Hitchcock - "The WC hockey is better than the Olympics."

[BayStreetBully]

I'll admit there is one team I am interested in watching: the under 23 team.

I still think the tournament is a joke. I still don't care who wins. I will watch when the under 23 team plays, but only because I want to watch McDavid and Eichel play together. I don't even care to watch the other players on that team.

And if by chance the NHL decides to scrap the Olympics, I will be bitter about any future "World Cups".

 

[xxxx]

If the World Cup becomes a financial success, it is entirely possible that they will withdraw.

I think, actually, making a lot of money from World Cup could mean that losing something from the Olympics wouldn't hurt that much. Quite astonishing that no one sees it this way.

 

[FiLe]

the players are under contract so what they complain ( or don't) about is moot. The people who OWN those contracts ARE complaining. Complaining about a lot. complaining about how olympic participation has NEVER given them or the league a jump, complaining how they have to shut down their regular season to accomodate these games, complaining about potentially losing a star player in a playoff run. complaining about how after getting the shaft at EVERY turn ( including the inability to use the games to promote their players) that they get to walk away with the grand total of bubkis.

Don't try moving the goalposts. You were clearly complaining before that the PLAYERS themselves should get paid, not their contract holders.

The players still don't mind not getting paid for playing in the Olympics, yet you insist they should. Why? You really don't have an answer to this. And probably never will. And it's the point that reveals you're just talking the big empty.

Besides, I also asked you WHY do you care that the owners get shafted. Why is it so important to you that they make even more money? You didn't answer that either.

 

[sandysan]

Don't try moving the goalposts. You were clearly complaining before that the PLAYERS themselves should get paid, not their contract holders.

The players still don't mind not getting paid for playing in the Olympics, yet you insist they should. Why? You still don't have an answer to this. And probably never will.

i not moving the goalposts, I'm poiting out that what the players " want" is moot. they are under contract. THEY NEED to be relased by their teams to participate. and its not just the players who are getting the shaft, but the owners. if the owners say " we are not going" what the players want is of zero consequence.

I'm sorry that pointing out the complete spuriousness of your response " but the players want it" makes your argument look weak. The easy remedy, come up with better arguments.

 

[FiLe]

i not moving the goalposts, I'm poiting out that what the players " want" is moot. they are under contract. THEY NEED to be relased by their teams to participate. and its not just the players who are getting the shaft, but the owners. if the owners say " we are not going" what the players want is of zero consequence.

Why did you clearly say that the players should get paid then, if it's now "moot"? My "players want it" argument comes STRAIGHT from your words, claiming they should get paid. So it's your OWN argument you're calling "weak", I merely turned the tables on it. And why do you care that the owners get paid? Are they giving you a share of the revenue?

You're dancing around the issue, giving pretend-answers. Because you have no real ones.

 

[Macman]

Heeeelllooo.... the players don't complain. Why do you? Bother to answer?

They're not complaining about the World Cup either, but you are, so what's your point? The players want both tournaments and so do I.

 

[FiLe]

They're not complaining about the World Cup either, but you are, so what's your point? The players want both tournaments and so do I.

Way to go missing the point. It's not about players complaining the existence of either tournament. It's about the players not complaining about not getting paid under the five rings.

 

[sandysan]

Why do you clearly said that the players should get paid then, if it's now "moot"? And why do you care that the owners get paid? Are they giving you a share of the revenue?

the players should get paid. So should the owners who are gifting players under contract to a third party for zero return. the owners who pay DEARLY for this talent and who run a business based on this talent.

Think of the world cup where the owners all got together and said, " you players are all going to play in this tournament that we made up, but we are going to keep all of the revenues and you get none". The players would laugh. Now swap out the owners for the IOC ( which the PA has no revenue sharing with)

I care because I think that corrupt entities like the IOC ( and the NCAA) that get FAT off of other peoples sweat should be called out for what they are opportunistic exploitation machines. And that if the IOC sees a bigger return by abandoning the canard of amateurism, that if they ALLOW professional players to be the draw that they are under the obligation to treat the pro's like pro's and pay them.

i guess i just dont like the hippocrites like the IOC who act like some sort of charity with everything OTHER than the negotiation of broadcast rights.

