Dan Ellis’ comments make me wonder what a lot of NHL’ers are really thinking

It's difficult to determine where things really stand in this week's CBA drama in New York city.  We know that there have been proposals and counter-proposals and finally, some lengthy bargaining sessions.  Whether this will all prove fruitful, we don't know.  Though both sides are saying precious little (which is understandable to me) hopefully the trend is positive.

With that as a backdrop, I happened across an article a few days ago on Dan Ellis, the un-signed NHL free-agent goalie who is now playing in the American Hockey League.  Ellis has been around the NHL for half a dozen years or so, rarely as the “number one” guy, but he's been good enough to get a contract every year at least as a back-up somewhere.

However, this past summer he was not signed by anyone.  So he tried out with the AHL team in Charlotte (affiliated with the Carolina Hurricanes) with no guarantee of a job.  Now, it seems, he is playing pretty well, while hoping to land another NHL deal someday if that league ever decides to go back to work.

But the comments from Ellis in the article from QMI (via the Winnipeg Sun, I believe) are, to me, quite revealing.  Here is a guy (Ellis) who has lived the nice (if hard-working) life of the NHL player.  Now, he’s riding buses, making a fraction of what he earned just a couple of years ago—and he sounds happy just to be working and playing at all.

Here’s the quote from Ellis in the Ken Wiebe piece that really struck a chord with me:

“It resets some of your thinking and whether you took certain things for granted or not. Maybe you get a little bit comfortable playing in the NHL. Playing in the AHL, riding the buses, getting up early for flights, it’s a great wake-up call.”

Interesting.  Taking things for granted.  A "wake-up call".  What exactly did he mean by that, I wonder?

To me, it can only mean that he now realizes all too well how good he had it before, when he was paid so handsomely as an NHL'er.

I wonder how many current NHL’ers,now  involved in the lockout, don’t dare say the same kind of thing out loud, for fear that the union—and fellow players—would shut them down?  I just find it hard to believe that all these NHL players have been so brain-washed that they don’t see that they actually have it really good, regardless of whether they get 57% or 50% of hockey-related revenues, or receive the "full" value of their absurdly long, mega-million dollar contracts.

They are the "show", yes.  No question about it.  But in my view, if you replaced about 70% of today’s NHL players with a bunch of new guys, I wouldn't be able to notice that much of a difference. Honestly.  Everyone on the second, third and fourth lines has a distinct “role” nowadays.  These players are largely inter-changeable parts once you get past the first five or six skill guys on almost any given NHL team.

Of course, we would notice when we don’t have Crosby, Staal, Chara, Ovechkin and players of that ilk in front of us.  But once you get to the third and fourth-line guys, and the fourth, fifth and sixth defensemen on most teams, would we miss any of these guys if someone else stepped into their place?

No, we wouldn’t.

Closer to home, how many guys on the Leaf roster would you be heartbroken to see gone tomorrow, if someone similarly skilled or hard-working showed up to take their place?  Three players?  Five?  We’d adjust pretty quickly to the newcomers, I think.  Hey, we do every year when the new recruits join the blue and white.

A Mats Sundin?  A Gary Roberts?  No, that you can’t easily replace.  We still haven’t, not even close, after all these years.  But on the current roster, there aren't many (any?) of those, are there?

So I think Dan Ellis is on to something. 

Maybe Don Fehr will ultimately “win” this fight for the players.  He never loses, we’re told.  Good for him.  But Ellis just revealed the players’ little secret, or at least the secret that most marginal NHL’ers (and that’s the majority of  the players in the league) hide but live with:  they are easily, easily replaceable.

To some people, I recognize that that means the players’ union should fight for every last dollar, because of the old “their careers are so short” cry and also because we tend to believe that the owners are all, well, liars.  But to me, it just means the players should be playing right now, earning their money, enjoying the perks while they last—and fighting to stay in the league while they still  can.

What was the number I saw the other day…250 or so guys never played in the NHL again after the last lockout?  Wow.  What could the number be this time?

We all need to be guided by principles and values in our life, and stand by them as best we can.  But sometimes, I sense that what NHL players are fighting for is not principle, but rather ego and entitlement - not that the players are the only ones in this fight who can't overcome ego and a sense of entitlement.

However, without hockey, every NHL owner, greedy as they appear to be, would still be wealthy. Without hockey, how many NHL players would be rich?

Ellis’ words are food for thought.