Skip to content

Henrik Sedin wonders if owners think players are “kids” or “stupid”

Dec 4, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT

Henrik Sedin, Daniel Sedin Getty Images

Henrik Sedin isn’t normally the source for controversial comments, but he hurled some eyebrow-raising venom toward the owners’ side of the lockout, the Vancouver Province reports.

“I think from Day 1, this has fallen into what we really thought was going to happen,” Sedin said. “I don’t know if they [owners] think they’re dealing with kids or that we’re stupid or think the fans are stupid. It’s a little mind-boggling when you see what’s coming out of their side. I want to hear a change, that they’re actually going to give us something in return for the things we’ve given them.”

Some hope that such “change” might come from upcoming meetings without Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr, but Sedin only provided guarded optimism.

“I doubt that may happen tomorrow [Tuesday] but it’s a start,” Sedin said. “It’s good to see that there are new owners coming into the meeting, but the bad thing is there are still some of the tight group that has been there since Day 1. That’s a concern.”

Sedin’s teammate Manny Malhotra ends up summarizing the attitude many players have.

“You never know what to expect,” Malhotra said. “We thought there were a few key dates for them [owners] where there may have been a deal done. This will get done when they feel like getting it done. I certainly hope there’s room to gain some traction and that it’s not just a dog-and-pony show.”

 

  1. ballistictrajectory - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    Possibly because a lot of them ARE kids, Thelma. As far as stupid… maybe inexperienced or naive…

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:22 AM

      Take a look at the members of the players negotiating committee, other than John Tavares I don’t think a single one is under 25 and there are more 10 year vets than there are guys under 30.

      As for the PA membership, there were more than three times as many over 35 as there were under 20 when the last season started.

      Most on the committee and many of the membership went through the last lockout so to call them naive as a group.. well I don’t think that’s particularly accurate.

      I won’t even bother to address the cliched “Thelma” potshot as it’s beyond old.

  2. habsman - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    Hendrik,

    The financial blueprint for the NHL needs to be fixed. For stability, every team in the league needs to be profitable. Only then will will both owners and players be able to share in the success of the league. Your association is being short-sighted in its attempts at guaranteed money. The only guarantee should be the sharing of revenue at 50-50. To date, you have lost far, far more than you would have if you had orriginally accepted an 8-10 percent reduction in your multi million dollar contract. Stupid?

    Also, the PA’s continued stance that they have given up more than the owners in this negotiation is misleading. The previous CBA (57% for the players) was very much slanter in the players favor. The players will not win this battle. They will end up signing an agreement that will look much like the one they turned down three months ago. The only difference is that their 50% share of revenue will be from a smaller pie.

    • crosberries - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM

      I didn’t know you were a hand fan Jeremy Jacobs ^^^^

      • crosberries - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM

        Habs* auto correct

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM

      From what I’ve read, the idea that *all* the teams “need” to be in the black to ensure stability is a bit of an overstatement. The owners of most, if not all southern/non-traditional hockey market teams surely must be aware that their teams will never be profitable unless players’ share of HRR is <30% and/or they raise ticket prices by a substantial amount while retaining or improving attendance numbers. These owners didn't buy the teams with the expectation of making a whole lot of profit. In some cases, the team was part of a package deal that included other forms of revenue a la Florida.

      Clearly, this isn't to say the owners wouldn't *like* to make a profit, and this is their chance to do something about it. The owners should really be trying to find ways of preventing one or two other, more wealthy owners from driving up player salaries, looking for loopholes, and making life difficult for "less" wealthy owners. This is the argument that has been repeated ad nauseam since the beginning of the CBA negotiations. The players have given up enough to get to the point of 50-50. It's time for the owners to buck up and deal with their problems amongst themselves.

      • zetaone - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:45 PM

        Can you replace id4joey? Clearly you actually know what you’re talking about.

      • id4joey - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

        The owners should really be trying to find ways of preventing one or two other, more wealthy owners from driving up player salaries, looking for loopholes, and making life difficult for “less” wealthy owners.. Exactly! It’s called a CBA.

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM

      Habsman, the financial blueprint for the NHL was “fixed” in the last CBA negotiation when the league spanked the PA so badly it took them years to recover. The league broke them on the subject of a cap linked to revenue and got pretty much everything else it wanted including a huge salary rollback in exchange for small changes to free agency.