 

[kabidjan18]

so thomas vanek ( alledgedly) playing hungover doesn't bother you ? It seemed to bother his countries ice hockey federation quite a bit, no ?

and you are making my point for me. Because the austrian team had not made the olympics prior, what do you think their relative chances were of winning ? 1:100 ? 1:1000 ? lower ? So they go into a tournament knowing that in all likelihood no matter how well they play they are nothing but cannon fodder for countries with depth. That's is what you want to hang their incentive to play well on ?

Had austria had MORE top end talent, their chances go up. The more they approach the depth of other nations, the closer the games get ( I don't think that any nation has a patent on top end talent, the best players from austria can play with the best players anywhere). This is the reason for team leftover europe. More depth = more parity = less cannon fodder teams hoping for their goalie to go god mode = more competitive games.

So many logical gaps in your argument. Your basic point though is that winning or being competitive is more important to people (players in this case) than representing an intangible concept (the nation state). If that was true then why does basically each sovereign nation state have a military? The US vs. The EU would give say slovakia a larger chance of victory and world domination than Slovakia vs the US. Perhaps there's an intrinsic value to representing your nation state that's greater than your chance to win or stay competitive. Why do we say "he gave his life to his country?" Maybe countries matter to people as much as victory, maybe more? I can't convince you that there is an intrinsic value to representing your country, however, it seems many other people think so, and a nickname for those many other people? The market.

 

[xxxx]

I would encourage you to stay on topic, otherwise I've got a feeling this thread will be closed soon.

 

[FiLe]

i guess i just dont like the hippocrites like the IOC who act like some sort of charity with everything OTHER than the negotiation of broadcast rights.

I don't give a flying frick about who does what in the business side. As a spectator, I only care that the sport is done right. And currently, the IOC, for all their corrupt behavior, does it better than the NHL.

Should the NHL get the sport right, I'd have nothing to complain about the World Cup. You seem to think it's great to have "parity". I think that if I wanted to watch make-believe teams play hockey with maximum parity, I'd play NHL '16.


Also, I'd like to know your answer to this... pretend for a moment that one of the all-star teams won it all. What would your response be? If you don't really think it'd be a sham in a supposedly "international best on best" tournament, good for you.

 

[sandysan]

I don't give a flying frick about who does what in the business side. As a spectator, I only care that the sport is done right. And currently, the IOC, for all their corrupt behavior, does it better than the NHL.

Should the NHL get the sport right, I'd have nothing to complain about the World Cup. You seem to think it's great to have "parity". I think that if I wanted to watch make-believe teams play hockey with maximum parity, I'd play NHL '16.

so you want to see the best on best, but you don't want to pay for it ? That's a tad entitled don't you think ?

You are right the IOC does a far better job of exploiting talent than the nhl does. which is why the PA and the owners have decided that " all of the risks for none of the rewards" is not a model they want to buy into anymore. And I don't blame them a bit.

Do you go to the movies and demand that you should get in for free because the actors have some sort of cultural obligation to entertain their countrymen ?

if you want the best players ( under contract) to play you HAVE to pay for this asset. If the IOC balks, the owners and the PA can ( and should) decide to cut out the middleman and do it themselves, hence the world cup. What precisely does the ioc bring ? Legitimacy ? for an organization that strong arms countries towards the financial abyss, that for years allowed " amateurs" from some countries to beat up on college kids and which turns a blind eye when athletes jump countries ( or are payed to jump countries) ? That type of legitimacy ???

Breaking news : The olympics are a business, no different than the NHL. the sooner you drop the pollyana notion that they represent something more, the better.

 

[Urbanskog]

i not moving the goalposts, I'm poiting out that what the players " want" is moot. they are under contract. THEY NEED to be relased by their teams to participate. and its not just the players who are getting the shaft, but the owners. if the owners say " we are not going" what the players want is of zero consequence.

