ESPN story triggers 31 thoughts (take that, Elliotte) on the NHL lockout

A couple of recent Leaf posts for your review...

• Why Luongo is not the answer for the Leafs

• Is it time for Burke to get daring again?

• A perspective on Morgan Rielly

• What moment triggered you becoming a Leaf fan?

****

I came across a recent piece, I think by Pierre LeBrun via ESPN/TSN, that included an interview with former Buffalo Sabres President Larry Quinn.  If I understood Quinn’s comments accurately, he basically said the following:

• Regardless of whatever the details of the new CBA are, players will always get their money
• It is the players who will ultimately “lose” out
• He’s not sure about the advice the players are receiving

First, apologies if I have in any way misconstrued LeBrun's piece, or Quinn's comments.  But I believe I have captured the gist of the article.

Now, we can simply dismiss Quinn as a “company” man (albeit “ex” company man, in his case, as he is no longer affiliated with the Sabres or any NHL team to my knowledge), someone who simply  embraces the League view, is anti-player and a guy who sounds typically NHL-executive condescending, a la Jimmy Devallano, toward the players.

But I think we’d be missing the point if we did that.

Quinn was, in my view, simply saying what I’ve said here in various posts.  The players will always get their money.  They always do—regardless of a new CBA.  Oh, they may get kicked in the shins a lose a bit here and there if they accept any kind of rollback, but generally speaking they all more than make it up in the long run.  That said, missing another year of an NHL salary, well I'm not sure sure if anyone ever really makes that up. I'm no accountant but that seems like a bad idea over the question of a rather shaky "principle".  But I'm not in their shoes, I acknowledge.

(An aside about Quinn.  When he was in charge of the Sabres, under various owners, he was criticized along with Darcy Regier, their General Manager, for not spending enough to make the team competitive.  Under a new regime, with billionaire Terry Pegula as the friendly, wealthy, "I want the Sabres to win again" owner, the team spent big money in the summer of 2011.  Then, they did not meet expectations last season, despite the significant infusion of money and talent.  Predictably, they were chastised by many fans for wasting all that money.  Can we (fans) have it both ways?)

With that as a backdrop, here are some across-the-board thoughts on a lockout that likely will take us at least to the 2013-’14 NHL season…and maybe beyond that:

But first another sidestep (as meandering as this is, it's not like we're in a rush to get to a game or something!):  I used to follow professional wrestling with each of our sons somewhat religiously...well only the three oldest ones, actually.  Our youngest came a little later and missed this "bonding" time.  But if you're still reading after this wresting admission - thanks.  The truth is, the best sporting event I ever took any of them to was a "dark" (non-televised) wrestling show at the CNE in Toronto in the late summer of 1996.  It was a day of fun for us "boys"- autographs, a softball game, great memories and an outdoor show/event that was even better than expected, unlike many Leaf games over the years. A few years later, I recall watching a WCW wrestling broadcast with our second youngest.  Dean Malenko was known as the guy with a "thousand moves".  A then very young Chris Jericho, still on his way up the industry ladder, took the mike one night and said he had in fact stayed up the previous night counting all of his moves and there were in fact 1,003 moves that he used in the ring.  We thought it was a hilarious bit at the time. You had to be there, I guess.

For the record, lest everyone think how terrible a Dad I was for allowing them to watch something as ridiculous as wrestling, they have all gone on to be good, thoughtful, (very) well-educated individuals, fighting for underdog causes along the way, etc...so the wrestling years didn't damage them too much, I hope!

So to "honour" that particular moment with my son, I will play off not only Jericho's classic line but also  Elliotte Friedman's weekly and immensely popular "30 thoughts" column by beating his number of "moves" with...31 thoughts. (Hey, I have to humour myself somehow, if I'm going to try to keep producing content here during a never-ending lockout...)

