One other point on this. The GM's have the responsbility to build a team. Especially after the early struggles that some teams and GMs (ahem....cough...Paul Holmgren...cough) had managing cap space, they for the most part seem better adept at it over the last couple of years.

Now, some teams made incredibly stupid decisions early on (yashin, dipietro), but the number of 7+ year contracts has only shot up in the last couple of seasons. It is solely a result of trying to have your cake and eat it too. They want the star players but don't want to be in cap hell to do it. Take that away and they'll make vastly different decisions (on average, there will always be a knucklehead).
- TheGreat28

You have a good point there. It will certainly help to limit the mistakes GM's make. Which is a big reason why some teams are struggling. Team Management incompetence in building a quality team so they can build a fan base. Such as in Columbus. That's an area where the NHL has to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. There are definitely arguments to be made why it is good for the League.

Yeah, but it is one thing for them to know it, and another thing for it to be expressly stated in the middle of a contract negotiation. And again, I don't think Fehr has to. My argument would rally the troops without the risk of pitting them against each other.
- TheGreat28

I just don't think it does that. I don't see how Fehr stating that were against the Contract term limit because it takes away money from the Middle class player, pits players against each other.

So 100 players lost their jobs.Does that mean that the other 620-650 players are supposed to settle for the sake of those 100?I really would love to see a vote(secret ballet type)just to see.My feeling is that this union is behind their leader Fehr.This is a negotiation and he is after the best deal possible and his players are backing him.Bettman is playing the same game and it will come down to the wire,but a deal will be done.Or it all blows up?Lets hope that it isn't the blowing up option.

Where is it written that pro sports players or anyone for that matter employed by billionaires or even millionaires are entitled to anything more than the absolute minimum of their employment value?

These global business leaders spend their lifes work creating and building their empires, why is anyone entitled to any of it? This is exactly the argument I've seen being spewed around here lately and frankly it's preposterous. Why is an NHL player entitled to "earn" even a fraction of what an owner is worth simply based on the fact that he's a pro athlete? One has nothing to do with the other.

As far as your statement goes "a small window of time to earn a small fraction of what the owners are worth." I guess that goes for all of us then, the problem is 99% of the population doesn't get to make it so easily and as quickly as does a pro athlete. Oh yeah, but they shouldn't be expected to live in the real world once their careers are over.
- MnGump

I assume you own a business. That's a very small percentage of people. MOST of us (like 99%) work for someone else for a living. And yes, we do expect to earn some money for it. Not entitled to the money, but at the same time, we're not going to slave for free. This is as true in the NHL as it is any profession.

I'm a computer programmer. The same idea applies. If I worked for Google (I wish), I'd be making a ton more than I do right now working for a small shop for doing the exact same job. Why is that? Because they only hire the best and they realize that to hire the best requires the most amount of money. And they have it to spend.

So in hockey... you want the best players in the world? You must pay them as though they're the best players in the world.

This is why whenever someone mentions replacement players I laugh. Would I go to NHL games if there were scrubs playing instead of the world's best? Probably. But I certainly wouldn't pay the same ticket prices that I pay right now. Not even close.

You say entitled as though the players don't work for their wages. The players put behinds in seats. This isn't welfare - this is a salary for doing a job. A job that brings the owners TONS of money. And if it doesn't bring in enough to make the payments they've "guaranteed" to the players via contract, maybe they shouldn't sign such large contracts.

You know... just like how the rest of the world lives. I can't afford a Porsche, so I don't buy one. That simple. I can't go to my mortgage company and tell them "hey, you are going to accept less money from me every month so that I can buy a Porsche". I signed a contract with that mortgage company at a certain rate and they expect that for the life of the contract.

I assume you own a business. That's a very small percentage of people. MOST of us (like 99%) work for someone else for a living. And yes, we do expect to earn some money for it. Not entitled to the money, but at the same time, we're not going to slave for free. This is as true in the NHL as it is any profession.

I'm a computer programmer. The same idea applies. If I worked for Google (I wish), I'd be making a ton more than I do right now working for a small shop for doing the exact same job. Why is that? Because they only hire the best and they realize that to hire the best requires the most amount of money. And they have it to spend.

So in hockey... you want the best players in the world? You must pay them as though they're the best players in the world.