      The simple fact is that no (reasonable) CBA will “fix” the financial blueprint for the NHL unless it contains massive revenue sharing. You’ll notice the league has had to be pushed to just to pay lipservice to the idea of revenue sharing, which illustrates just how much this conflict is about taking money away from the players (as opposed to being about moving money to the teams that really need it).

      As for your belief that an arbitrary percentage split is “fair” and anything else is not, I can’t even beging to argue with that kind of logic. I’m guessing you have no idea of how the HRR calculations figure into this so that NHL players receiving 50% of HRR would actually be getting substantially less than pro athletes who get 50% of revenues in other sports.

      And yes, the players are being asked to “give back” on all fronts – from the last agreement the two sides reached. I guess technically if they start every CBA from the perspective that the players are entitled to nothing and the owners absolutely everything, then this negotiation has not been one-sided at all – but that kind of positivism is simply absurd.

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        Nevermind the goofy math you see with franchises like the Panthers who ensure viability for their (profitable) parent company and yet are “losing money”…

      • habsman - Dec 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

        babych

        If the PA was spanked as bad as you say they were in the last CBA, then why were they so anxious to extend the agreement? Lets face it, the players have come out way in front over the period of the last agreement. Their salaries, under the last agreement, have grown at a rate that exceeds the growth rate of athletes in other sports. It’s little wonder the players would be satisfied with the status quo.

        As far as HHR, do you have any inside info that proves your point that 50% really isn’t 50% ?

      • elvispocomo - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

        @Habsman: Anxious might not be the correct word, but you answered your own question in the sentence that followed it. I’ll follow up with a question of my own though, if you don’t mind.

        After the last CBA was signed, Bettman himself said it was an excellent deal for both sides and would resolve the issues that previously plagued the NHL and the owners in particular. Why is it that after years of record revenue his tune has changed, and the last CBA was so detrimental that it requires major concessions only from the players to make the NHL work in future? Was he wrong originally, and if so, why is he right this time around?

        About the HRR, by definition it is a subset of total revenues a team generates relating only to hockey specific streams. Things like revenue from luxury boxes in the arenas can be deducted from HRR as they might also earn revenue in part from concerts and other events. That means that 50% of HRR is not truly 50% of all revenue that the hockey team itself generates, and it’s even less than the revenue the parent company of the team earns as a part of it’s overall profit margin.

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM

        They were spanked as bad as I say they were because of where the CBA ended up compared to where their starting point was. If it’s not slap-in-the-face obvious who won that round, I don’t know what is. Look no further than the disarray the PA leadership was in for years afterwards; basically until Don Fehr came on board.

        As for why the players were willing to play under the old CBA, well firstly because it would allow for no cancelled games and would mean they could keep earning paycheques while negotiating. Secondly because the CBA turned out to be pretty good for the players due to the revenue growth that took place. Thirdly, winning so resoundingly in 2004-05 meant the league figured they could extract another pound of flesh this time around and that the next CBA will almost certainly be less favourable to the players than this past one was.

        On the subject of HRR, of course I don’t have an inside source – and if I did I wouldn’t be wasting my time in the comments section on PHT (no offense folks). That being said here are a couple of links that go into why it is such a big issue and why “50/50″ doesn’t mean the same thing in the NHL as it would in another league:

        http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/09/making-sense-of-hockey-related-revenue.html

        http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2012/9/30/3427436/misconceptions

        http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/9/27/3418286/2012-nhl-lockout-nfl-nhlpa-bettman-fehr/in/3184643

        Some key points include the fact that teams can currently deduct 54% of concession revenue from HRR, and the vast majority of teams can deduct 30-65% of luxury box revenue, plus another ~3%. Furthermore they can also “cheat” by using high deduction perks like concessions and parking (30%) to give to customers for buying season ticket packages, which means less HRR.

        Additionally in the NFL CBA negotiation last year the players gave up “12% of revenue” but the league gave up a $1 billion cost deduction they had been taking, the net result was a nearly identical figure for player salaries as under the previous CBA.

      • habsman - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM

        elvis,

        Thanks, I always appreciate your comments.

        As you know, record revenues do not always equate to record profits. There is no doubt that expenses associated with running a franchise have increased over the term of the last agreement, and all these increased expenses have been borne by the owners from their share (43%-46%).

        Re: HRR, It is my opinion that the players should share in hockey RELATED revenue only. I don’t think you are suggesting that they should share in any revenue generated from rock concerts that are viewed from luxury boxes, are you? Hockey owners shouldn’t be required to share revenue that isn’t related to hockey.

        BTW, I believe the owners are the lesser of two evils here, and both Bettman and Fehr are d’bags.

    • elvispocomo - Dec 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

      The only guarantee is that there shouldn’t be any more lockouts.

      One thing people keep focussing on (incorrectly) is the players were guaranteed 57%. They weren’t, they were given 54% of HRR with a clause stating that if revenues were above a certain point, they’d get 57% of HRR. Since there were record revenues, the players got the bump up in percentage of HRR. They got the 54/57% share because they gave up significantly to the owners in the form of a salary cap, and now the owners want to take away the HRR and player contracting concessions the NHLPA got last time but still keep the cap.

      This is also what the players are talking about when they include things like how their HRR amount can’t be less than the previous year (starting year 2) as it is a clause to encourage the NHL to look at ways to continue growth. Otherwise the NHL can just keep trying to prop up the same money losing franchises and move money they make outside of HRR so the players don’t get a cut.

      If it was only about players losing a possible 7% of the HRR share to get a deal done, it would have been done a long time ago. It’s also about not losing in every other area – particularly player contracting rights they fought so hard for last time – and making sure the owners at least try and honour the massive contracts they offered despite knowing they’d ask to roll them back in the next CBA.

  3. shotzongoal - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    Henrik Sedin; “I want to hear a change, that They’re Actually Going To Give Us Something In Return For The Things We’ve Given Them.”

    You’ve given the your best effort playing hockey and they have given you $6.1 Million a year for the last 3 years, and hockey has given you a net worth of around $40 million. Not bad for doing what you allegedly love to do. I don’t begrudge the players (or the owners for that matter) their money. But come on enough is enough STFU . This kind of talk from the players especially the captain pissed me off!

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

      How many $100+ jerseys with H. Sedin on the back have the Canucks sold over that period?

      How many butts have Henrik and his brother put into the seats at Rogers Arena (average price $68, nevermind parking, concessions, $8 beers) over that period?

      How many millions have the Canucks earned on the 23 playoff home games they’ve had in that period (it’s estimated they earn millions per game) while the Sedins and every other player have played for free?

      • shotzongoal - Dec 4, 2012 at 6:24 PM

        Well Dave, I don’t have any idea of the answers to you questions, but your questions have nothing to do with my comment. I simply felt it was another “what do we get outta the deal” comment from an individual who earns $6 Mil a season. As I said in my post I don’t begrudge the players their money, more power to them. Most earn every penny. I’m just tired of their whining. But I will say this; any sports team is a business. And whether a business is a man and wife trying to work and pay bills and create savings, the vendor selling you an $8 beer or an NHL hockey team, each has a right to run their business, earn as much as possible and make a profit. If the owners make money in all areas you mentioned, so what! That’s why their in business. This is true in hockey as well as all sports industries in the free world. Is that the point you were trying to make?

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 5, 2012 at 11:13 AM

        Huh. I tried to respond to your comment and it seems to have failed, so I’ll just give you the one sentence summary – your initial comment sure doesn’t read like someone who does not begrudge the players their money, either you are hypersensitive to “whining” or you are projecting that attitude onto Henrik because you think NHL player salaries are enough that they should just shut the f up and be grateful for what the owners give them (my response was intended to illustrate just how much value premiere players offer to their NHL teams).

      • shotzongoal - Dec 7, 2012 at 3:36 PM

        I appreciate you responding to my initial comment Dave. I guess I misunderstood your reply. If your point was to illustrate the value of premiere players, maybe you could have just stated your opinion in the form of a comment rather than a series of rhetorical questions. That being said, I never questioned Sedin’s value to the team or his ability to contribute. Nor did I suggest he should be grateful to his owners (although STFU was kind of harsh). I questioned his thought process suggesting he is receiving nothing in return for his efforts. He is paid well. That is not begrudging. And yes Dave, I am hypersensitive to the whining and frustrated with antics orchestrated these past 72 hours.

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM

        Thanks for the reply.

        I would suggest that if you ask Henrik Sedin what he thinks of playing for the Aquilinis, Mike Gillis and the Canucks organization as a whole he would be full of praise and class – like he always is.

