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

[BayStreetBully]

that's hilarious. Completely made up.

You didn't bold the "feel" part.

What part do you disagree with?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Still have no intention of watching. If Gary wants my attention and $$$ he can drop the gimmicky teams and commit to the next 2 Olympics. otherwise they can just bugger off.
and by the way, I was offered tickets (comp'd) for a couple of games. 1 Canada game, but mostly the uninteresting gimmicky teams. I guess my work connections are not as solid as I thought, offering me mostly the gimmick teams. I refused as this pre-season exhibition is not worth the price of the TTC fare downtown.

Seriously are you a hockey fan?

A hockey fan gets offered comp tickets to the WC and figures the TTC fare to downtown is too much to bother?

 

[xxxx]

You didn't bold the "feel" part.

What part do you disagree with?

I disagree they would /probably/ rather play the olympics for free. As far as I know, the players show that they are as excited for the WC, if not more.

 

[FiLe]

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.

Yeah, we get it. You say anything you think will help you weasel out of the dead end you just talked yourself into.

But here's the thing - these arguments don't undo one another. It's obvious the players shouldn't breach their signed contracts. They're only free to go if the bosses say they can go. But why did you originally say they should get paid when they go? Because they still don't mind. You still haven't answered this. Most likely because you don't have an answer to it.

 

[sandysan]

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.

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.

its you who is focussing on what the players "want". I might want this thread to have a little more intellectual honesty but in the face or people, like yourself, who lie what I wan't doesnt amount to anything.

You are conflating many issues. Yes the players SHOULD get paid because they are professionals ( which means someone pays them for their talents). If these players decided for, whatever, reason to offer up these talents for FREE, they CAN'T do it while under contract. They are getting paid millions of dollars to play for Team X in the NHL. and if the NHL decides to NOT participate in the olympics then what they WANT is meaningless. There is a difference between "wanting" and doing.

and yes I think that if you are going to use someone else's talents to hold an exhibition where people pay to see it, that you have a moral obligation to PAY that talent even if some people think they are entitled to the exhibition for free because a flag or 5 rings are involved.

I really hope the WC goes off great so that the best talent on the planet is gonna be in the WC and you will have to lump it.

 

[FiLe]

As far as I know, the players show that they are as excited for the WC, if not more.

Word to the wise - if what you say is based on as much on your personal feelings as what the other side claims, you should refrain from making these statements. It's nothing but pot calling the kettle black.

And no, the players going through the motions in front of the media is barely evidence. It's not much different than this thing they have going on in pro wrestling, called kayfabe.

And since we're at it, Santa Claus does not really exist. Sorry.

 

[BayStreetBully]

I disagree they would /probably/ rather play the olympics for free. As far as I know, the players show that they are as excited for the WC, if not more.

Historically and culturally, European athletes care a great deal about the Olympics as an institution. Despite what anyone personally thinks about the IOC today, a gold medal means a lot as it's steeped with a century of tradition. So I'm comfortable saying that Europeans /probably/ prefer the Olympics to a fabricated World Cup.

Seeing as how Europeans will make up the majority of players and teams in any international hockey tournament, is that not a fair assessment to make?

I'd even make the same claim for North Americans, but I'll leave it at that. The Europeans alone make enough of a difference.

 

[sandysan]

Yeah, we get it. You say anything you think will help you weasel out of the dead end you just talked yourself into.

But here's the thing - these arguments don't undo one another. It's obvious the players shouldn't breach their signed contracts. They're only free to go if the bosses say they can go. But why did you originally say they should get paid when they go? Because they still don't mind. You still haven't answered this. Most likely because you don't have an answer to it.

i said they should be paid because they are PROFESSIONAL hockey players. look up the meaning of the word professional and you will get your answer. I said the owners should be paid because they hold the rights to these professional hockey players and if they are going to release their talent to the IOC, they shouldn't be expected to do it to sate the likes of you and your ilk who demand that the only one who should get paid is the exploiters.

again i've answered it multiple times, if you incapable of understanding, fine by me but stop insisting I haven't answered it.

they should get paid because people are paying BILLIIONS of dollars to see this and the professional hockey players function as professionals, not some sort of charity.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Word to the wise - if what you say is based on as much on your personal feelings as what the other side claims, you should refrain from making these statements. It's nothing but pot calling the kettle black.

And no, the players going through the motions in front of the media is barely evidence. It's not much different than this thing they have going on in pro wrestling, called kayfabe.

And since we're at it, Santa Claus does not really exist. Sorry.

