I'm generally pro-owner on these sorts of things, but in all honesty I do sympathize with what Toews is saying here. I'd be frustrated too if someone was wanting to take more money from my pocket and couldn't articulate it in terms any more detailed then "Well, we think we need more."
That being said, IMHO the owners have at least given the impression that they are willing to negotiate to a settlement, whereas the PA seems to be borrowing from the Goodenow playbook that has only one sentence on one page: "Say no till they cave!". That is every bit as confrontational as what the NHL is doing.
And one could just as easily say that if the players were as determined to solve these issues as they are to partake in petty potshots against the commissioner of the league the vast majority of them grew up wanting to play in, then perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now.
BOTH sides should be red-faced with shame at the mistakes they've neglected to learn from. Again.
Ok, what part of 'a large part of our league is losing money' isn't articulated in terms they can understand?
All you have to do is realize that there are haves and have-nots in the league. The players need both because ALL teams provide them jobs, even the ones in non-traditional markets.
Likewise, there are haves and have-nots amongst the players. You have your genuine stars, then your elite players, then some 2nd line guys. After that there is everyone else - and they are essentially interchangeable parts.
The mega-contracts offered to certain elite players is not hypocrisy by the league. It simply meant that the rich teams got creative in luring big names to their team.
That's the way it is - there will always be favourable treatment of stars because stars bring people to the gates and that's how you make money. Likewise the stars EXPECT this treatment, and always have. The rich teams go after the best players.
The Parise/Suter contracts have been overblown because they focus on the TOTAL amount. They are both signed to reasonable cap hits, especially Suter who is arguably one of the best d-men in the league. Also if you look at the
National Post article numbers (based on the Forbes numbers) you'll see that Minnesota has revenues roughly in the middle of the pack and that in 2009 they actually turned a profit, despite missing the playoffs for four straight years and having a boring team.
It is a reasonable gamble on the part of the Wild to sign two hometown stars to reasonable cap-hits despite the total length of the contracts in order to make the playoffs and become profitable again.
Historically even poor have-not, underperforming teams have had at least one marquee player who is highly paid.
All teams have to bet on lucrative deals to at least one elite player.
Even if a team goes the cheap route, there are always
some overachieving players who come out of nowhere and play their way into a higher salary bracket simply by having the opportunity and icetime (hi, Dustin Penner and Matt Moulson!).
Therefore every team is at some point forced to overpay for talent that will keep people coming through the gates, with the exception of Edmonton (keep developing prospects and letting them go elsewhere) or Toronto (people pack the house no matter how much the product stinks).
Paying out the nose for NHL talent is INEVITABLE. There is a small supply and a large demand. Everyone understands this at both the team and player level, so having the players turn around in their PR spin and saying that these big contracts are proof that the owners are lying about the amount of money the teams are making is frankly horse pucky.