This is why whenever someone mentions replacement players I laugh. Would I go to NHL games if there were scrubs playing instead of the world's best? Probably. But I certainly wouldn't pay the same ticket prices that I pay right now. Not even close.

You say entitled as though the players don't work for their wages. The players put behinds in seats. This isn't welfare - this is a salary for doing a job. A job that brings the owners TONS of money. And if it doesn't bring in enough to make the payments they've "guaranteed" to the players via contract, maybe they shouldn't sign such large contracts.

You know... just like how the rest of the world lives. I can't afford a Porsche, so I don't buy one. That simple. I can't go to my mortgage company and tell them "hey, you are going to accept less money from me every month so that I can buy a Porsche". I signed a contract with that mortgage company at a certain rate and they expect that for the life of the contract.
- lifexkills

I just don't think it does that. I don't see how Fehr stating that were against the Contract term limit because it takes away money from the Middle class player, pits players against each other.
- MJL

Salaries are very emotional things. It's the reason employers generally don't want anyone disclosing their salaries to co-workers. One person gets a big merit raise, and the next guy thinks...well, he deserves it but so do I.

Look at various quotes when a player signs a big deal, especially in football and basketball. His teammates are happy for him, but often there is a little envy in there too. Some will more or less say...well he got his money and now I gotta get paid. Desean Jackson really comes to mind on this.

Now, hockey players for the most part are more humble...but athletes always chalk it up to us (players) vs. them (owners), not us (average player) against them (superstar).

I

So in hockey... you want the best players in the world? You must pay them as though they're the best players in the world.

- lifexkills

They are being paid as though they're the best in the world. The owners' first offer (43/57...the "insult") pays them as if they're the best in the world. You can't come anywhere close to that percentage of that sort of revenue in any other league in the world.

prove it.
- prock

well your owner paid through the nose for Weber.....isnt that proof?

Salaries are very emotional things. It's the reason employers generally don't want anyone disclosing their salaries to co-workers. One person gets a big merit raise, and the next guy thinks...well, he deserves it but so do I.

Look at various quotes when a player signs a big deal, especially in football and basketball. His teammates are happy for him, but often there is a little envy in there too. Some will more or less say...well he got his money and now I gotta get paid. Desean Jackson really comes to mind on this.

Now, hockey players for the most part are more humble...but athletes always chalk it up to us (players) vs. them (owners), not us (average player) against them (superstar).
- TheGreat28

if Hockey players were more humble wouldnt they have taken what the NHL offered already?

I assume you own a business. That's a very small percentage of people. MOST of us (like 99%) work for someone else for a living. And yes, we do expect to earn some money for it. Not entitled to the money, but at the same time, we're not going to slave for free. This is as true in the NHL as it is any profession.

I'm a computer programmer. The same idea applies. If I worked for Google (I wish), I'd be making a ton more than I do right now working for a small shop for doing the exact same job. Why is that? Because they only hire the best and they realize that to hire the best requires the most amount of money. And they have it to spend.

So in hockey... you want the best players in the world? You must pay them as though they're the best players in the world.

This is why whenever someone mentions replacement players I laugh. Would I go to NHL games if there were scrubs playing instead of the world's best? Probably. But I certainly wouldn't pay the same ticket prices that I pay right now. Not even close.

You say entitled as though the players don't work for their wages. The players put behinds in seats. This isn't welfare - this is a salary for doing a job. A job that brings the owners TONS of money. And if it doesn't bring in enough to make the payments they've "guaranteed" to the players via contract, maybe they shouldn't sign such large contracts.

You know... just like how the rest of the world lives. I can't afford a Porsche, so I don't buy one. That simple. I can't go to my mortgage company and tell them "hey, you are going to accept less money from me every month so that I can buy a Porsche". I signed a contract with that mortgage company at a certain rate and they expect that for the life of the contract.
- lifexkills

A couple of points on both this replay and Mn's original remarks. Generally, I agree with the original post. However, I think both of you are missing one key point on the labor supply market. The original comment was "why should anyone earn anything but the absolute minimum".

the reality is that there is a supply and demand for labor. The owner's of any business have a choice to what to pay their employees. They could go with the Wal-mart school of employee management, and pay bare minimum. But of course they'll get what they pay for. Or they can hire a worker away from a competitor, in which case they'll have to pay more than the competitor. Eventually the supply and demand curves reach an equilibrium, which is "fair market" wages.

