Olympics 2018

[xxxx]

Why you are complaining about what is said in another forum in this forum is beyond me, but I know that some fans get very sensitive when their blind dedication to the NHL is challenged. I am surprised if those fans dismiss people's reasons for thinking that the NHL won't participate as "this or that" when the reasons almost exclusively come from the NHL itself. If you only care what someone says, as opposed to what they mean or why they say it, as you laughably claim, then presumably you also believe the NHL and the media's statements regarding NHL participation nearly to the same degree that Yakushev72 does.

The poster above is literally one of those posters I'm talking about, have you noticed that? Probably not.

 

[JackSlater]

The poster above is literally one of those posters I'm talking about, have you noticed that? Probably not.

If you mean Yakushev72, then yes I read what he said. He seems to believe what the NHL is saying at face value, which you apparently advocate, but is then extrapolating a bit further. I agree that the extrapolation is excessive.

 

[Yakushev72]

Other than my chum Yakushev72 I haven't seen the level of certainty you describe very often. In fact, the people who tend to express the most doubt about the NHL's participation are NHL officials. In the case of Yakushev72 I assume it is more wishful thinking than definitive opinion, since there is obviously a beneficial consequence to him if the NHL doesn't participate.

Looking at my prior posts, I didn't express any "certainty" that the NHL wouldn't go to Korea. I only noted the public expression of disappointment registered by Gary Bettman and other NHL officials in the perceived disappointing results and diminished value of NHL participation in Sochi. In short, they seemed to be saying that it wasn't worth it anymore to shut down for 3 weeks in mid-season to go 7 or 8 time zones away to participate in the Olympics. If its Vancouver or Salt Lake City, great. But Ulan Bator, Mongolia, we'll skip it this time.

I am aware of the argument that says that Bettman has actually been reading Donald Trump's book "The Art of the Deal," and that these public pronouncements are all just a ploy to induce the IOC and IIHF to gladly accept an overall financial loss for the Olympic Games in order to enable the return of the great stars of the NHL for yet another appearance. You know, the notion that, even though 95% of the Planet has no idea what ice hockey is, the 35 million Canadians will ensure that NHL participation will be a stunning success.

 

[JackSlater]

Looking at my prior posts, I didn't express any "certainty" that the NHL wouldn't go to Korea. I only noted the public expression of disappointment registered by Gary Bettman and other NHL officials in the perceived disappointing results and diminished value of NHL participation in Sochi. In short, they seemed to be saying that it wasn't worth it anymore to shut down for 3 weeks in mid-season to go 7 or 8 time zones away to participate in the Olympics. If its Vancouver or Salt Lake City, great. But Ulan Bator, Mongolia, we'll skip it this time.

The portion of your post the True Hockey Fan bolded looks pretty certain, though as I said I suspect it's more wishful thinking than genuine certitude.

I am aware of the argument that says that Bettman has actually been reading Donald Trump's book "The Art of the Deal," and that these public pronouncements are all just a ploy to induce the IOC and IIHF to gladly accept an overall financial loss for the Olympic Games in order to enable the return of the great stars of the NHL for yet another appearance. You know, the notion that, even though 95% of the Planet has no idea what ice hockey is, the 35 million Canadians will ensure that NHL participation will be a stunning success.

That isn't my argument, so I'm not sure how you can be aware of it. The second half of what you've written in particular is quite foreign to me.

 

[Yakushev72]

The portion of your post the True Hockey Fan bolded looks pretty certain, though as I said I suspect it's more wishful thinking than genuine certitude.


That isn't my argument, so I'm not sure how you can be aware of it. The second half of what you've written in particular is quite foreign to me.

The speed at which Bettman came out after Sochi to point out the seemingly countless reasons why the NHL would be stupid to go to East Asia in 2018 and 2022 persuaded me that if there ever is a scenario where the NHL discontinues its Olympic presence, this would be the time. If his diatribe were timed to be released now, I would tend to be persuaded that he is just posturing to negotiate a better deal, but the timing of coming out with the statement 3 years ago made me a believer that they might well drop out.

I believe that the decision has been made to participate in the Olympics or not based on an article that was published in dallasnews.com about a month ago. The NHL executive office reportedly met with team owners at that time, and the premise of the article was that there was strong opposition from team owners which was met favorably by the NHL command, who seemed similarly skeptical about the value of continuing on at this point. I can't imagine why the players would have strong convictions either way. Just another game for them to slog through!

