Ideas and suggestions for a true World Cup

[FiLe]

But I might have misunderstood you here: Lowlifes? Undesirables? What or who are they?

Let's just call it a little joke - with a somewhat clueless punchline - and leave it at that.

 

[sandysan]

You do realize the IIHF is made up of the federations that develop the NHL's talent, right?

Of course the NHL is a business and its job is to make money. However Bettman and co. are acting like a logging company that does very little to care for the forest were it receives its resources. But hey, why give back to the forest?...the company gets nothing out of it, right? Damn entitled forest.

In light of this, is 2 weeks every 4 years (olympics) really too much to ask? Is working with the IIHF to get more NHLers into the WC really too much to ask?....especially considering a successful WC goes a long way in funding the federations that churn out eventual NHL talent?

Your quote above actually exemplifies everything that is greedy, unscrupulous and short-sighted with the NHL's position.

if the ioc wants the best hockey players on the planet, all if has to do is open its wallet and pay them something, anything. Hell pay them scale for all I care but why would the nhl want more of its players playing in a meaningless tournament ( the WHC) when the players and the NHL owners are assuming ALL of the risks for none of the benefit.

The WHC and the IIHF can go pound sand, the nhl is perfectly capable of finding someone to drive the zamboni and can, if needed, point them in the direction of the ice. This is ALL the IIHF and the IOC do.

what's greedy or unscrupulous about the position that the people who assume all of the risk actually get some ( i.e any amount above zero) of the benefit ?

why is the IOC able to ask the players to play for free while IT sells the broadcast rights for millions ? and if a nhl player gets hurt, what does the ioc do ? shugs its shoulders and says " sucks to be you"

 

[JackSlater]

One minor corrections if you may. No need for hockey to emulate soccer or any spesific part of it, at least, not just for the sake of it.

But those parts are part and parcel of soccer, and no "bad" parts of it. They only become "bad" or unbecoming when transferred directly and uncritically to hockey.

Deciding results on aggregate is bad. It may be required in soccer due to the nature of that game, but it is not needed or desirable for hockey.

 

[FiLe]

if the ioc wants the best hockey players on the planet, all if has to do is open its wallet and pay them something, anything. Hell pay them scale for all I care but why would the nhl want more of its players playing in a meaningless tournament ( the WHC) when the players and the NHL owners are assuming ALL of the risks for none of the benefit.

The WHC and the IIHF can go pound sand, the nhl is perfectly capable of finding someone to drive the zamboni and can, if needed, point them in the direction of the ice. This is ALL the IIHF and the IOC do.

what's greedy or unscrupulous about the position that the people who assume all of the risk actually get some ( i.e any amount above zero) of the benefit ?

why is the IOC able to ask the players to play for free while IT sells the broadcast rights for millions ? and if a nhl player gets hurt, what does the ioc do ? shugs its shoulders and says " sucks to be you"

Hey, the players are not the issue. They've stated multiple times they want to go, even if it actually is for naught or just having their expenses covered. It's their paymasters who don't like the fact.

However, I'm actually not saying they don't have the right to be looking after their investments. It certainly doesn't look fair if your employees spend time working for someone else and yet you're the one who ends picking up the bill. But let's still try and not distort things, shall we? Whether that's on purpose or due to simply being uneducated and clueless on the matter. One can always study these things instead of skipping that part (because, gosh, it's hard) and talking out of ones backside, after all.

On the other hand... the players are people, not cattle. In most jobs, if you tell your boss you'd like to spend some of your accumulated vacation time for two weeks in February every four years, it'd actually be considered pretty reasonable. It's not like they're flying off to parts unknown every other month, is it? (Though in case you weren't aware, there are sports where guys are paid even more than your average NHL player, and that is exactly what happens.) Heck, in most jobs, demanding to do that not just every fourth year, but annually, would not be considered uncouth.

Okay, being an NHL player is probably not like any other job out there. But if you're arguing this from the standpoint of good business practices, your argument is lacking pretty badly if you just one-mindedly take one side's personal views into account.

It's an ongoing discussion, how the owners could be placated better (because, such an unruly disruption it is), but let's keep the players out of it. They volunteer to it, after all. And you obviously aren't aware either that there actually *is* a system in place too that covers for players' injuries. It's not the IIHF or the IOC who do that, but the national federations. They pay for insurance whenever the players are their charges, covering the expenses of any potential rehab - meaning all the owners lose is the player's services for the time he is sidelined. And as long as the feds have no issues with that, I guess the *shrug* is an entirely justified reaction from the IOC.

Is it still unfair? Depends on your POV, I guess. Let's keep in mind that the risk of a player getting sidelined is equally large - if not larger - in their day jobs.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Hey, the players are not the issue. They've stated multiple times they want to go, even if it actually is for naught or just having their expenses covered. It's their paymasters who don't like the fact.

However, I'm actually not saying they don't have the right to be looking after their investments. It certainly doesn't look fair if your employees spend time working for someone else and yet you're the one who ends picking up the bill. But let's still try and not distort things, shall we? Whether that's on purpose or due to simply being uneducated and clueless on the matter. One can always study these things instead of skipping that part (because, gosh, it's hard) and talking out of ones backside, after all.

On the other hand... the players are people, not cattle. In most jobs, if you tell your boss you'd like to spend some of your accumulated vacation time for two weeks in February every four years, it'd actually be considered pretty reasonable. It's not like they're flying off to parts unknown every other month, is it? (Though in case you weren't aware, there are sports where guys are paid even more than your average NHL player, and that is exactly what happens.) Heck, in most jobs, demanding to do that not just every fourth year, but annually, would not be considered uncouth.

Okay, being an NHL player is probably not like any other job out there. But if you're arguing this from the standpoint of good business practices, your argument is lacking pretty badly if you just one-mindedly take one side's personal views into account.

It's an ongoing discussion, how the owners could be placated better (because, such an unruly disruption it is), but let's keep the players out of it. They volunteer to it, after all. And you obviously aren't aware either that there actually *is* a system in place too that covers for players' injuries. It's not the IIHF or the IOC who do that, but the national federations. They pay for insurance whenever the players are their charges, covering the expenses of any potential rehab - meaning all the owners lose is the player's services for the time he is sidelined. And as long as the feds have no issues with that, I guess the *shrug* is an entirely justified reaction from the IOC.

Is it still unfair? Depends on your POV, I guess. Let's keep in mind that the risk of a player getting sidelined is equally large - if not larger - in their day jobs.

They don't get to take vacation time like a normal job. Just like mine, they are given a calendar and told when they will be off and when they will be on vacation. I certainly can not go to my boss and say I want to take "my vacation time" for 2 weeks in February. In past jobs, I always had blacked out dates or even months where we could not take vacation time.

Yes, they can get injured in their day jobs. However there is a reason places have rules about whether you got injured "on the job" or when you get injured off the job. If a police officer gets hurt while working for their police department it is one thing. It is another if they get hurt while working a private securtiy job on their day/night off from the police department.

 

[FiLe]

They don't get to take vacation time like a normal job. Just like mine, they are given a calendar and told when they will be off and when they will be on vacation. I certainly can not go to my boss and say I want to take "my vacation time" for 2 weeks in February. In past jobs, I always had blacked out dates or even months where we could not take vacation time.

Even if it's not possible by default, exceptions are usually negotiable. So I guess it boils down to whether the reason is good enough or not. No comment on that, because interpretations seem to vary from person to person.

And that does not turn around the fact that the IOC does not exploit the players, because the players are fully willing to perform pro bono come olympic time. This is solely owners' issue. If the NHL wants to keep the league running over the Olympics, I wouldn't be surprised to see players starting to negotiate clauses into their individual contracts that allow them to participate regardless.

Yes, they can get injured in their day jobs. However there is a reason places have rules about whether you got injured "on the job" or when you get injured off the job. If a police officer gets hurt while working for their police department it is one thing. It is another if they get hurt while working a private securtiy job on their day/night off from the police department.

Did you read the entire post? There is a system in place in hockey (and other pro sports too) that covers this. If a player gets hurt in an international event, his national federation will pick up the bill.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Even if it's not possible by default, exceptions are usually negotiable. So I guess it boils down to whether the reason is good enough or not. No comment on that, because interpretations seem to vary from person to person.