        If you ask Henrik Sedin how the players are being treated in negotiations by the league, you’ll get a response like the one above. Which I think is fair; these negotiations have been acrimonious and the league has repeatedly insulted the players intelligence (Don Fehr has done the same right back to the league, don’t get me wrong, although I think that falls more into the realm of gamesmanship/rhetoric personally).

        Anyway we are all hypersensitive at this point and just want this over with.. you can see my own hypersensitivity in the fact that I happened upon a comments section with a few pointed criticisms of one of my favourite players and proceeded to respond 15 times.

  4. matt8204 - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:52 AM

    If you hold out for a deal that will only get worse as time passes…yes, the word that comes to mind for me is “stupid”. Do you think the lost revenue will magically reappear?

    • tatdue - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM

      Do you hear that you stupid owners?…..Do you think the lost revenue will magically reappear?

      • id4joey - Dec 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

        It will reappear over time. When will the players get a chance to recoup lost revenues? Players are the product of the game, but their value depreciates over time. The value of an NHL franchise has a much bigger chance of a appreciating in value over a period of 10 years than the value of a player. Economics 101.

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

      It seems pretty clear that the players are willing to lose money on principle at this point.

      And to be honest, would folding like a cheap tent to save maybe 1-2% of the money owed over the term of the CBA be worth it when another clear league victory would all but assure another lockout next time around?

      I would guess that the players feel like they need to assert themselves as a force to be reckoned with so that the league doesn’t feel like it can push them around and maybe – just maybe – conducts negotiations for the next CBA in a less condescending, sketchy manner.

      • tatdue - Dec 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

        I couldn’t agree more….anybody that thinks that this is all about money at this point for the players just isn’t paying attention. If they give in now or ever without the NHL giving up something significant in return then it will be lock out first talk later again next time as the owners see what they can take away from the players all over again…..this broken record has to stop!

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

        Yep. It’s hard to believe but if the players had taken any of the owners offers thusfar it would actually be a worse result than the last lockout – still stuck with a cap linked to revenue, a smaller share of that cap, still tons of ways for the league to deduct revenue from HRR (and thus take it out of the players pockets), still no control over some of the bonkers decision-making the league has done that has hurt HRR (see Phoenix, which could have been making hundreds of millions in Southern Ontario for years now), worse contracting rights and so on.

        The players haven’t even been thrown a bone so far. So why would they fall all over themselves to settle over half a season?

      • kitshky - Dec 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM

        @davebabychreturns…

        Glad to see the man with the best handle in town back to spread a little common sense.

      • matt8204 - Dec 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

        Please. They got “pushed around” in ’94’-95 and in ’04-’05 and they still did great.

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        Is this a joke? The owners wanted a salary cap in 1994 and all they got was a cap on entry level contracts…

        Yes the players did well after 2004-05 because the league as a whole did well. That wasn’t good enough for owners so now they want to grab back even more than they got.

      • valoisvipers - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:13 PM

        Cry me a river. Those poor abused players. Do you really think that they are not making enough money?

      • davebabychreturns - Dec 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

        @valoisvipers, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I won’t bother to engage further as the tone of your comments in general on this site suggests it’d be a waste of time.

  5. desertfan - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    The players need to realize that the owners are looking for relief- from………… themslves.
    Examine the fine details of the wants and you see shorter contracts-why?
    Longer time prior to FA, why?
    How much have we seen regarding fixing the structure of revenue sharing- these are the same owners who divvied uo hundreds of millions to let the new guys -who are bleeding into the league.

    Share x amount equally and then after that amount each team can have 100% of the rest.

    I think it is totally immoral, unethical and incomprehensible that the NHL can GUARANTEE the Coyotes a break-even while other teams lose money??

    Unfortunately the players are not try to solve this with unstanding guys.

  6. canuckinamerica - Dec 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

    Made the owners will “give” the twin sisters some testes.

  7. fortwaynekomets - Dec 4, 2012 at 2:50 PM

    The Sedin Twins

    2 girls

    No Cup

  8. id4joey - Dec 4, 2012 at 6:23 PM

    tatdue,so you’re suggesting players lose a year’s salary, rather than minimize the damages. Is that right? See, what I don’t get is not once did you explain how players will make up for loss compensation. I’m sure Iginla, Brodeur, Hmrlik, and many others would like to know.

