mullen, Taylor Aronson, Jon Blum, Dan Sexton would be about half the team along with NCAA guys

 

[tony d]

Doubt it. You could get a couple but I doubt many would do it if the NHL where to bow out.

 

[Xokkeu]

Everyone forgets that Olympic participation is collectively bargained so if they really really want to. They'll just go.