I'm sorry that pointing out the complete spuriousness of your response " but the players want it" makes your argument look weak. The easy remedy, come up with better arguments.

Yes, they need to be released by their teams but it's not like anyone is forcing them to participate. Notable examples include Roy and Kiprusoff.

 

[BayStreetBully]

the players should get paid. So should the owners who are gifting players under contract to a third party for zero return. the owners who pay DEARLY for this talent and who run a business based on this talent.

Think of the world cup where the owners all got together and said, " you players are all going to play in this tournament that we made up, but we are going to keep all of the revenues and you get none". The players would laugh. Now swap out the owners for the IOC ( which the PA has no revenue sharing with)

I care because I think that corrupt entities like the IOC ( and the NCAA) that get FAT off of other peoples sweat should be called out for what they are opportunistic exploitation machines. And that if the IOC sees a bigger return by abandoning the canard of amateurism, that if they ALLOW professional players to be the draw that they are under the obligation to treat the pro's like pro's and pay them.

i guess i just dont like the hippocrites like the IOC who act like some sort of charity with everything OTHER than the negotiation of broadcast rights.

Isn't it ironic how you're so concerned about the players getting paid, when many of them probably feel like they're forced to play in the World Cup because their employer tells them to. They'd probably rather play in the Olympics for free.

 

[sandysan]

Yes, they need to be released by their teams but it's not like anyone is forcing them to participate. Notable examples include Roy and Kiprusoff.

so you are saying that the owners have the ability to allow or deny players they have under contract to participate or not ? What do they get from the IOC for this largesse ? Zip.

IF the player REALLY wanted to participate in the olympics they could have incorporated that into their contracts, that every four years or so they retain the right to get up and leave their team ( possibly in the midst of a run for the playoffs) to go play somewhere else where they may or may not get injured and if their team suffers because of their absence, well that's just tough breaks.

The players are professionals, part of being a professional means you honor your contracts to the people who are paying you. if you chose not to, you are breaching the contract and all of that guaranteed money risks going poof.

I get the appeal of us-vs-them nationalism. I'm pretty sure the players do as well but that's probably not comparable to leaving millions of dollars on the table.

 

[kabidjan18]

i guess i just dont like the hippocrites like the IOC who act like some sort of charity with everything OTHER than the negotiation of broadcast rights.

IKR! You misspelled it by the way it's Hippocrates, stupid father of modern medicine!

 

[FiLe]

so you want to see the best on best, but you don't want to pay for it ? That's a tad entitled don't you think ?

First moving the goalposts, now a strawman argument. This is going well.

Where did I say I want to watch best-on-best hockey for free? Nowhere. I'd be happy to pay for the pleasure of watching it... if it's done right. As in, all national teams, no gimmicks. If the IOC charged me for watching the games they organize, I'd pay.

What happens behind the scenes is irrelevant to me, who shafts who and for what reasons - as long as they bring me the entertainment as it is supposed to be, and the main stars don't mind. Both of which the IOC delivers.

You should learn one thing already: I'm not fooled by your smokescreens, no matter how hard you try.

 

[sandysan]

Isn't it ironic how you're so concerned about the players getting paid, when many of them probably feel like they're forced to play in the World Cup because their employer tells them to. They'd probably rather play in the Olympics for free.

no one is forcing any player to participate, and if they DO particiapte in the world cup they are going to be paid. This DOES NOT HAPPEN with the olympics. and again, since it seems you can't keep up, what the players "want" doesn't mean didly if they are under contract ( and they are).

 

[xxxx]

Isn't it ironic how you're so concerned about the players getting paid, when many of them probably feel like they're forced to play in the World Cup because their employer tells them to. They'd probably rather play in the Olympics for free.

that's hilarious. Completely made up.

 

[FiLe]

no one is forcing any player to participate, and if they DO particiapte in the world cup they are going to be paid. This DOES NOT HAPPEN with the olympics. and again, since it seems you can't keep up, what the players "want" doesn't mean didly if they are under contract ( and they are).

Why did you originally claim then that the players should get paid for playing in the Olympics, if it now suddenly means "didly"?