And that does not turn around the fact that the IOC does not exploit the players, because the players are fully willing to perform pro bono come olympic time. This is solely owners' issue. If the NHL wants to keep the league running over the Olympics, I wouldn't be surprised to see players starting to negotiate clauses into their individual contracts that allow them to participate regardless.

Did you read the entire post? There is a system in place in hockey (and other pro sports too) that covers this. If a player gets hurt in an international event, his national federation will pick up the bill.

Exceptions being negotiable? Ok, but the reason being good enough? If Ovechkin wanted to miss 2-3 weeks of games because his mother was on her deathbed an he wanted to spend time with her that is one thing. If he wanted to miss 2-3 weeks of games to go play hockey with another team, that is completely different. I guess players could try to negotiate it into their contracts, but doubt they are successful.

I know their is a system in hockey for the finances, but the team still loses the services of the player. Look at Tavares in 2014. Islanders didn't lose money on his salary, but they lost him on the ice and for a team that doesn't sell out every game, losing your marquee player can definitely cost you money. If the Isles were in the middle of a play-off race in 2014, it would have been a much bigger deal, aside from the money. I know plenty of people who really do not have an interest in International Hockey and the only thing they care about when it comes to the Olympics is none of the players from their favorite NHL team get hurt.

 

[FiLe]

Exceptions being negotiable? Ok, but the reason being good enough? If Ovechkin wanted to miss 2-3 weeks of games because his mother was on her deathbed an he wanted to spend time with her that is one thing. If he wanted to miss 2-3 weeks of games to go play hockey with another team, that is completely different. I guess players could try to negotiate it into their contracts, but doubt they are successful.

I'm not saying the owners are completely without a point. In fact, it'd be interesting to see how the players would react if the league decided to get even more stringent towards the international game as they are now. Maybe it wouldn't end up in a complete disaster, but I also don't think the "owners bark and players balk" attitude some members here display would be exactly on the mark either.

I know their is a system in hockey for the finances, but the team still loses the services of the player. Look at Tavares in 2014. Islanders didn't lose money on his salary, but they lost him on the ice and for a team that doesn't sell out every game, losing your marquee player can definitely cost you money. If the Isles were in the middle of a play-off race in 2014, it would have been a much bigger deal, aside from the money. I know plenty of people who really do not have an interest in International Hockey and the only thing they care about when it comes to the Olympics is none of the players from their favorite NHL team get hurt.

I feel we are running in circles here, as this is the very reason I mentioned the risk of getting sidelined is present in their day job as well. The amount of bubble wrap around a player is exactly the same whether they'll play in an international box or the NHL one.

So you can't say "this wouldn't have happened if Tavares didn't go". What if he got hurt in a game vs. the Rangers while other guys are playing olympic hockey? Are you then going to say, "if he had gone, he wouldn't have got hurt here and would have been back to the lineup in two weeks instead of being out for the season"?

Players can get hurt no matter where they play and when they play. Therefore, the only thing that does matter is that the costs get covered if they get hurt playing in another jersey than that of their club. And that is not an issue.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'm not saying the owners are completely without a point. In fact, it'd be interesting to see how the players would react if the league decided to get even more stringent towards the international game as they are now. Maybe it wouldn't end up in a complete disaster, but I also don't think the "owners bark and players balk" attitude some members here display would be exactly on the mark either.

I feel we are running in circles here, as this is the very reason I mentioned the risk of getting sidelined is present in their day job as well. The amount of bubble wrap around a player is exactly the same whether they'll play in an international box or the NHL one.

So you can't say "this wouldn't have happened if Tavares didn't go". What if he got hurt in a game vs. the Rangers while other guys are playing olympic hockey? Are you then going to say, "if he had gone, he wouldn't have got hurt here and would have been back to the lineup in two weeks instead of being out for the season"?

Players can get hurt no matter where they play and when they play. Therefore, the only thing that does matter is that the costs get covered if they get hurt playing in another jersey than that of their club. And that is not an issue.

No, he could have been hurt in an NHL game, however for that owner, that coach, the Isles fans it is more aggravating for him to get injured while playing for someone else.

 

[sandysan]

I'm not saying the owners are completely without a point. In fact, it'd be interesting to see how the players would react if the league decided to get even more stringent towards the international game as they are now. Maybe it wouldn't end up in a complete disaster, but I also don't think the "owners bark and players balk" attitude some members here display would be exactly on the mark either.

I feel we are running in circles here, as this is the very reason I mentioned the risk of getting sidelined is present in their day job as well. The amount of bubble wrap around a player is exactly the same whether they'll play in an international box or the NHL one.

So you can't say "this wouldn't have happened if Tavares didn't go". What if he got hurt in a game vs. the Rangers while other guys are playing olympic hockey? Are you then going to say, "if he had gone, he wouldn't have got hurt here and would have been back to the lineup in two weeks instead of being out for the season"?

Players can get hurt no matter where they play and when they play. Therefore, the only thing that does matter is that the costs get covered if they get hurt playing in another jersey than that of their club. And that is not an issue.

The owners dont need to bark. All they have to do is remind the players about that document with their signature at the bottom. That means they are contractually obligated to the team. They want to change, post facto, the terms thats a breach and is actionable.

Its possible that some players may have demanded that the ability to play for someone else into their contracts, they can try. If they didnt, they are SOL and if they reallt really want to play elsewhere they get to guage this interest against their desire to get a regular, largely guaranteed. Paycheck.

 

[FiLe]

No, he could have been hurt in an NHL game, however for that owner, that coach, the Isles fans it is more aggravating for him to get injured while playing for someone else.

Then they need to check their attitudes. Because the odds of getting hurt are exactly the same no matter where he plays.

The owners dont need to bark. All they have to do is remind the players about that document with their signature at the bottom. That means they are contractually obligated to the team. They want to change, post facto, the terms thats a breach and is actionable.

Who said anything about post facto? However, some interesting times may be ahead when the contract is up and it's time to negotiate a new one.

Besides, it might create an interesting carrot for the GMs to dangle as well. "Hmm... do I offer him a million more to count against the cap, or sweeten our current offer with a chance to take a two-week vacation next February... tough choice."

And before you laugh at this train of thought, it's actually far less risky than handing out an NMC, and they certainly don't appear to be shy with those.

 

[sandysan]

Then they need to check their attitudes. Because the odds of getting hurt are exactly the same no matter where he plays.

Who said anything about post facto? However, some interesting times may be ahead when the contract is up and it's time to negotiate a new one.

Besides, it might create an interesting carrot for the GMs to dangle as well. "Hmm... do I offer him a million more to count against the cap, or sweeten our current offer with a chance to take a two-week vacation next February... tough choice."

And before you laugh at this train of thought, it's actually far less risky than handing out an NMC, and they certainly don't appear to be shy with those.

I said that if players want to be able to bolt to play for someone else WHILE UNDER CONTRACT they can certainly try and negotiate that. But they havent ( as far as anyone can reasonable know). Hell ovechkin said he was gonna breach and play in sochi even if the NHL said he could not, that is certainly his perogative. and if he, or anyone else, choses to not hold up their end of the contract, then the team has the right to seek redress by terminating the contract or suing him.

And seriously, and this isn't rhetorical, imagine that as a team you are in the hunt for a playoff spot, one that you are struggling to fill and one of your " leaders" decides to ditch the team to pursue some other interest ( which may be allowed contractually) by playing for someone else. How the hell does that guy ever show his face again in the dressing room whether you catch that 8th spot or not ?

that's WORSE than a lockerroom cancer, that's a lockerroom judas.

 

[FiLe]

I said that if players want to be able to bolt to play for someone else WHILE UNDER CONTRACT they can certainly try and negotiate that. But they havent ( as far as anyone can reasonable know). Hell ovechkin said he was gonna breach and play in sochi even if the NHL said he could not, that is certainly his perogative. and if he, or anyone else, choses to not hold up their end of the contract, then the team has the right to seek redress by terminating the contract or suing him.

All right, junior, time to draw a breath and caaaarefully read what the grownups write. Nobody's said the players should breach their current contracts. Some might take it up with management if they like, but yeah, I'm not actually giving those aspirations a high chance of being greenlit. Perhaps under very specific circumstances such as the club being quite safely above the playoff line or a star player (like Ovechkin) being incredibly vehement about it. But even then, it's a long shot.

What might happen however, is that when their contracts are up and it's time to negotiate a new one, some players might be demanding clauses that allow them some "vacation time" when the next OG is up. And it's not actually such a reach to figure that some GMs might see it as a viable concession if it helps 'em nail home an otherwise cap-friendly contract.

 

[sandysan]

All right, junior, time to draw a breath and caaaarefully read what the grownups write. Nobody's said the players should breach their current contracts. Some might take it up with management if they like, but yeah, I'm not actually giving those aspirations a high chance of being greenlit. Perhaps under very specific circumstances such as the club being quite safely above the playoff line or a star player (like Ovechkin) being incredibly vehement about it. But even then, it's a long shot.

What might happen however, is that when their contracts are up and it's time to negotiate a new one, some players might be demanding clauses that allow them some "vacation time" when the next OG is up. And it's not actually such a reach to figure that some GMs might see it as a viable concession if it helps 'em nail home an otherwise cap-friendly contract.

ok senior, but this ' desire to represent the homeland" isnt some new fangled passing fancy. Players could have asked for this accomodation in previous contracts for the last decade or so. To the best of my knowledge NONE HAVE EVER DONE SO. As a GM I sure as hell wouldn't allow it, and if someone was really really adamant that they wanted to leave in the home stretch of the nhl regular season to go play for someone else, that the term " significant haircut" would still be wholly inappropriate.
we are talking decapitation levels on the contracts they are negotiating, and even then my guess is still no one says yes.

if you want to argue about hypotheticals that have never happened, despite essentially the same conditions ( players wanting to play for their countries) why don't you wax poetic about if your aunt had balls ?

As to some smart GM wanting to do this for cap reasons, lets just say that the player ends up being a key player for the team and then bolts to go play is some crappy meaningless tourney somewhere else and it comes out that the player leaving was contractually allowed to and had the blessing of his gm ? How long precisely do you think that gm holds his job when this information is released ? a day ? An hour ? less ?

 

[FiLe]

ok senior, but this ' desire to represent the homeland" isnt some new fangled passing fancy. Players could have asked for this accomodation in previous contracts for the last decade or so. To the best of my knowledge NONE HAVE EVER DONE SO.

And the reason for this might be... that such clauses are as of right now unnecessary. Because for the last decade or so, the league has taken a break and let the players represent their countries in the Olympics. We're talking about a hypothetical (and god, I hope it'll remain that way) reality where this tradition has ended.

As to some smart GM wanting to do this for cap reasons, lets just say that the player ends up being a key player for the team and then bolts to go play is some crappy meaningless tourney somewhere else and it comes out that the player leaving was contractually allowed to and had the blessing of his gm ? How long precisely do you think that gm holds his job when this information is released ? a day ? An hour ? less ?

It's no less silly than all the other silly things a GM can potentially do. Like offering an albatross with an NMC that will become a major cap weight not worth it when all is said and done. Or making miserable draft picks. Or letting assets walk for nothing. Or... well, I think you get the idea. When I think of all the stupid things GMs can do (and HAVE done), adding an olympic clause to a contract is one of the lowest-risk flyers one can take, especially if it helps craft an otherwise favorable contract.

 

[sandysan]

And the reason for this might be... that such clauses are as of right now unnecessary. Because for the last decade or so, the league has taken a break and let the players represent their countries in the Olympics. We're talking about a hypothetical (and god, I hope it'll remain that way) reality where this tradition has ended.

It's no less silly than all the other silly things a GM can potentially do. Like offering an albatross with an NMC that will become a major cap weight not worth it when all is said and done. Or making miserable draft picks. Or letting assets walk for nothing. Or... well, I think you get the idea. When I think of all the stupid things GMs can do (and HAVE done), adding an olympic clause to a contract is one of the lowest-risk flyers one can take, especially if it helps craft an otherwise favorable contract.

gm's make decisions ALL THE TIME that dont work out, its part of the job. This includes overvaluing some players and incentivising them to play for their team longterm by removing or limiting the teams perogative that the player would be moved. The intent behind this is still to improve the team, even if it does not work out.