Honestly. What does anyone expect McDavid to say? "I think the World Cup is a gimmick and I'll feel no glory in winning. I am only playing because I don't want to ruin my reputation because the NHL and the media will devour me otherwise." Yeah, that'll be the day. I wouldn't take what any player says to the media seriously.

 

[kabidjan18]

You are conflating many issues. Yes the players SHOULD get paid because they are professionals ( which means someone pays them for their talents). If these players decided for, whatever, reason to offer up these talents for FREE, they CAN'T do it while under contract. They are getting paid millions of dollars to play for Team X in the NHL. and if the NHL decides to NOT participate in the olympics then what they WANT is meaningless. There is a difference between "wanting" and doing.

He's finnish but he speaks English too, large words used incorrectly and glaring typos don't really hide what's missing which is one consistent and defendable argument. Perhaps wanting the best tournament configuration for maximum entertainment value is oversimplifying a more complicated issue but then just say that. First it's contractual obligations, then what players want, then what players deserve, then the Olympic perception, all the while using big words that don't add meaning, stick the target where you want it and defend that.

 

[FiLe]

its you who is focussing on what the players "want". I might want this thread to have a little more intellectual honesty but in the face or people, like yourself, who lie what I wan't doesnt amount to anything.

Allow me to quote the post that started this whole debate...

And if you want the best PROFESSIONAL players to play best on best, here's an idea treat them like professionals and pay them. Buuuuuut NOOOOOOOOO the IOC can't do that now can they ? I hope you enjoy the nationalistic chest bumping in the next olympics from " god knows where" as the talent would be overcome by the world shampionships rosters.

I think that a lot of this " the world cup is a joke" nonsense is nothing more that the manisfestation of pure abject jealousy that the NHL holds the keys to the overwhelming amount of top end talent and as such they don't need the ioc or the iihf. And if they want to takee their ball and go home, they absolutely can.

if you don't like it don't watch. PLENTY of people in toronto will. And I hope its the death blow to the NHL's participation in the olympics so that all of you who whine and moan about it have but two choicces left, watch the best hockey talent on the planet or a bunch of no name jabroni's whose most important asset is that they drape themselvees in a flag, no matter how poorly they play.

See? There's NOTHING there about this "players are under contract so their opinion means didly". You are, plain and simple, saying that the IOC shafts the players for not wanting to pay them. You only started making these extremely convoluted arguments when you were pointed out that the players don't mind not getting paid.

Intellectual honesty? Oh, the weasel's gall.

and yes I think that if you are going to use someone else's talents to hold an exhibition where people pay to see it, that you have a moral obligation to PAY that talent even if some people think they are entitled to the exhibition for free because a flag or 5 rings are involved.

I really hope the WC goes off great so that the best talent on the planet is gonna be in the WC and you will have to lump it.

On this, I agree with you on the day the "talent" complains about not getting paid. That will be the end of this argument. But since that day is not here, all you're doing is talking the big empty, like I said.

And why do you care about the World Cup anyway? You obviously don't care about international hockey, since you want non-national teams for the sake of "parity". Why can't you settle for watching the NHL then? Why do you have to defend the World Cup so vehemently, when you so derisively talk about all this nationalistic chest thumping? Your only reasoning seems to be it's more cool hockey to watch - and damn what other people feel about the issue.

Talk about entitlement. The weasel's gall.

 

[xxxx]

Word to the wise - if what you say is based on as much on your personal feelings as what the other side claims, you should refrain from making these statements. It's nothing but pot calling the kettle black.

And no, the players going through the motions in front of the media is barely evidence. It's not much different than this thing they have going on in pro wrestling, called kayfabe.

And since we're at it, Santa Claus does not really exist. Sorry.

What feelings? Everyone from the coaching stuff to players is clearly showing interest in this tournament. I don't get where you, or any other people, get the conviction that they share the same opinion on the format as you do Isn't that based on your personal feelings?

 

[FiLe]

What feelings? Everyone from the coaching stuff to players is clearly showing interest in this tournament. I don't get where you, or any other people, get the conviction that they share the same opinion on the format as you do Isn't that based on your personal feelings?

Yes, it is. Which I why I'm constantly ONLY saying what I feel about this. I don't try to hem it in by saying the players don't care, or defend the issue by stating they do care - like you are doing.

Just say you like it and leave it at that. It's your opinion and should be respected, even if it doesn't make full sense. Don't say it's likeable because some player or coach or whoever said he's excited when they stuck a mike under his nose. That's not respectable - it's naive.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The players go to the Olympics because they want to. They are at odds with their coaches and their owners (in principle) by doing so. They know they are not going to get paid (at least not directly).