 

[JackSlater]

The speed at which Bettman came out after Sochi to point out the seemingly countless reasons why the NHL would be stupid to go to East Asia in 2018 and 2022 persuaded me that if there ever is a scenario where the NHL discontinues its Olympic presence, this would be the time. If his diatribe were timed to be released now, I would tend to be persuaded that he is just posturing to negotiate a better deal, but the timing of coming out with the statement 3 years ago made me a believer that they might well drop out.

I believe that the decision has been made to participate in the Olympics or not based on an article that was published in dallasnews.com about a month ago. The NHL executive office reportedly met with team owners at that time, and the premise of the article was that there was strong opposition from team owners which was met favorably by the NHL command, who seemed similarly skeptical about the value of continuing on at this point. I can't imagine why the players would have strong convictions either way. Just another game for them to slog through!

I don't think you're wrong in most of what you say. The opinion of most NHL owners has been pretty well discussed for far longer than one month. It is worth saying though that a lot of the NHL's arguments were being made over a decade ago (though they were interested in the Vancouver Olympics) and they still went. One positive sign is also that the NHL also has invested in creating a schedule for next season that accounts for Olympic participation.

As for the players, all indication from the players and the media is that they do want to go. The players want to play, and those who don't play still enjoy the mid season vacation. They are the ones who included participation in the CBA before. They will likely need to push harder for participation this time.

 

[usascout1]

My only issue is that even though the NHL says it would have to shut down for 3 weeks it is really more like 4 weeks. The travel alone and time change will wear on the players leaving to go over. They will come back exhausted and possibly more prone to injury. Often guys lose weight for many reason's at these 2-3 week international events. I really don't know if I want the star player on my NHL team not performing at his peak level when he returns, when other team's players are well rested from not going over. It could really hurt certain teams at that time of year if a star player comes back tired for a few weeks. It does happen and it will happen. I don't have a problem with players wanting to go but they need to have a plan on how to maintain peak performance after traveling around the world for several weeks.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think you're wrong in most of what you say. The opinion of most NHL owners has been pretty well discussed for far longer than one month. It is worth saying though that a lot of the NHL's arguments were being made over a decade ago (though they were interested in the Vancouver Olympics) and they still went. One positive sign is also that the NHL also has invested in creating a schedule for next season that accounts for Olympic participation.

As for the players, all indication from the players and the media is that they do want to go. The players want to play, and those who don't play still enjoy the mid season vacation. They are the ones who included participation in the CBA before. They will likely need to push harder for participation this time.

The most important criteria for the NHL bosses has to be whether the league is perceived to benefit from participation. As you have said, the NHL complained bitterly about going to Sochi, but, after having come off of the Vancouver Games when a Gold Medal matchup between the USA and Canada ended up in overtime, the prospect of a rematch, with the Americans emerging as victors in the rematch, was simply too good to pass up. An American Gold Medal victory might fuel a major upsurge in hockey interest in the USA, which would reap generational benefits for the NHL.

Unfortunately, the Americans played far below their potential in Sochi, and for American fans that had reason to have high hopes, the experience was a particularly dreary one. Especially the Bronze Medal matchup against Finland, which had to have been one of the most embarrassing outcomes in American hockey history. That was an absolute disaster for the NHL, which will always have Canadian fans in their back pocket, but are constantly in a struggle to increase interest among largely disinterested American sports fans. They have to calculate that the worst possible scenario would be to have a similar outcome east of the Mongolian steppes.

 

[Yakushev72]

My only issue is that even though the NHL says it would have to shut down for 3 weeks it is really more like 4 weeks. The travel alone and time change will wear on the players leaving to go over. They will come back exhausted and possibly more prone to injury. Often guys lose weight for many reason's at these 2-3 week international events. I really don't know if I want the star player on my NHL team not performing at his peak level when he returns, when other team's players are well rested from not going over. It could really hurt certain teams at that time of year if a star player comes back tired for a few weeks. It does happen and it will happen. I don't have a problem with players wanting to go but they need to have a plan on how to maintain peak performance after traveling around the world for several weeks.

