Theo Fox: Mise en Place A look at the Blackhawks getting everything in its place for the 2021-22 season as the NHL and all teams prepare for training camps.

Interesting times ahead, for sure. I dont get the hate for the olympics. Maybe if it was for a smaller event, but this is the best against the best in the world of hockey and that is very rare to get nowadays. I say lets go and enjoy the games. And then back to the NHL and hopefully playoffs. I can live with that easily.

Interesting times ahead, for sure. I dont get the hate for the olympics. Maybe if it was for a smaller event, but this is the best against the best in the world of hockey and that is very rare to get nowadays. I say lets go and enjoy the games. And then back to the NHL and hopefully playoffs. I can live with that easily.
- FeatheredFinn

Olympics should not include professional athletes. That is like having pro teams compete against college teams. To me it cheapens the Olympics.

Interesting times ahead, for sure. I dont get the hate for the olympics. Maybe if it was for a smaller event, but this is the best against the best in the world of hockey and that is very rare to get nowadays. I say lets go and enjoy the games. And then back to the NHL and hopefully playoffs. I can live with that easily.
- FeatheredFinn

The best of the best from all countries tend to make their way to the NHL, therefore the NHL is the best against the best every night. Interrupting that for 2 weeks, and risking injury to players in meaningless games, is unacceptable IMO. If you’ve signed a contract with an NHL team you should be ineligible to participate in anything that conflicts with the NHL schedule and risks reducing your value to that team.

The best of the best from all countries tend to make their way to the NHL, therefore the NHL is the best against the best every night. Interrupting that for 2 weeks, and risking injury to players in meaningless games, is unacceptable IMO. If you’ve signed a contract with an NHL team you should be ineligible to participate in anything that conflicts with the NHL schedule and risks reducing your value to that team.
- Ogilthorpe2

I totally agree.
I have never liked the idea of these mid season tourneys, because they took MY team's players.
There isn't the phoney "Every team has an all-star" tacked on to the league promotion all-star game.
I have always thought it was really funny to see all those expansion teams sending guys that were deemed expendable by their teams prior to expansion, who were now included.
So unless EVERY team sends an Olympic "STAR," why the heck put some teams at risk with their players eager and ready mid season to go play for their home country?

Since both are in the Winter, there will never be a solution.

But, ONLY the fact that the Russians and Soviet blog teams sent seasoned vets and won year after year is that the response was, "Let's let the rest of the world's best go, and we will show them they aren't so great if they are playing against our REAL athletes.

When full NHL teams have gone to the Olympics, Russia has never won gold. In the last Olympics, the NHL didn't go and Russia sent an All-Star team from their professional leagues and won the gold. So, somebody is going to load up their team to try to win gold. But, like it's been mentioned on here, no NHL wants to see one of their stars get a serious injury in this tournament.

Side note related to Olympics with a ALL-STAR side bar.

1934 & 1937
There was a time when there were only six teams and someone thought it might be very interesting to match the Stanley Cup winner versus and All-Star contingent made up of the best players on the other five teams.

It wasn't played mid season. (that started with expansion in 1967.)

And the first couple were basically benefits to help the families of former players.

They attempted tweaks but it was back to the Lord Stanley's Cup winner vs the other five team's all-stars, in 1953 played before the season started.

There was really only one big issue:

This other five teams all-stars weren't there in a "diplomatic capacity" as ambassadors of the sport; they often were still smarting from the prior playoffs with scores to settle.

(I know I have mentioned it before about how I attended games with five older fellows who were fans for a decade before I was born, and they passed the hockey lore by the spoken word...)

I simply don't remember the particulars but Cup winning Maple Leafs had a prominent player injured in a questionable play, and lost that player for large part of the season.

They changed it to a mid season game when expansion came in 1967.

Side note related to Olympics with a ALL-STAR side bar.

1934 & 1937
There was a time when there were only six teams and someone thought it might be very interesting to match the Stanley Cup winner versus and All-Star contingent made up of the best players on the other five teams.

It wasn't played mid season. (that started with expansion in 1967.)

And the first couple were basically benefits to help the families of former players.

They attempted tweaks but it was back to the Lord Stanley's Cup winner vs the other five team's all-stars, in 1953 played before the season started.

There was really only one big issue:

This other five teams all-stars weren't there in a "diplomatic capacity" as ambassadors of the sport; they often were still smarting from the prior playoffs with scores to settle.

(I know I have mentioned it before about how I attended games with five older fellows who were fans for a decade before I was born, and they passed the hockey lore by the spoken word...)

I simply don't remember the particulars but Cup winning Maple Leafs had a prominent player injured in a questionable play, and lost that player for large part of the season.

They changed it to a mid season game when expansion came in 1967.
- wiz1901

Some all star game history for you all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_All-Star_Game

Good morning everyone.
As someone pro Olympic hockey using NHLers, a question for those who are not.
Is there any way you could be convinced to support NHLers in the Olympics?
ie; play the Olympics hockey games outside the NHL schedule, like prior to the NHL season start.
I don't have an answer to the injury concern.
But I do like the idea of national teams competing against each other in addition to NHL hockey.

Good morning everyone.
As someone pro Olympic hockey using NHLers, a question for those who are not.
Is there any way you could be convinced to support NHLers in the Olympics?
ie; play the Olympics hockey games outside the NHL schedule, like prior to the NHL season start.
I don't have an answer to the injury concern.
But I do like the idea of national teams competing against each other in addition to NHL hockey.
- 35Tony0

I like to think the Olympics are a competition of non-pro athletes. Why do you want pro athletes competing in the games would be my question. It may be something that we may never agree upon. But the college kids winning gold in hockey was so much better than any basketball "dream team" could ever be.

I like to think the Olympics are a competition of non-pro athletes. Why do you want pro athletes competing in the games would be my question. It may be something that we may never agree upon. But the college kids winning gold in hockey was so much better than any basketball "dream team" could ever be.
- powerenforcer

The Olympics have never been an amateur competition - ask the Red Army hockey teams or other Soviet athletes, the East German swimmers, or the many track, gymnastics, swimming, or other competitors from the West who made serious money from “appearance fees”.

What allowing pros into the Olympics really did was end the hypocrisy of thinking that the competitors were in it for the joy of the sport.

And, like with college sports today (the myth of the “student athlete” in the revenue sports) - everyone else made money - why shouldn’t the athletes?

Arguably, the “Dream Team” in 1992 sparked an international interest in basketball that developed it into probably the second most popular sport in the world.

You want professionals in the sport’s most visible venue because they are the best, and you want to see the best play the best.

The Olympics have never been an amateur competition - ask the Red Army hockey teams or other Soviet athletes, the East German swimmers, or the many track, gymnastics, swimming, or other competitors from the West who made serious money from “appearance fees”.

What allowing pros into the Olympics really did was end the hypocrisy of thinking that the competitors were in it for the joy of the sport.

And, like with college sports today (the myth of the “student athlete” in the revenue sports) - everyone else made money - why shouldn’t the athletes?

Arguably, the “Dream Team” in 1992 sparked an international interest in basketball that developed it into probably the second most popular sport in the world.

You want professionals in the sport’s most visible venue because they are the best, and you want to see the best play the best.
- StLBravesFan

We will never agree then. And I know other countries have pro athletes participating in the Olympics. I just don't like it, so maybe I should stay out of this conversation, and the Olympics all together.

The Olympics have never been an amateur competition - ask the Red Army hockey teams or other Soviet athletes, the East German swimmers, or the many track, gymnastics, swimming, or other competitors from the West who made serious money from “appearance fees”.

What allowing pros into the Olympics really did was end the hypocrisy of thinking that the competitors were in it for the joy of the sport.

And, like with college sports today (the myth of the “student athlete” in the revenue sports) - everyone else made money - why shouldn’t the athletes?

Arguably, the “Dream Team” in 1992 sparked an international interest in basketball that developed it into probably the second most popular sport in the world.

You want professionals in the sport’s most visible venue because they are the best, and you want to see the best play the best.
- StLBravesFan

Absolutely agree in all respects.

We will never agree then. And I know other countries have pro athletes participating in the Olympics. I just don't like it, so maybe I should stay out of this conversation, and the Olympics all together.
- powerenforcer

Most Olympic athletes are paid for their efforts. Did Michael Phelps get rich swimming? As Sage said, amateurism went out the window long ago.

I like to think the Olympics are a competition of non-pro athletes. Why do you want pro athletes competing in the games would be my question. It may be something that we may never agree upon. But the college kids winning gold in hockey was so much better than any basketball "dream team" could ever be.
- powerenforcer

It's impossible to define "non pro." Foreign athletes are mostly "pro" in some sense of the word.

The Olympics have never been an amateur competition - ask the Red Army hockey teams or other Soviet athletes, the East German swimmers, or the many track, gymnastics, swimming, or other competitors from the West who made serious money from “appearance fees”.

What allowing pros into the Olympics really did was end the hypocrisy of thinking that the competitors were in it for the joy of the sport.

And, like with college sports today (the myth of the “student athlete” in the revenue sports) - everyone else made money - why shouldn’t the athletes?

Arguably, the “Dream Team” in 1992 sparked an international interest in basketball that developed it into probably the second most popular sport in the world.

You want professionals in the sport’s most visible venue because they are the best, and you want to see the best play the best.
- StLBravesFan

No doubt!

Most Olympic athletes are paid for their efforts. Did Michael Phelps get rich swimming? As Sage said, amateurism went out the window long ago.
- mohel

I think he got rich from the endorsements that were accessible after winning a bunch of medals and being marketable.

Someone in shotgunning, archery, throwing the discus or running the decathlon is probably not getting rich doing that. If they have a really good sponsor maybe they have enough to pay the bills or cover some travel costs.