There's no conflict here except the NHL wanting money.

 

[Slush]

I'm excited for the World Cup of Hockey. I agree with Hitchcock. With the Olympics you have to watch all the other sports which is cool but for the World Cup of hockey it is all about hockey which is great. I usually only watch hockey at the winter Olympics anyways.

 

[xxxx]

Yes, it is. Which I why I'm constantly ONLY saying what I feel about this. I don't try to hem it in by saying the players don't care, or defend the issue by stating they do care - like you are doing.

Just say you like it and leave it at that. It's your opinion and should be respected, even if it doesn't make full sense. Don't say it's likeable because some player or coach or whoever said he's excited when they stuck a mike under his nose. That's not respectable - it's naive.

Players are clearly showing interest in this tournament. Think what you want, but that is the truth.

 

[FiLe]

Players are clearly showing interest in this tournament. Think what you want, but that is the truth.

No doubt. The players aren't a homogenic bunch, after all. Their comments indicate that some like the idea of playing in the World Cup, others are indifferent to it and others would rather be somewhere else. But they'll go through the motions all the same.

I hope you weren't implying all of them are interested, because that would most assuredly NOT be the truth.


This heterogenity is, however, in clear contrast to the Olympics, where very few players figure they'd rather be somewhere else. The fact that they don't even get paid tells us as much. They'd be free to say "no thanks" to their respective federations and take the two weeks as an extra vacation. In fact, there are players who have done the very thing.

 

[sandysan]

Allow me to quote the post that started this whole debate...

See? There's NOTHING there about this "players are under contract so their opinion means didly". You are, plain and simple, saying that the IOC shafts the players for not wanting to pay them. You only started making these extremely convoluted arguments when you were pointed out that the players don't mind not getting paid.

Intellectual honesty? Oh, the weasel's gall.


On this, I agree with you on the day the "talent" complains about not getting paid. That will be the end of this argument. But since that day is not here, all you're doing is talking the big empty, like I said.

And why do you care about the World Cup anyway? You obviously don't care about international hockey, since you want non-national teams for the sake of "parity". Why can't you settle for watching the NHL then? Why do you have to defend the World Cup so vehemently, when you so derisively talk about all this nationalistic chest thumping? Your only reasoning seems to be it's more cool hockey to watch - and damn what other people feel about the issue.

Talk about entitlement. The weasel's gall.

so it is your position that the IOC would be in a position to pay the players, but not the owners who own the players contractual rights ? In what freaking world ?

Yes the ioc should play the players and YES the IOC should pay the owners for lending them the players. The owners doing this is NOT no risk, they are assuming a TON of risk for ZERO benefit. That this somehow facilitates your cheapskate hockey fantasies means, again, didly.

If the IOC wants to have the best players on the planet THEY would HAVE to negotiate with the people who own these players rights. They can't get them for free even if it maximizes YOUR enjoyment. so the ioc has to open up their wallets twice, once to pay the players and once of the owners. Or since its collectively bargained they can pay the NHL and the players and the owners split the revenues like they do now.

 

[sandysan]

The players go to the Olympics because they want to. They are at odds with their coaches and their owners (in principle) by doing so. They know they are not going to get paid (at least not directly).

There's no conflict here except the NHL wanting money.

and the people who pay the players DONT WANT TO and have every right to tell the players under contract that their wishes to play in the olympics and 2 bucks will get them a coffee at mcdonalds.

They signed contracts, they can't welch on their deals to play and not a single player of note would risk breaching his contract to play if the owners decide to not release the players. However if the PA and the owners are partners in this "new" tournament they aren't at odds with their coaches or owners.

The fact is simple, if the owners are going to release the players, they want something other than a " thanks" back. If the IOC won't pay for their talent, then they can run their own tournament with the same or similar risks but with a much bigger part of the reward pie. or the ioc can open its wallet but we all know option #2 is a non starter.

 

[JackSlater]

so it is your position that the IOC would be in a position to pay the players, but not the owners who own the players contractual rights ? In what freaking world ?

Yes the ioc should play the players and YES the IOC should pay the owners for lending them the players. The owners doing this is NOT no risk, they are assuming a TON of risk for ZERO benefit. That this somehow facilitates your cheapskate hockey fantasies means, again, didly.