The entertainment industries in general throw this equilibrium out of whack, because of transparency. See, you're a programmer but no one really gets to see your work. If they did, there would be a greater competition for your services and the offers would be higher. That's not true of a movie star or athlete, so the competition for their services leads to a higher wage increase.

You know... just like how the rest of the world lives. I can't afford a Porsche, so I don't buy one. That simple. I can't go to my mortgage company and tell them "hey, you are going to accept less money from me every month so that I can buy a Porsche". I signed a contract with that mortgage company at a certain rate and they expect that for the life of the contract.
- lifexkills

Unfortunately, the first statement isn't remotely true in contemporary American society. We are net debtor society, both at the individual level and the national level. Even with the reforms in bankruptcy law most Americans are saddled with debt.

And the second point isn't exactly true either. You can refinance your mortgage at any time.

if Hockey players were more humble wouldnt they have taken what the NHL offered already?
- Homer

Expecting to be paid fair value doesn't make you not humble. Openly expressing that you should be paid because you are so important makes you not humble.

Idk if anybody posted this yet but...

http://www.cbssports.com/...lockout-with-just-drop-it

You got it!

- MJL

LOL the amazing thing is how long you can go on every day getting beaten over and over again in the same debates

LOL the amazing thing is how long you can go on every day getting beaten over and over again in the same debates
- Aetherial

VERY vocal minority.

The 5 year contract term limit is going to affect the middle class NHL player far more then it is the top players in the NHL.
- MJL

So you keep saying. Your argument only works if all of the NHL teams are signing stars to massive deals, or doing so frequently. In reality, there are currently 14 teams in the NHL that have no contracts longer than 7 years. Quality middle class NHL players can sign with those teams.

There are only 7 teams that have more than 1 player signed for more than 7 years. This is a practice only being conducted by a minority of owners. If some of the owners really want to keep paying ridiculous amounts to top players then they will pay for it with lack of depth in their team.

If Pittsburgh want to waste $27M of their cap on 3 star players then they can waive bye bye to their depth players, because they have plenty of places to go.

Expecting to be paid fair value doesn't make you not humble. Openly expressing that you should be paid because you are so important makes you not humble.
- TheGreat28

I can see that, but I think hockey players are two faced...to a point anyway. They always want to come of as the athletes that are most like me and you, IMO anyway. A good way to do that is to show us they understand they can get by on 1.8 million per season instead of 2.1 million per.....but when it comes to money that all goes out the window.

- bloatedmosquito

Did he play Sid in Sid and Nancy? I forget.

VERY vocal minority.
- robin_steele264

Either that, or the rest of us actually live in reality.

Idk if anybody posted this yet but...

http://www.cbssports.com/...lockout-with-just-drop-it
- nateca44

meaningless

Either that, or the rest of us actually live in reality.
- niedermayer27

Reality is the majority of the fans... a very large majority... are sick of the NHLPA and their antics.

Reality is the majority of the fans... a very large majority... are sick of the NHLPA and their antics.
- robin_steele264

The PA needs to know they can't possibly win and get the best deal they can. Oddly, I still think a deal will get done. They're simply going off the 94-95 calendar when the season started on Jan. 20th so there is still time.

meaningless
- Homer

In regards to you believing that there will be no season at all?

So you keep saying. Your argument only works if all of the NHL teams are signing stars to massive deals, or doing so frequently. In reality, there are currently 14 teams in the NHL that have no contracts longer than 7 years. Quality middle class NHL players can sign with those teams.

There are only 7 teams that have more than 1 player signed for more than 7 years. This is a practice only being conducted by a minority of owners. If some of the owners really want to keep paying ridiculous amounts to top players then they will pay for it with lack of depth in their team.

If Pittsburgh want to waste $27M of their cap on 3 star players then they can waive bye bye to their depth players, because they have plenty of places to go.
- niedermayer27

Excellent points! I completely agree!!

In regards to you believing that there will be no season at all?
- nateca44

There will be a season, and very few people (if any) will boycott.