1. I’ll add this to the Quinn reference above:  beyond the point that many have made in this space in the comments section—that the players will never get back the money they lose in this dispute—my question is: so what if the earlier-signed contracts, including some agreed-to as recently as this past summer, are not made entirely “whole”? Yes, the owners should "honour" their deals, but the players will get their money anyway over time, if they start playing soon.  Elite players will always make big money, under any CBA.
2. Yes, to be clear:  of course owners should honour contracts that they offered and were signed in good faith.  But if I'm a player, I want to play.  Principle is important, no question, but someone had better determine soon if we're talking about principle - or ego and never-ending entitlement.
3. Even if players (yes, again, I realize) have to give a little something back in a new CBA, in virtually all cases, these individuals are being paid ungodly sums of money anyway.  Would it really and truly be a huge crink in their “lifestyle”—or those of their great, great, great, great grandchildren—if they didn’t receive every last cent of a mega-million dollar long-term contract?
4. I saw a tweet from Jeremy Roenick on the weekend that said:  just get in a room and get it done.  Hey, he has a platform a lot bigger than mine.  But I’ve (and a lot of others) been saying that here for some time.  Where are the cigar-smoking marathon bargaining sessions that break through the logjam - and lead to striking a deal?
5. The average NHL salary is, if I’m not mistaken, almost 2 and ½ million dollars a season.
6. I believe the “average” salary for individuals is around $60,000 annually.
7. Players are uniquely skilled.  They are the entertainers.  They draw the crowds.  They take significant physical risks.
8. In the same breath, they make a completely free choice to pursue a career in professional sports.  They were and are free to pursue other, safer, perhaps less lucrative careers that also last much longer.
9. Hockey players often say that their careers are “short”.  What is the number—4 years on average?
10. If so, that means than the “average” NHL’er, playing an average amount of time (4 years) would make 10 million dollars in their career in salary alone.  This does not count other significant revenues  (or the constant freebies) that they receive.  Given the four-year average “window”, these “average” players would retire well before they are 30, giving them years to earn more in a second, lengthy career of their choosing—after already earning the 10 million, minus taxes. Hard work, yes, but a heck of a return, eh? (By the way, as I've said here before, who ever told these guys they should expect to put their feet up for the rest of their lives after they stop playing hockey?  Some of them talk like they might have to actually work for a living after hockey as though that's a shock.  Are they kidding?  Nowadays, who receives more in-career and post-career advice, support and counselling than athletes?  It's available to them every step of the way- they just have to take advantage of what is available to them.)
11. Owners pay absurdly high salaries to star players, yes.  But we need to assess why exactly they do this.  Is it because they are just, say, stupid?  Or might it be because they want to build a competitive, successful team, to be a "winner"?  And yes, also to generate even more “revenues” and to create fan interest (which ties into higher revenues)?  Might it also be that they are responding to the demands of their fan base?
12. When this approach succeeds, owners and General Managers are applauded.  When it does not, fans turn around and criticize them, usually well after the fact (after cheering the signings initially) for making lousy business decisions.  The media often do the same.
13. Players, naturally, are only too happy to accept the largesse of the owners.  We all would do the same.
14. Owners and players do not “owe” us, as fans, anything.  The NHL does not have to operate, though I am among those who think it odd—from the perspective of their own self-interest—that they pull their product off the shelves for prolonged periods every few years.  That’s not typically the way to operate a customer-oriented “service”/entertainment business. But hey, I don't have an MBA.
15. That said, it hasn’t killed the NHL yet, somehow.  It’s still around, and in other than a few U.S. markets, seems to be thriving.
16. Again, though, fans should not expect the NHL to have games just for us.  It’s an optional entertainment vehicle.  If they are unhappy, players can withdraw their services; conversely, owners can lock out players and cancel games.  Again, it’s not good customer relations, but it’s their business, and the players’ decision as well to fight for what they want in a new contract.
17. Are small business owners being hurt in the 30 NHL cities?  Yes.  Are many individuals who sell souvenirs, work as street vendors, etc. and are employed in-stadium on game nights in related fields hurt by the lockout?  Yes.  That said, again, we can say it is unfair, but in reality, in a world of choice, the owners and players hold this choice.  They don’t “owe” the game to any of us, as sad as certain individual outcomes might be.
18. “Employees” (players, in this case) have the right to fight for what they believe they “deserve” in a new contract.  Owners have the right to negotiate a deal that they believe will ensure significant profit, league growth and sustainability over time.
19. When those desires/opinions/needs collide, you have what we have now:  no production, and no product.
20. I realize that players are frustrated that there is no season.  But constant harping at Bettman via Twitter comes across, to me, as bitter, childish and silly.  At least do what Ryan Suter did - go after your own owner.
21. I think I fully understand why so many fans are tired of the seeming disingenuous approach to negotiations from Bettman and the owners.  But it is their business.  The players are not the owners.
22. There was a time in the 1950s and early ‘60s when players were in many ways abused, if that is the right word, by NHL owners.  That’s absolutely true. They were threatened, paid pretty poorly in a lot of cases for “elite” athletes in their day.  They received lousy (or no) pension, no benefits, etc..
23. But we’re not talking about that kind of unfair treatment now.  Not even close.
24. I’m shocked that so many fans seem to identify with the players, almost having sympathy-pains for NHL players as fellow "employees" being treated unfairly by the "man".  But NHL players are so far from living in the world of everyday people like many of the rest of us.  Their talent and celebrity provide a lifestyle they now feel entitled to. Anything that takes away from that, they fight like kids who have had their favourite toy (among many toys) taken away.
25. While on one level I get that people support the players, I also know that, over the past few years, millions of people in North America have lost jobs, lost homes and seen their circumstance change pretty drastically because of the recession.  Yet player salaries in most cases have skyrocketed—even taking into account the 24% roll back from the last CBA.
26. If the players are unhappy, they have choices.  They could, say, start their own league.
27. But does anyone really believe the players have the business savvy to start their own league?  The answer is:  no, they don’t.  They would never take the risk. 
28. I raise that point, not because that possibility is necessarily on the table now, but simply to reiterate something I‘ve said for a long time:  could any of these players make one-tenth the money they make as hockey players doing anything else? 
29. That being the case, it’s interesting that they are so reluctant to recognize how privileged they are to earn the income they do, even if it’s only for a “few” years.  And my point is, if they truly feel the owners are unfair, well, they do have the option to a) play elsewhere—which many of them are doing in Europe while taking away the jobs of individuals who need those salaries much more or b) as I noted above, starting a league of their own—which relatively few fans would pay any attention to or c) do something else for a living. (Maybe the many wealthy -and whiny - agents out there would like to start that new league...)
30. My guess is that, after a few years of not making three million or more a year, most of these players would welcome a return to making huge money for playing a sport they claim to love.
31. Final comment, and I would like the always-thoughtful readers here to respond honestly to this, because it ties in to some of the points above:

Brian Burke joined the Leafs in November of 2008.  He tried to inject life—and a winning attitude—into a franchise that had lost its way since Pat Quinn was removed as GM of the team in the summer of 2003.

For example, he signed Mike Komisarek to a mega, long-term contract.  Burke despises cap circumventing deals, so he says.  But he wasn’t against throwing tons of dough at an OK NHL defenseman.  And in fairness, this was not a cap-circumventing contract.  Yet, it has been an albatross around the team’s neck, most would agree, right up to this day.  Komisarek is a solid individual, a player with character, and a tremendous locker-room presence.  But he has not been worth 5 million plus a season or whatever he’s getting on a team that has played nary a playoff game since he arrived.

Burke has made other free-agent signings that have turned out poorly.  But my point is:  should he have not tried to improve the team?  Is he “stupid” because he handed out huge money to what turned out to be undeserving or under-performing players?

Is MLSE one of those “dumb” owners fans and media carp about, because they allowed Burke to spend outlandish money to sign certain players?

The point, again, is that as fans (and again, the media is part of this as well…), we want our teams to spend to get better, to be competitive every year.  But then we criticize the contracts that see, say, Brad Richards go to New York rather than here, because they (the Rangers) were willing to pay even more over more years. I criticize Lamoriello all the time for what he paid to Kovalchuk.

We always want it both ways—to be able to demand that our teams spend to stay competitive, then criticize those teams when it doesn’t work out.  We then say the owners are “dumb” for handing out the money.

(I said here recently, and I meant it, that I’d be happy if the Leafs just “went young”.  Build a young, hard-working team.  By all means pay the kids well but not insanely.  Then, when they hit free-agency, if they want to go elsewhere for silly money, let them do it.  If that’s the case, then they don’t really want to be Leafs, don’t really want to play in the best hockey city in the world in front of the most loyal (if a bit frenetic and moody) hockey fans in the world.

Personally, I cheer for the crest and the history of this great franchise, not just the individual players.  If you don’t want to play here, goodbye.  That’s partly why I respected Sundin and Kaberle.   In a world of players changing jerseys routinely - and believe me, it is always about the money, regardless of what the players try to claim - they wanted to be here  and wanted to stay here, as Maple Leafs. But this is a debate for another day…)

But back to the issue I raised:  Is MLSE (and by extension, Burke, the man they employ to run the business) just stupid?  Or were they doing exactly what we expect good owners/management to do - trying to make the team better?

And beyond the Leafs, are all owners who pay out huge money just stupid?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts….