So, if the NHL players started their own league, what would you choose—as a Maple Leaf and hockey fan?

This post on the Leafs being ranked 118th in this week's Bloomberg Businessweek analysis of "smartest spending" professional teams might have flown under the radar.  Let me know your reaction....

**


I'm sure you don't visit VLM for CBA updates, but most hockey fans are probably already aware that the latest "round" of negotiations ended with a whimper late Friday- before the beginning of a long holiday weekend in both Canada and the United States.  I'm guessing that's not a good sign.

That it will be probably a week or so into September before any meaningful discussions take place again (and given that it sounds as though, not surprisingly, the two sides are still very far apart) can we really expect anything other than a lockout on September 15?

That reality sets up a scenario where we won't have hockey for some time- maybe months.  Maybe an entire season.  We know how these things often go.  One side gets agitated.  The other responds and before you know it, everyone feels ticked and insulted.

Neither side wants to give in on their prized "principles" (whatever they might be, when you're sharing billions of dollars among already well-to-do people).  The owners supposedly "won" the last battle in 2004-'05, but must be embarrassed that they can't keep out of each other's way when they all start cutting up the cash in the annual summer feeding frenzy, also known as UFA time.  The players are steadfast in their view that they "gave in" last time, and there's no way that's happening again, they say.

I dislike both sides.  I mean, yes, the owners are greedy and stupid.  But mostly they are in a no-win situation, because, as people have quite correctly posted here in recent days, there are simply too many lousy NHL markets and those teams will struggle, almost regardless of the economics.  Not enough people are passionate about hockey in those markets, and it will likely always be thus.  So you have a franchise owned by MLSE, for example, who could spend buckets more, in the same league with folks who are trying to cut corners and offer game tickets with a tank of gas.  That's our NHL.

That said, are the players really hard done by?  Yes, they are talented individuals who provide us with "entertainment".  And yes, we're supposed to buy the idea that they have "short careers" and need to make all this money while they can.  (Whenever I hear that argument, I always ask myself, do these guys think they aren't allowed to work or something after they retire?  I mean, if I'm alive, I plan to be working well past 65.  Do professional athletes think they aren't allowed to do something useful after they "retire"?  They have the rest of their life to make money, just like the rest of us.  And most of them make enough that, frankly, they will never have to work if they don't want to.  It's not remotely like it was for athletes 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago.

We also know that they run the risk of injury (they do, agreed, but that's built into the huge contracts), but c'mon.  Police and fire fighters, and many, many others, have immensely difficult jobs that are high risk.  They don't  get paid millions of dollars a year for their undeniably valuable service.  So the injury argument is only partially valid for me.  (Players do have great insurance and disability packages.)

In short, the owners deserve no sympathy, but does anyone honestly believe the players aren't getting a fair deal, like some of the players have publicly claimed?

I love Jordan Eberle.  Wonderful player.  But tell me, how old is he?  22, maybe.  He just signed a 6-year contract for 36 million dollars.  Six million a year.  (I want to stretch it out and say it like Mike Myers in that movie years ago...what was the name of it?)  That's more money than Eberle and his great, great grandchildren will ever need.

So how exactly are the players "giving in" here?  They are all still receiving unbelievable contracts, regardless of the "system".  They receive full medical benefits.  They are treated royally.  What do they pay for out of their own pockets?  Their salary is one thing.  Then there is the money they get from other sources- endorsements, licensing, etc.. Goodness, even those making the league minimum are living large.

And, we all know, if we're honest, the league should really have only 24 teams.  There is so much mediocrity in hockey now, they could easily cut back six teams to create a much better product.  There are all kinds of guys who are just marginal players.  That's just the truth.  Yet the PA is so strong, they'll never give up those jobs, when that would in fact solve the problem of having too many teams in too many lousy markets.

So as much as I loathe how the owners tend to go about their business, as I've said here before- someone has to put up the initial investment to buy and run these teams.  And it's the "bad-guy" owners, with Mr. Bettman as their well-paid mouthpiece.  (An NHL player agent tweeted again this week about Bettman getting paid during the lockout, while Donald Fehr won't take a salary.  Who cares?  This is supposed to make us feel the players are "right" or something?   The agent earlier criticized Bettman for saying the fans have come back in the past.  Is the agent trying to say the owners take the fans for granted (which they do), but the players don't?  Again, c'mon.  These agents must figure we are dopes.)

This leads me, though, to a question for you, and I'd be interested in your answer.  I’ve often wondered what would happen if the NHL players decided to “break away” from the NHL and start their own league.  Since they seem unhappy with what the owners are offering this time around, maybe they would like to be real entrepreneurs and start their own franchises.  (They’re already "independent business men", so this would just be the next step…)

While I don’t think this has much chance of ever actually happening, the current labour talks do bring me back to our last infamous breakdown in hockey “peace”— the one that cost us an entire season in 2004-‘05.  (And yet, we all came scrambling back for more, at least in most markets, it seems, just as Bettman said this week…)  Back in ’04-’05, as things dragged on, wasn’t there talk of the players doing something on their own?  Maybe it was just a tour of some description, but it did make me think: suppose the players did indeed bolt, and form their own league. (Hey, they could pay themselves as much as they wanted, eh?  Or at least as much as they could afford…)  But if they did that, the NHL would be free to replace them and no one could accuse the NHL—or the new players—of being “illegal replacements” or names much worse than that.

Of course, the “new” NHL players in the existing franchises around the 30-team NHL would not be as talented as most of the the former NHL’ers, but they would still be pretty good pros.  Basically, we’d have the equivalent of the Toronto Marlies, for example, playing for the “Toronto Maple Leafs”, while the old Leafs—and their fellow former NHL players—started a new league entity. (I wonder if a few "former" players might prefer to stay in the NHL, rather than join the new player-driven league…?)

In any event, this leads me to my fun question for the day:  as a hockey fan, what would you do?  Who would you support?  Say the ex-Leafs played (not quite sure where they would play their games—I don’t imagine they would be able to rent the ACC!  I guess they’d have to book time at nearby junior rinks, at least in Canada…) as the Toronto Vipers out of the planned new arena in Markham.  Would you cheer for that team—though they had no affiliation with the NHL, or had anything to do with the Maple Leaf franchise or legacy?  Or would you still support the “new” Maple Leaf NHL team, even though the players weren't of the same calibre?

Again, I can’t conceive that this would/could ever happen.  Surely both sides in the current dispute (well, it’s not officially a dispute yet, but it will be soon…) will eventually sign a deal and there will be hockey by, say, January—before we miss an entire season again.

But it just struck me as an interesting question:  are we cheering for the individual players, or are we primarily cheering for the name on the front of the jersey - and the history that is the Toronto Maple Leaf franchise?  Answering the above question might shed some light on the which of the two "Toronto teams" we would follow most closely.