What precisely is the intent of letting a guy leave during the playoff stretch in the NHL ? If he's an asset you are HURTING THE TEAM by letting him leave. If he's a liability you are in no way obligated to play him and you park him in the press box.

works out or does not work out trumps bad for the team. There is literally ZERO upside to letting a guy decide he wants to go play for someone else for a couple of critical weeks. the upside of offering a guy a NMC is that if he works out, you have an asset ( perhaps even at lower than market value) locked up.

any gm who followed your hypothetical would instantly no longer be a gm. and for good reason.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Then they need to check their attitudes. Because the odds of getting hurt are exactly the same no matter where he plays.

No kidding and the risk of injury is part of the business. However, it is one thing for a player to get hurt while playing for the team paying his contract and another for him to get hurt while "on vacation" playing for someone else.


As far as the "vacation clause" you mentioned. VERY few players would have the clout to get that from a team. Secondly, the league could forbid it.

 

[FiLe]

What precisely is the intent of letting a guy leave during the playoff stretch in the NHL ? If he's an asset you are HURTING THE TEAM by letting him leave. If he's a liability you are in no way obligated to play him and you park him in the press box.

You're negotiating with a guy like Ovechkin. Your divisional rival has more cap space and is offering $8M per year. However, you know you can reel him in for just $5M hit if you offer him the clause... and you seriously think there's no GM in the league who wouldn't consider it? I mean, it's just having him do his thing for two weeks every 4th year instead of not having him at all.

As far as the "vacation clause" you mentioned. VERY few players would have the clout to get that from a team. Secondly, the league could forbid it.

Initially, very few players had the necessary clout to demand an NMC either. These times, it feels like GMs are tossing 'em around like candy. League forbidding it could be an issue, sure.

There's actually a perverse part in me that's hoping the NHL would pull out for the time being. Just so we could see what effects it would have... if any at all. Even the latter would bring some clarity to the issue. Right now, it's pretty obvious the views on the matter differ greatly depending on where you're coming from.

 

[patnyrnyg]

If the NHL pulled out, they would still have a tournament. Would be very similar to the rosters from 92 and 94 (go to wikipedia and you can look them up). A mix of young players and older guys playing in the AHL and Europe for all teams. For example, the 92 Unified team had Kovalev, Zubov, Malakhov, Kasparaitis (all under 22 at the time). Also had Slava Bykov (32), Andrei Khomutov (31), Yuri Khmylev (28).

As far as interest? No idea about Europe, but I do not think many would pay attention in the US or Canada. Doubt anyone would consider the Gold Medal winner to be the International Champion if you will.

Just seems to me the international scene is a much bigger deal in Europe than it is in NA. Possibly because of the size of the countries. The fact that in Europe you can get in a car and drive through a few countries in a day. Not the case here. If the US and Canada were broken down into smaller countries, the international scene would likely be a bigger deal here.

I also think the fall of communism has contributed to the lack of interest in the US and Canada. Olympics, the Canada Cups, it was more of an "us vs them" line of thinking. Not only a hockey game, but our way of life vs theirs. I was 11 during the 87 Canada Cup and even though I am not Canadian, I remember rooting for Canada to beat the Soviets in the final. I remember reading the Canada Cup ended because there was just not as much interest in the 91 tourney as in the 80s. By 91, more Europeans were playing in the NHL, as were the Russians. That hatred was gone. So, maybe if they re-build the Berlin Wall, re-unite Czechoslovakia and the USSR and the international stuff could be re-born.

 

[sandysan]

You're negotiating with a guy like Ovechkin. Your divisional rival has more cap space and is offering $8M per year. However, you know you can reel him in for just $5M hit if you offer him the clause... and you seriously think there's no GM in the league who wouldn't consider it? I mean, it's just having him do his thing for two weeks every 4th year instead of not having him at all.

Initially, very few players had the necessary clout to demand an NMC either. These times, it feels like GMs are tossing 'em around like candy. League forbidding it could be an issue, sure.

There's actually a perverse part in me that's hoping the NHL would pull out for the time being. Just so we could see what effects it would have... if any at all. Even the latter would bring some clarity to the issue. Right now, it's pretty obvious the views on the matter differ greatly depending on where you're coming from.

it depends if the GM thinks that the team is dependent on ovechkin or not. if the gm thinks that the team NEEDS ovechkin to go far in the playoffs the NO you dont risk letting him leave to go play somewhere else. Hell if he want's to play in the WC, he can because the team likely wont make the playoffs anyways.

if the gm thinks that the leagues second best player is what is going to put them over the top, you might. if you signed him to a one year deal. Because even if the deal to get ovechkin on a team ( with his choice of whether to play or not) puts you far in the playoffs, who knows what happens next year ? or the year after ? what if while ovechkin is under contract you NEED him to make the playoffs and he bolts. You know whose under that Axe ? The GM that's who.

and it's nice to say that allowing a player to play for someone else only ends up saving the team a whole 3 million ( a number I think is WAY to generous to justify the risk/reward ratio). What if the deal was play for 8 million for us full time or league minimum to play for us part time ? You think he still chooses to represent the motherland ?

Talk is cheap, all of the russians who say they, like ovechkin, will breach their contracts to play for russia if the NHL doesnt go, lets see how patriotic they are when its THEIR paychecks on the line. I'm sure that some of these playeers would love for the chance to again beat up on college kids on their way to what would ultimately be another tarnished gold, but is that gold worth no more guaranteed nhl paychecks ?

that question was rhetorical, everyone knows they wont risk their own pay to play for their national teams.

 

[FiLe]

Talk is cheap, all of the russians who say they, like ovechkin, will breach their contracts to play for russia if the NHL doesnt go, lets see how patriotic they are when its THEIR paychecks on the line. I'm sure that some of these playeers would love for the chance to again beat up on college kids on their way to what would ultimately be another tarnished gold, but is that gold worth no more guaranteed nhl paychecks ?

that question was rhetorical, everyone knows they wont risk their own pay to play for their national teams.

Ovechkin might not be the best example for this, actually. Because he can bolt and don't have to worry about his paycheck one bit. You know how much they pay Kovalchuk? Or Radulov? Some say it's more than what they would make in the NHL. It might just be the reason why Ovechkin talks the hard talk in the first place. He knows he has an option.

But yeah, like I said, not the best example. The KHL certainly can't accommodate every player who value the international game but are not willing to risk their pay. Or that all of those players would actually prefer the circumstances there. Especially if they aren't Russian.

Still, I guess even a handful of them leaving would be a slap in the face to the NHL. Whether the league would actually take notice or react with "good riddance" attitude is anybody's guess.

Though I suppose I don't have to guess what yours would be. Or at least what you'd present it to be.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

If the NHL doesn't go to the next OG my guess is we will see the same number of NHLers either bolt or negotiate 2 week releases as we saw in the '92 and '94 OG.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Is this tournament still a thing? how bout those Jays!!! A sporting event that was every bit on the level of the Vancouver gold medal game. And I bet TV ratings beat the ratings for the Vancouver GMG.

 

[holyprime]

the nhl is acting like "a rich kid that would rather alone than sharing some of his toys" because the people who think they are entitled to these toys NEVER put skin in the game.

The NHL is a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT league. Its job, as is the case for all other businesses, is TO MAKE MONEY. It's not to make friends. its not to make friends by showcasing the talent it has under contract to others who will revel in the tourney then go back to ignoring, or demeaning the NHL.

The NHL knows whose is buttering their bread, and it aint the IIHF no those who feel entitled to see the worlds best hockey talent for free.

and thanks for the statement that the IIHF isnt perfect, I needed a good laugh.

and let me get this straight, you thik that its a reasonable accomodation that the NHL interrupt or move the stanley cup playoffs to a bunch of people who wont commit a dime to the development of the NHL so that the IIHF can look, slightly less ineffectual or incompetent ?

pass.

I may be the first to tell you, but there is an entire planet outside of exceptionalistan, and many players in the NHL even come from these strange places. But even stranger is, that all the other leagues can get along very well with international tournaments, and by some bloody miracle they managed to stay solvent even with their best talent going overseas for free.

But good to know that money is everything in sports. I mean who cares for competition or entertainment, right? What's important is that billionaire owners/companies make their cut

 

[patnyrnyg]

If the NHL doesn't go to the next OG my guess is we will see the same number of NHLers either bolt or negotiate 2 week releases as we saw in the '92 and '94 OG.

What NHL'er was released for 2 weeks in 92 and 94? AHL'ers, yes. I don't recall any NHL'ers.