If the IOC wants to have the best players on the planet THEY would HAVE to negotiate with the people who own these players rights. They can't get them for free even if it maximizes YOUR enjoyment. so the ioc has to open up their wallets twice, once to pay the players and once of the owners. Or since its collectively bargained they can pay the NHL and the players and the owners split the revenues like they do now.

Do you work for the NHL? If not, why should any viewer care about the finances unless something unseemly (Qatar World Cup) is happening? It's irrelevant to which brand of hockey is better.

 

[FiLe]

so it is your position that the IOC would be in a position to pay the players, but not the owners who own the players contractual rights ? In what freaking world ?

Yes the ioc should play the players and YES the IOC should pay the owners for lending them the players. The owners doing this is NOT no risk, they are assuming a TON of risk for ZERO benefit. That this somehow facilitates your cheapskate hockey fantasies means, again, didly.

If the IOC wants to have the best players on the planet THEY would HAVE to negotiate with the people who own these players rights. They can't get them for free even if it maximizes YOUR enjoyment. so the ioc has to open up their wallets twice, once to pay the players and once of the owners. Or since its collectively bargained they can pay the NHL and the players and the owners split the revenues like they do now.

A) I don't care if the IOC does pay the owners or doesn't pay. All I care about is the end product. It has to be a proper international best-on-best tournament, which is my only reason for wishing this travesty of a World Cup a bon voyage where the sun don't shine. If paying is what it takes, then pay them. However, what I don't see is why someone so vehemently defends this option, when they (at least to my knowledge) don't get anything out of it themselves. Except the enjoyment of being a contrarian. Which is a nicer way of calling certain another creature that lurks around Internet message forums.

B) I would say that the players should get paid... the moment they ASK to be paid. As long as they don't, you have nothing here. Which has been so brilliantly demonstrated by your caged rat performance.

C) Please stop moving the goalposts and making up strawman arguments. When other posters call you out on it too, you should know you've been made.

 

[KingsFan7824]

All I care about is the end product.

It hasn't even started yet.

It has to be a proper international best-on-best tournament, which is my only reason for wishing this travesty of a World Cup a bon voyage where the sun don't shine.

It's all a gimmick. Hockey itself is a gimmick. Borders don't actually exist on a map. Gold medals have value because we think they do. All it is though is a bunch of grown men skating around for a little trophy of some sort.

However, what I don't see is why someone so vehemently defends this option, when they (at least to my knowledge) don't get anything out of themselves.

Do any fans actually get anything out of all this stuff? We're all just emotionally, and probably irrationally, attached to a given logo. If the team wearing that logo wins, we feel a sense of pride for something that we didn't do, and had no hand in. We're all a little weird.

If you don't like the tournament, then you don't like the tournament, and there's nothing wrong with that. You could wait and see what it ends up being, maybe enjoy it for what it is, or not.

 

[FiLe]

It hasn't even started yet.

For me it's ruined with the inclusion of gimmicks. Yes, I'm one of those. All national teams. No ifs, no buts. Heck, I could even stomach if MY team was not in it - as long as it was a proper international tournament.

It's all a gimmick. Hockey itself is a gimmick. Borders don't actually exist on a map. Gold medals have value because we think they do. All it is though is a bunch of grown men skating around for a little trophy of some sort.

Do any fans actually get anything out of all this stuff? We're all just emotionally, and probably irrationally, attached to a given logo. If the team wearing that logo wins, we feel a sense of pride for something that we didn't do, and had no hand in. We're all a little weird.

No argument here. This truly is a pretty frivolous topic to argue about, but hey, I enjoy watching national teams play other national teams. I enjoy watching who comes out on top, even when it's not my team. But I completely abhor the idea that the team coming out on top could not be a national team at all.

If you don't like the tournament, then you don't like the tournament, and there's nothing wrong with that. You could wait and see what it ends up being, maybe enjoy it for what it is, or not.

I already know I won't, since I've decided I won't watch a second of it. It's all I can do to ensure this fails and the next best-on-best - whether it's the Olympics or another World Cup - is organized in the proper manner. Might be a futile thing to do, but I do it anyway.

 

[NYRKindms]

As someone who hasn't been following this that closely I have to say I came here to see if the tweet about "Team Europe" was a typo.

And now to discover there is an under 23 team.

Clown shoes.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

A couple million Canadians will watch and a couple thousands Americans. Everyone in Europe will sleep. Everyone in every other continent don't know about it. Yet it's called a World Cup. They need to name a 16 man roster to promote it to their American cities since no one knows any of these players. Keep it up nhl, there's no other countries in this world you promote things then the USA. Hurray.