Very well said! As JackSlater pointed out, "those who don't play enjoy the mid-season vacation." Translation: while the stars of the NHL are breaking their backsides every day for the love of their country, just 50 miles south of a potential North Korean nuclear attack, those who weren't selected are spread out on a tropical beach sucking down ice-cold beers and Margaritas, with the smell of shrimp and lobster on the Barbie saturating the air. Have to keep them healthy unless one of the franchises' top players goes down in Olympic competition. It does take up more like 4 than 3 weeks, and by the time league play resumes, any momentum that the team has will have slipped

 

[Xokkeu]

The most important criteria for the NHL bosses has to be whether the league is perceived to benefit from participation. As you have said, the NHL complained bitterly about going to Sochi, but, after having come off of the Vancouver Games when a Gold Medal matchup between the USA and Canada ended up in overtime, the prospect of a rematch, with the Americans emerging as victors in the rematch, was simply too good to pass up. An American Gold Medal victory might fuel a major upsurge in hockey interest in the USA, which would reap generational benefits for the NHL.

Unfortunately, the Americans played far below their potential in Sochi, and for American fans that had reason to have high hopes, the experience was a particularly dreary one. Especially the Bronze Medal matchup against Finland, which had to have been one of the most embarrassing outcomes in American hockey history. That was an absolute disaster for the NHL, which will always have Canadian fans in their back pocket, but are constantly in a struggle to increase interest among largely disinterested American sports fans. They have to calculate that the worst possible scenario would be to have a similar outcome east of the Mongolian steppes.

Americans played about exactly to their potential. They lost a tough game to Canada and got blown out in a relatively irrelevant third place game.

 

[xxxx]

The most important criteria for the NHL bosses has to be whether the league is perceived to benefit from participation. As you have said, the NHL complained bitterly about going to Sochi, but, after having come off of the Vancouver Games when a Gold Medal matchup between the USA and Canada ended up in overtime, the prospect of a rematch, with the Americans emerging as victors in the rematch, was simply too good to pass up.

Yeah. Sure this was the deciding factor for the NHL to go to Sochi. Not.

An American Gold Medal victory might fuel a major upsurge in hockey interest in the USA, which would reap generational benefits for the NHL.

I don't really think so. The Vancouver olympics were probably one of the best tournaments for the US in history, it was in North America, it was a thrilling match against Canada, and yet I don't really think the general interest of the US people in the NHL league went up significantly because of that.

Unfortunately, the Americans played far below their potential in Sochi, and for American fans that had reason to have high hopes, the experience was a particularly dreary one.

This is just your opinion. If you believe the US could've beaten Canada in the semis had they played up to their realistic potential, than that's your business. But aside from the bronze-medal game - that I simply don't believe they played with the same level of enthusiasm and hunger as they played Canada or Russia in that tournament and in actually meaningfull games to them - aside from that game, they performed pretty well, and they were the toughest opponent for Canada in that tournament.

Especially the Bronze Medal matchup against Finland, which had to have been one of the most embarrassing outcomes in American hockey history.

To call losing a bronze medal one of the most embarrassing outcomes in the US history just shows you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm sorry. If something is worth that title, it is definitely their World Cup showing last year.

That was an absolute disaster for the NHL, which will always have Canadian fans in their back pocket, but are constantly in a struggle to increase interest among largely disinterested American sports fans. They have to calculate that the worst possible scenario would be to have a similar outcome east of the Mongolian steppes.

I'm not sure what to think of your comments, other than that you are horribly misinformed, I guess. Why are you not trying to see things as they really are? Instead of making stuff up. The thing you are right about is that they would probably like to get more interest from American fans, even though the American sports fans are certainly not "largely disinterested" in hockey. The NHL is the 4th biggest league in the US, and is TOP5 in the world by revenue. Ahead of all soccer leagues in Europe, except from the English Premier League.

 

[Yakushev72]

Yeah. Sure this was the deciding factor for the NHL to go to Sochi. Not.



I don't really think so. The Vancouver olympics were probably one of the best tournaments for the US in history, it was in North America, it was a thrilling match against Canada, and yet I don't really think the general interest of the US people in the NHL league went up significantly because of that.



This is just your opinion. If you believe the US could've beaten Canada in the semis had they played up to their realistic potential, than that's your business. But aside from the bronze-medal game - that I simply don't believe they played with the same level of enthusiasm and hunger as they played Canada or Russia in that tournament and in actually meaningfull games to them - aside from that game, they performed pretty well, and they were the toughest opponent for Canada in that tournament.





To call losing a bronze medal one of the most embarrassing outcomes in the US history just shows you have no idea what you're talking about, I'm sorry. If something is worth that title, it is definitely their World Cup showing last year.




I'm not sure what to think of your comments, other than that you are horribly misinformed, I guess. Why are you not trying to see things as they really are? Instead of making stuff up. The thing you are right about is that they would probably like to get more interest from American fans, even though the American sports fans are certainly not "largely disinterested" in hockey. The NHL is the 4th biggest league in the US, and is TOP5 in the world by revenue. Ahead of all soccer leagues in Europe, except from the English Premier League.

(1) It is absurd to say that the USA couldn't have beaten Canada in Sochi. Of course they could have. They had solid goaltending, a strong defense, and a lot of good goal scorers on offense. They didn't play well, but that refutes nothing about their overall potential).

(2) There was an explosion of interest, growth and development of hockey in the US after the 1980 Olympics. It wouldn't have prompted explosive growth, but it would have had a major effect which would have migrated to NHL coffers. The actual result portrayed US hockey as lackluster and disinterested. Bummer for the NHL!

 

[Jussi]

Americans played about exactly to their potential. They lost a tough game to Canada and got blown out in a relatively irrelevant third place game.

Olympic bronze medal is never irrelevant.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Olympic Gold with or without NHL participation is still more important that the Stanley Cup.

Without the NHL, the Olympics become like the World Baseball Classic. A fun tournament and cool event, but not a good measure of International Hockey supremacy. Just hope if the NHL pulls out of the Olympics, they have a real World Cup without the stupidity of the Children's team and the Euro buffet team. If you are going to do that, then really mix it up. US and Canada can form North America (or even call it the British empire team and make players from Great Britain and Australia eligible, as well), Norway, Sweden, and Denmark can be Team Scandanavia. Although, the NHL would probably put Finland in there as Bettman doesn't realize Finland is not part of Scandavia. It is close enough and shaped sort of like Sweden and Norway, so that is good enough. Then, you can have Ukraine, Belarus, etc team up with Russia to re-form the Team USSR. It doesn't really matter if players would likely hate the concept, it is good for marketing in North America as they can now be the bad guys again. Czechs and Slovaks can reform Czechoslovakia. Since it was a peaceful split, it should be a peaceful reunion. And of course, to make sure Kopitar can play, they can bring back Yugoslavia. Granted, they wouldn't have any other NHL-calibre players, not even sure if they would have AHL calibre players, but at least the league can showcase Kopitar.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Olympic bronze medal is never irrelevant.

It is in the US when it comes to team sports where your goal is to win Gold and are one of the favorites expected to compete for Gold.

 

[xxxx]

(1) It is absurd to say that the USA couldn't have beaten Canada in Sochi. Of course they could have. They had solid goaltending, a strong defense, and a lot of good goal scorers on offense. They didn't play well, but that refutes nothing about their overall potential).

Well, then I perhaps expressed myself poorly - of course they could've, but you said that "the Americans played far below their potential in Sochi", which is not true at all, aside from the bronze-medal game. It seemed to me like you thought the Americans would be *expected* to beat Canada had they played to their potential or close to it - but maybe I got your wrong.

(2) There was an explosion of interest, growth and development of hockey in the US after the 1980 Olympics. It wouldn't have prompted explosive growth, but it would have had a major effect which would have migrated to NHL coffers. The actual result portrayed US hockey as lackluster and disinterested. Bummer for the NHL!

I'm not sure about that, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Well, then I perhaps expressed myself poorly - of course they could've, but you said that "the Americans played far below their potential in Sochi", which is not true at all, aside from the bronze-medal game. It seemed to me like you thought the Americans would be *expected* to beat Canada had they played to their potential or close to it - but maybe I got your wrong.



I'm not sure about that, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is a widespread belief that the 80 Olympics caused a growth in interest in hockey. However, different climate. Cold War. Idea of Americans, most of whom were not good enough to play in the NHL, beating the Soviets who had just steamrolled through NHL teams in that Challenge Cup. I doubt a US Gold in the Olympics with NHL'ers would have the same impact, but you never know.

 

[JackSlater]

There is a widespread belief that the 80 Olympics caused a growth in interest in hockey. However, different climate. Cold War. Idea of Americans, most of whom were not good enough to play in the NHL, beating the Soviets who had just steamrolled through NHL teams in that Challenge Cup. I doubt a US Gold in the Olympics with NHL'ers would have the same impact, but you never know.

He has trotted that narrative out before, but it seems largely to be based on his own speculation. Of course the 1980 Olympic tournament was a positive for the United States, but interest in hockey was already growing there. For instance, if we look at the boom in American hockey talent in the 90s, most of those players were already playing hockey before the 1980 Olympics. A lot of this has been attributed to the interest that the NHL and Bobby Orr brought to the Northeastern United States, which is indeed where the majority of that talent boom came from, but that is not convenient when someone wants to overstate the significance of the Olympics.