"I lose one argument, I suddenly claim the argument was about something else altogether, and the original point does not matter." Moving the goalposts.

 

[sandysan]

First moving the goalposts, now a strawman argument. This is going well.

Where did I say I want to watch best-on-best hockey for free? Nowhere. I'd be happy to pay for the pleasure of watching it... if it's done right. As in, all national teams, no gimmicks. If the IOC charged me for watching the games they organize, I'd pay.

What happens behind the scenes is irrelevant to me, who shafts who and for what reasons - as long as they bring me the entertainment as it is supposed to be, and the main stars don't mind. Both of which the IOC delivers.

You should learn one thing already: I'm not fooled by your smokescreens, no matter how hard you try.

you said you dont care who they play under ( a boldface lie considering your opposition to the wold cup) so long as you get to watch the " best on best". so maximizing YOUR entertainment trumps PROFESSIONAL players gettting treated as such ? That is the definition of entitled.

so the most important thing is your entertainment or your sense of value ? What about the notion ( seemingly foreign to you) about fairness ? about paying the talent for their efforts ?

 

[sandysan]

Why did you originally claim then that the players should get paid for playing in the Olympics, if it now suddenly means "didly"?

Moving the goalposts.

I said what they "want" means didly if they are under contract. If you want me to type slower so that you can better comprehend, just ask.

the players SHOULD get paid, the owners as well. but if the players 100% wanted to go and the owners said " no" then what the players want, or how deep their convictions, means didly unless they want to breach their contracts which everyone knows wont happen.

 

[BayStreetBully]

no one is forcing any player to participate, and if they DO particiapte in the world cup they are going to be paid. This DOES NOT HAPPEN with the olympics. and again, since it seems you can't keep up, what the players "want" doesn't mean didly if they are under contract ( and they are).

I said "feel" like they're forced to. Not that they're forced to. Of course Bettman isn't going to put a gun to their heads. But think about it.

The under 23 team is pretty much forced to play. They are rookies and sophomores with no say. They haven't built up a reputation where they can call their own shots. Can you imagine the backlash McDavid or Larkin or Ekblad will get if they say they don't want to play? Listening to McDavid answer questions on the World Cup yesterday, it's hilarious when he says he will shut off being Canadian for the duration of the tournament. He actually said that!

Do you think the Slovaks really want to play with the Swiss and Austrians? But most players on "Team Leftovers" isn't good enough to call their own shots either, without fearing backlash from the owners, however mild or strong. Sure, a Chara has enough of a reputation to refuse to play without backlash, but most others don't.

I can keep up just fine. YOU brought up what the players want and players getting paid. I agree with the other guy. You are constantly moving goalposts.

 

[Macman]

Isn't it ironic how you're so concerned about the players getting paid, when many of them probably feel like they're forced to play in the World Cup because their employer tells them to. They'd probably rather play in the Olympics for free.

Saying "probably" twice doesn't make it so. The WC is a joint venture of the league and players union. The money is split between the two.

 

[FiLe]

you said you dont care who they play under ( a boldface lie considering your opposition to the wold cup) so long as you get to watch the " best on best". so maximizing YOUR entertainment trumps PROFESSIONAL players gettting treated as such ? That is the definition of entitled.

I don't lie. The difference is that the IOC delivers a genuine best-on-best tournament with all national teams. The NHL delivers a travesty of an international game with gimmick teams. That's the difference. Should the NHL do the same thing the IOC does, I would not complain about the World Cup. Not one bit.

so the most important thing is your entertainment or your sense of value ? What about the notion ( seemingly foreign to you) about fairness ? about paying the talent for their efforts ?

For the umpteenth time, the players still don't complain. Should they complain, I'd agree with you - they should get paid. But. They. Don't. Mind.

Not to mention how hilarious/frustrating this is. First you say the players should get paid, then when you're pointed out that they don't care, you say their will means nothing, and now you're back to claiming again they should get paid, because "it's fair" - and I point out it's fair as it is, because they don't complain... perpetuum mobile. Not to mention insane troll logic.