The NFL and MLB have built a pretty decent global following without the Olympics. If I'm an owner and have +10 million dollars tied up in a player and most of the revenue is based on what comes in the door and going deep in the playoffs - it is tough to justify that player getting overworked or injured in a tournament for funsies.

I think he got rich from the endorsements that were accessible after winning a bunch of medals and being marketable.

Someone in shotgunning, archery, throwing the discus or running the decathlon is probably not getting rich doing that. If they have a really good sponsor maybe they have enough to pay the bills or cover some travel costs.

The NFL and MLB have built a pretty decent global following without the Olympics. If I'm an owner and have +10 million dollars tied up in a player and most of the revenue is based on what comes in the door and going deep in the playoffs - it is tough to justify that player getting overworked or injured in a tournament for funsies.
- fattybeef

Many of the athletes get money to train. They also get money for medals. The Olympics is purely about money. That's okay with me.

Many of the athletes get money to train. They also get money for medals. The Olympics is purely about money. That's okay with me.
- mohel

There is no one, anywhere who can train at elite training facilities, can eat the food required, get the medical treatment needed, get the top end coaching, the equipment, while not working. There is no athlete anywhere that isn’t paid in some form and, romantic notions aside, there never was. The only difference is some may have been awarded cash and some awarded more.

Olympics should not include professional athletes. That is like having pro teams compete against college teams. To me it cheapens the Olympics.
- powerenforcer

Almost every sport at the Olympics is filled with professionals.

Track & field, basketball (men's & women's), swimming, Volleyball (beach & indoor), softball, diving, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, speed skating, weight lifting, gymnastics, bike racing (road/track/BMX), etc.

All professionals.

The myth of the amateur athlete at the Olympics ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Almost every sport at the Olympics is filled with professionals.

Track & field, basketball (men's & women's), swimming, Volleyball (beach & indoor), softball, diving, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, speed skating, weight lifting, gymnastics, bike racing (road/track/BMX), etc.

All professionals.

The myth of the amateur athlete at the Olympics ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
- scottak

"fall of the Roman Empire." (fixed)

Many of the athletes get money to train. They also get money for medals. The Olympics is purely about money. That's okay with me.
- mohel

Some, depending on the sport do. If you are in the top 15 in the world and a US swimmer you can get a 3k \ month stipend. The US Olympic committee surely makes money but not a lot reaches the form of real money. Room and board probably translates in to ~15,000\year so the equivalent of 51,000ish pretax. Which is fine, until you're in your 30s and have to get a real job but certainly not the NHL.

Most of these "professionals" make between 20-60k. The really good ones can hit 100k if they win a bunch and are personable enough to get sponsors. If they are super marketable maybe one or two every few years makes a million.

Completely incomparable to NHL players where the minimum is 700,000 for one year. Let alone someone like Patrick Kane who has made 10s of millions.

I like the nations competing in sports even for bragging rights, on top of all else.
If I were to ever watch the World Cup in soccer, for example, I would like it for that reason.

I kinda like that one guy's idea who postulated sports are a good substitute for war.

Almost every sport at the Olympics is filled with professionals.

Track & field, basketball (men's & women's), swimming, Volleyball (beach & indoor), softball, diving, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, speed skating, weight lifting, gymnastics, bike racing (road/track/BMX), etc.

All professionals.

The myth of the amateur athlete at the Olympics ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
- scottak

There are good arguments from both sides whether to send professional athletes to the Olympics or not. If I’m an owner, do I want to send my $10M asset to the Olympics and see him get hurt? Or do I give the okay to send him and help promote the NHL world wide? Obviously, like we have seen posted here, there’s an argument for either or. Losing an elite player or two will impact the team’s bottom line, especially if said team misses the playoffs due to this injury(s). Promoting the NHL also adds value to your team. As a fan, I’m selfish and would rather not have my team’s elite talent participate in the Olympics, that’s my take.

The Olympics have never been an amateur competition - ask the Red Army hockey teams or other Soviet athletes, the East German swimmers, or the many track, gymnastics, swimming, or other competitors from the West who made serious money from “appearance fees”.

What allowing pros into the Olympics really did was end the hypocrisy of thinking that the competitors were in it for the joy of the sport.

And, like with college sports today (the myth of the “student athlete” in the revenue sports) - everyone else made money - why shouldn’t the athletes?

Arguably, the “Dream Team” in 1992 sparked an international interest in basketball that developed it into probably the second most popular sport in the world.

You want professionals in the sport’s most visible venue because they are the best, and you want to see the best play the best.
- StLBravesFan

I was a D1 varsity athlete for 4 years and I didn't get a dime. I lived with guys from the wrestling team and our neighbors played football.. it used to infuriate me to hear about salary/pay beyond scholarship because I knew how hard those guys worked, and I worked harder.. but this is false. The NCAA is the problem with all of this. They are a regulatory body that doesn't regulate. If they enforced the rules, half of every basketball or football team would be ineligible, so they ensure the on-field product is good and take their cut.

Burn the NCAA to the ground. I will die on this hill.