As you suggest, the situation is very different now. The NHL couldn't possibly be so naive as to think that a positive American result at the Olympics would have a huge impact in American interest in the NHL. The NHL itself and its star players have historically had a much bigger impact on hockey interest in the United States than Olympic results have.

 

[therealdeal]

As for the players, all indication from the players and the media is that they do want to go. The players want to play, and those who don't play still enjoy the mid season vacation. They are the ones who included participation in the CBA before. They will likely need to push harder for participation this time.

I don't believe this to be the case. I think you have maybe 120-170 players that are for it, and then about another 500 who probably aren't that interested in a bunch of concessions for a tournament they'll never get to play in. I think that the union as a whole is probably pretty split on it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Didn't the NHL offer to have this done already for a 2 year extension of the current CBA? If they union actually wanted it, that would have been a good deal to take. Because chances are they're going to lock out again and miss at least some time, might as well push it back 2 years for something that you want. But I don't think they do want it.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't believe this to be the case. I think you have maybe 120-170 players that are for it, and then about another 500 who probably aren't that interested in a bunch of concessions for a tournament they'll never get to play in. I think that the union as a whole is probably pretty split on it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All reports, from the media and from the players' mouths, state that the players want to go. This has been the case for years. If what you describe was the case, I'm sure that at some point over the years someone with knowledge of the situation, McKenzie, Dreger, Friedman etc. would have said it. The players want to play, and the other players enjoy the break. If the NHLPA actually didn't particularly care, the discussion would already be over. That the players want to go is the reason that the NHL didn't pull out prior to 2006.

Didn't the NHL offer to have this done already for a 2 year extension of the current CBA? If they union actually wanted it, that would have been a good deal to take. Because chances are they're going to lock out again and miss at least some time, might as well push it back 2 years for something that you want. But I don't think they do want it.

The NHL offered a deal that the players were obviously never going to accept. Good on the NHL to offer it as a starting point for negotiation, but the players have been complaining about this CBA, and the escrow situation in particular, for years. It would not have been a good deal for them to take. Obviously the players wouldn't accept a deal they consider to be bad just because the NHL threw in Olympic participation... which is something that they already had during the deal. Once again, the media who actually knows players and owners reported this at the time. It was a deal that was never going to even be seriously considered.

 

[therealdeal]

All reports, from the media and from the players' mouths, state that the players want to go. This has been the case for years. If what you describe was the case, I'm sure that at some point over the years someone with knowledge of the situation, McKenzie, Dreger, Friedman etc. would have said it. The players want to play, and the other players enjoy the break. If the NHLPA actually didn't particularly care, the discussion would already be over. That the players want to go is the reason that the NHL didn't pull out prior to 2006.

Mmmm, not sure I buy it. I think there is a lot of incentive for players who don't tow that public line to keep it quiet and within the organization. Further, the PA has a lot of reasons to appear united even if they aren't. You hear from what, 3-5 players that say they want to go, of the 700 members? I would imagine there are a lot of players that don't want to give up points of contention on the CBA for a two week break so the elite can be sent over.

The NHL offered a deal that the players were obviously never going to accept. Good on the NHL to offer it as a starting point for negotiation, but the players have been complaining about this CBA, and the escrow situation in particular, for years. It would not have been a good deal for them to take. Obviously the players wouldn't accept a deal they consider to be bad just because the NHL threw in Olympic participation... which is something that they already had during the deal. Once again, the media who actually knows players and owners reported this at the time. It was a deal that was never going to even be seriously considered.

Well fair enough, seems pretty short sighted if they wanted the Olympics that bad. Even a 6 month lockout will claw back any sort of gains they will make on a new deal.

 

[Yakushev72]

Without the NHL, the Olympics become like the World Baseball Classic. A fun tournament and cool event, but not a good measure of International Hockey supremacy. Just hope if the NHL pulls out of the Olympics, they have a real World Cup without the stupidity of the Children's team and the Euro buffet team. If you are going to do that, then really mix it up. US and Canada can form North America (or even call it the British empire team and make players from Great Britain and Australia eligible, as well), Norway, Sweden, and Denmark can be Team Scandanavia. Although, the NHL would probably put Finland in there as Bettman doesn't realize Finland is not part of Scandavia. It is close enough and shaped sort of like Sweden and Norway, so that is good enough. Then, you can have Ukraine, Belarus, etc team up with Russia to re-form the Team USSR. It doesn't really matter if players would likely hate the concept, it is good for marketing in North America as they can now be the bad guys again. Czechs and Slovaks can reform Czechoslovakia. Since it was a peaceful split, it should be a peaceful reunion. And of course, to make sure Kopitar can play, they can bring back Yugoslavia. Granted, they wouldn't have any other NHL-calibre players, not even sure if they would have AHL calibre players, but at least the league can showcase Kopitar.

