NHL teams boycotting Olympics?
- Thread starter helicecopter
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Ogopogo said:
I strongly disagree with you on this. Having best on best tournament every two years would not cheapen anything. And you take soccer as an example which tells me that you don't know much about soccer. There is also a European championship every 4 years (2 before/after World cup) that is just as strong as World cup. Only minus Brazil and Argentina. Soccer fans can't wait for the next big tournament! There is also a Champions league (the best club competition in the world) going every year throughout the season and yet, people are crying when there's a winter break for two months because they just can't wait for the next Chelsea-Barcelona matchup...
And if you want to eliminate one of them that should be the World cup. Olympics are so much more...
LannysStach
Thou shall
i know it may Seem like there's a lot (or too many) int'l toruneys, but before '04 there hadn't been a World (Canada) Cup in 8 years (since 1996), so that's not too frequently.
and there's only been 2 all-athlete (pro) Olympics in the history of the sport ('98 and '02), so this is only the 3rd one EVER coming up.
i don't think 3 in all of history is too much. or once every 8 years for a World (Canada) Cup.
plus, there's TONS of differences btwn the two tourneys -- the bigger, open int'l rinks vs. the smaller NHL ones; it's a best-of-3 games final in the World/Canada Cup (usually) vs. the one game winner-take-all Olympics; plus there's all the different rules in each, including fighting, icing, the trapazoid, stick curves, etc.
plus, as we're noticing and discsussing in this thread -- there's injuries preventing top athletes from competing in each toruney. just 2 years ago, Mario Lemieux captained Team Canada to victory over a Kiprusoff-led Team Finland in the final. a short 2 years later and neither leader is playing.
1998 and 2002 were two of the highlights in the history of hockey. i look forward to a hat trick in a fortnight.
and there's only been 2 all-athlete (pro) Olympics in the history of the sport ('98 and '02), so this is only the 3rd one EVER coming up.
i don't think 3 in all of history is too much. or once every 8 years for a World (Canada) Cup.
plus, there's TONS of differences btwn the two tourneys -- the bigger, open int'l rinks vs. the smaller NHL ones; it's a best-of-3 games final in the World/Canada Cup (usually) vs. the one game winner-take-all Olympics; plus there's all the different rules in each, including fighting, icing, the trapazoid, stick curves, etc.
plus, as we're noticing and discsussing in this thread -- there's injuries preventing top athletes from competing in each toruney. just 2 years ago, Mario Lemieux captained Team Canada to victory over a Kiprusoff-led Team Finland in the final. a short 2 years later and neither leader is playing.
1998 and 2002 were two of the highlights in the history of hockey. i look forward to a hat trick in a fortnight.
Those of you who claim that sending players to the Olympics is a poor business decision aren't giving teams or the league much credit. There are any number of business tools that would have been used to come to a decision. Certainly, somewhere along the line an actual "risk assessment" would have been prepared and thoroughly examined by a team of lawyers. As with any business decision, the league surely put time and effort into deciding that participation in the Olympics was a "good" business decision. A bunch of people didn't just brainstorm: studies were done, reports were written, somebody probably even made a Powerpoint presentation!
No. Where did I say anything about faking an injury or about not faking one? Putting words into my mouth won't get you far even on the internet.Phanuthier said:Then you agree that he isn't faking an injury, which you suggest in that post.
mattihp
Registered User
If they see more $ as more important than heart 
just leave them be. Then they'd not be wanted on the national team.
just leave them be. Then they'd not be wanted on the national team.OTOH Gary Bettman could have just consulted his Ouija board. That seems to be the extent of the NHL's marketing planning under bettman in the past.grapeshine said:
Phanuthier said:
It is implied. Naturally if you're injured and don't treat it you risk aggravating it and worsening the situation.
Which is why the Flames don't want him to go, so that injury can be treated instead of it getting worsened.. hence by playing him now, they risk causing further injury to him.
Won't the Flames look like a fool if they continue to play him and he aggraves it in the next game and misses x period of time.. ?
quite simple really. Any kind of injury + playing player = implied risk of further injury.
Nope. The Flames doctors evaluated him and said he can't furthur injure his hip. He just needs time to heal, and can play through the injury, but it needs time to rest.Raimo Sillanpää said:
Players play with injuries every day.Raimo Sillanpää said:
helicecopter
Registered User
helicecopter
Registered User
Don Waddell speaking of Lehtonen:
"He is 100% healthy with his injury. What he hasn't gotten back yet is his conditioning. His endurance isn't where he'd like it to be, but he's pain free and we're glad his injury seems to be behind him."
but of course he can't play at the Olympics..
"He is 100% healthy with his injury. What he hasn't gotten back yet is his conditioning. His endurance isn't where he'd like it to be, but he's pain free and we're glad his injury seems to be behind him."
but of course he can't play at the Olympics..
I have to question this whole "the players owe their allegience to their clubs" bit....
It's part of the CBA IIRC, that the players wanted to particpate in the Olympics, and they got that. The players are allowed to play in the olympics if they should so choose, and the only allegiance they owe to their team is to play hard every night in the games their contracted to play in. If it's part of the CBA that the players go over to Turin, then there's no reason management in the NHL should be able to say no. After all, didn't the owners sign this CBA too?
It's part of the CBA IIRC, that the players wanted to particpate in the Olympics, and they got that. The players are allowed to play in the olympics if they should so choose, and the only allegiance they owe to their team is to play hard every night in the games their contracted to play in. If it's part of the CBA that the players go over to Turin, then there's no reason management in the NHL should be able to say no. After all, didn't the owners sign this CBA too?
You said it yourself,Injektilo said:
the only allegiance they owe to their team is to play hard every night in the games their contracted to play in
In Kiprusoff's case, that is exactly what happened. His alligience is to be a 70-game goalie. The Flames only said if he wanted to rest to heal the injury, he would have to do it during the break. The Flames weren't gonna sacrifice their season for the Olympics. They paid him to be a 70-game goalie, and that's what he's gonna play. Everything else is entirely his decision.
Injektilo said:
Yes, but that's a hypothetical argument. There still hasn't been an instance where a player wants to go, but is being held back by his club (at least, none that I'm aware of). If a player came out and said this was case, I'm certain the Players' Union would be all over it.
thenextone
Registered User
I've heard the Kipper wasn't happy with the way he was treated after he took the Fins to the WC final but lost. This was purely his decision
The same thing was being discussed of Naslund today...his relationship with the swedish federation is not the best...Ohlund hinted that it might have something to do with him deciding not to play. He's in the worst of positions. If he plays, he is ripped in Sweden for not deserving to go, but if he pulls out he gets ripped as well.
The same thing was being discussed of Naslund today...his relationship with the swedish federation is not the best...Ohlund hinted that it might have something to do with him deciding not to play. He's in the worst of positions. If he plays, he is ripped in Sweden for not deserving to go, but if he pulls out he gets ripped as well.
How many northamerican players have there been, who can play in the Nhl, but not in the olympics because of injuries?
Jester
Registered User
mattihp
Registered User
I think that the next olympics should be without NHL players, so that the fans don't have to be heartbeaten and lose faith in their favourite players because of them getting "injured" and not being at the olympics while they are playing at a full pace in the NHL. This is unworthy for the fans, especially us european fans.
Jussi
Registered User
mattihp said:
FAt chance of that happening when the games are in North America. Trust me, there's going to a lot more "healthier" players in Vancouver 2010.
mattihp
Registered User
Yeah. Because the North Americans really want the european teams to be at their bestJussi said:
HockeyCritter
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2004
- 5,656
- 0
This is what happens when you force the league to shut down for nearly three weeks causing a compressed schedule the year after a lockout …… it is short sighted, ill-advised, and just plain stupid.
Frankly, I'm amazed that there are more frequent and serious injuries.
Frankly, I'm amazed that there are more frequent and serious injuries.
HockeyCritter said:
Yeah, it's that, or the fact that quite a few players had a whole year off from hockey, and weren't as ready as they thought they'd be for the "new NHL".
Someone should compare the rate of absent players in 2002 to 2006. Or, the number of players on the IR this year compared to past years. For all we know, it just looks like there's more injuries than normal this year, at this point in the season. I'm just not sure you can blame all the injuries on the compressed schedule, there are other factors to account for.
If the NHL wasn't soley about the $$$, they'd make it a 72 game schedule.
I know it has been discussed here already, but personally I'm a bit disappointed of Pitkänen, that he doesn't play for the finnish national team at the olympics. For the Philadelphia Flyers, he can play, despite his "injury". He had last night even a +2 by the bud light plus/minus statistic in the game against NY Islanders. He is even one of the best considering that he has played about 20 games less than the best.
Of course nobody can force him to play at the olympics but the olympic games are only all 4 years. Clearly they can't play be world championship if they are engaged with their NHL-clubs.
It's a pity that Finland has never the best players in big tournaments playing. If I remember well Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen for example never played any world championship or olympic game at their best times. But ok it was understandable, because Jari Kurri played some time with Wayne Gretzky by the Edmonton Oilers and they won several times the Stanley Cup if I remember well.
If I'm wrong please correct me.
P.S: I forgot to add Miikka Kiprusoff, it's the same like Joni Pitkänen.
Of course nobody can force him to play at the olympics but the olympic games are only all 4 years. Clearly they can't play be world championship if they are engaged with their NHL-clubs.
It's a pity that Finland has never the best players in big tournaments playing. If I remember well Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen for example never played any world championship or olympic game at their best times. But ok it was understandable, because Jari Kurri played some time with Wayne Gretzky by the Edmonton Oilers and they won several times the Stanley Cup if I remember well.
If I'm wrong please correct me.
P.S: I forgot to add Miikka Kiprusoff, it's the same like Joni Pitkänen.
Last edited:
- Status