(1) The correlation between demonstrating World supremacy and Olympics Gold is circumstantial, depending on the sport. In Gymnastics, for example, Olympic Gold confers world supremacy. In Soccer, not at all.

(2) Olympic Gold in Hockey does not in any way confer the mantle of World supremacy, even when the NHL is in full participation. The sample size is too tiny - since 1998, when the NHL joined up, Russia and Canada have only played twice. The overall record in this 2-game Series spanning 20 years is 1-1, with Canada holding a narrow edge in total goals, 7-5. Does this mean that Canada has demonstrated "superiority" over Russia? That would be crazy to say that.

 

[JackSlater]

Mmmm, not sure I buy it. I think there is a lot of incentive for players who don't tow that public line to keep it quiet and within the organization. Further, the PA has a lot of reasons to appear united even if they aren't. You hear from what, 3-5 players that say they want to go, of the 700 members? I would imagine there are a lot of players that don't want to give up points of contention on the CBA for a two week break so the elite can be sent over.

Where are the comments from connected media that say what you are suggesting? McKenzie, Lebrun, Dreger and so on. They've been very consistent that the players as a whole want Olympic participation, and it isn't like those guys don't enjoy taking the NHL's side when the opportunity arises. I agree that the players aren't going to give up significant concessions to the NHL to go to the Olympics, but that is not the same thing as saying that they don't want to go.

Well fair enough, seems pretty short sighted if they wanted the Olympics that bad. Even a 6 month lockout will claw back any sort of gains they will make on a new deal.

I agree that the lockouts are futile, and I generally agree with the NHL when these labour strikes break out. It's pretty unreasonable to expect that the players, who have have more than proven that they are willing to strike for stupid reasons, would simply give up their negotiation rights just to keep something (Olympic participation) that they've already had for decades. It would have been nice for multiple reasons if the players had accepted that offer, but no negotiator is stupid enough to stick with a system they don't like just to keep something they have had for 20 years.

 

[therealdeal]

Where are the comments from connected media that say what you are suggesting? McKenzie, Lebrun, Dreger and so on. They've been very consistent that the players as a whole want Olympic participation, and it isn't like those guys don't enjoy taking the NHL's side when the opportunity arises. I agree that the players aren't going to give up significant concessions to the NHL to go to the Olympics, but that is not the same thing as saying that they don't want to go.

I think you just have a lot more confidence in the media than I do in this regard. Frankly I think they're mostly trash, and dinosaurs. I do like Friedman a lot, but the others you mentioned are just there to tow party lines.

I agree that the lockouts are futile, and I generally agree with the NHL when these labour strikes break out. It's pretty unreasonable to expect that the players, who have have more than proven that they are willing to strike for stupid reasons, would simply give up their negotiation rights just to keep something (Olympic participation) that they've already had for decades. It would have been nice for multiple reasons if the players had accepted that offer, but no negotiator is stupid enough to stick with a system they don't like just to keep something they have had for 20 years.

Yeah I agree on all points here.

I honestly hope they go to the Olympics, but I feel like there will have to be a lot of movement relatively quickly. And frankly, if the IOC gets spited by the owners, I would kind of appreciate that. The IIHF much lesser so, I feel they are caught in the middle.

 

[JackSlater]

I think you just have a lot more confidence in the media than I do in this regard. Frankly I think they're mostly trash, and dinosaurs. I do like Friedman a lot, but the others you mentioned are just there to tow party lines.

Sure, but they are going against their typical pro-NHL party lines. Those writers, the writers for the major newspapers, they all say basically the same thing, which is that the players want to go. If that wasn't the case, surely someone would be reporting it. It also makes intuitive sense since without the union pushing for it the owners would have basically no reason to entertain the thought of going to the Olympics anymore.

Yeah I agree on all points here.

I honestly hope they go to the Olympics, but I feel like there will have to be a lot of movement relatively quickly. And frankly, if the IOC gets spited by the owners, I would kind of appreciate that. The IIHF much lesser so, I feel they are caught in the middle.

I've got no fondness for the IOC or the IIHF in general, though in this case the IIHF does appear to be doing a good job trying to bring some semblance of "peace".