  9. joeyashwi - Dec 4, 2012 at 6:35 PM

    I love how people bash the players for making too much or losing more by not taking a deal than they will make back.
    Let’s think logically for a minute, those of you with their heads up the owners’ backsides.
    First of all, the owners were VERY rich in order to even buy a franchise. Buying a franchise was their CHOICE. What investment is ever guaranteed to make money?
    Second of all, the players put their health and careers on the line each and every shift. The owners sit back and collect the money.
    Third, when the owners “lose money” they still win because they just claim poverty when filing taxes. Also included in those “losses” are the payroll costs of their executives, themselves, their cousin Roger, etc. Those numbers are controllable but the owners choose to count them as losses when in fact they aren’t.
    Fourth, only a complete idiot would even suggest that the players sign whatever deal the owners want. A CBA is a “collective” bargaining agreement, not an owner forced mandate! The owners locked the players out and have refused to negotiate AT ALL! It’s their way or nothing. If the players came into the league under the guidelines the owners currently want that is one thing, to expect the players to just give in is ludicrous and moronic.
    Do me and other fans a favor and stay away. If you hate the players this much then don’t watch them. Watch the NHL owner reality show instead. Oh, that’s right, the players are the entertainers, not the owners. I forget that sometimes while reading this pro-owner drivel. League stability doesn’t depend on players taking cuts, it depends on Bettman and the owners making sound business decisions. Losing money? Sell the team, move the team, whatever. Don’t buy a team. If you want guaranteed profit then put your money in a savings account. Better yet, learn to run your teams!!!

    • id4joey - Dec 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM

      That’s a lot of words to say nothing. Holly! Crap! If the players are not happy, then stay away from the game. Go ahead and lose 7 million like Iginal did in 04-05. Where’s that money now? Lost you moron. LOST! Not a penny from that year was deposited into his bank account. You have the f en balls to tell us to think logically. Where did you learn about economics? Bimbo! F em. Go play with Ovi in Russia.

    • valoisvipers - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM

      Really joeyashwi – Really? I didn’t think it possible for anyone to be this ignorant about this lockout after 80 days.

  10. 127taringa - Dec 4, 2012 at 8:07 PM

    Well Henrik, anytime you or any of your PA friends want to pony up, buy a team and show the owners how its done, go ahead.

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

      See Mario Lemieux, who saved a franchise and is now working to broker a deal to save the season while old tightwads like Jacobs try to wait the players out and the commissioner treats the union like something he stepped in.

  11. hockeylovefan - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    Do people understand what a 50/50 or 57/43% split means? That is the cap ceiling which means a 50/50 splits nets the players somewhere between 40-45%.

    • davebabychreturns - Dec 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM

      This is actually way off. Whatever percentage of HRR the players are entitled to is what determines the salary cap midpoint, the ceiling and floor are then set based on that figure.

      The players are entitled to an exact portion of total HRR and every season they get it – either by way of escrow deductions going to the league to correct overages or payments being made to the players to correct… “underages” (gotta be a better way to say that).

      Bottom line is that in a 50/50 scenario the players get 50% of HRR no matter what contracts are signed.

      Of course, the huge discrepancy between HRR and actual revenue is another story altogether.

  12. joeyashwi - Dec 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

    Economics…hmmm…yes, the owners have done a bang up job. Three lockouts in a row, they get everything they want and still can’t turn a profit? Okay, must be the players’ fault. Economics. I understand common sense economics, just not blind big business bail me out economics. Let me guess id4, you liked the big bank bailouts too. Enjoy your Bettman poster on your wall and go back to watching Fox news and reading the Wall Street Journal. Nothing you ever say has anything to do with the game of hockey, only the game of billionaire babies who need more corporate welfare because they can’t run their businesses effectively. Am I an economics major? No. I’m a hockey fan who has watched the players get locked out three times because the owners can’t run their teams. Each time they cry for player cuts because they can’t accept responsibility for their own failures. Anyone who doesn’t see that is not living in reality.

  13. id4joey - Dec 4, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    joeyashwi, you couldn’t be more wrong about me. Rupert Murdock, bailouts…. Wow! So not Republican capitalist, but rather being pragmatic.

  14. joeyashwi - Dec 4, 2012 at 11:12 PM

    valos- LOCKOUT! Not the players’ choice.
    id4- not trying to fight, just a passionate hockey fan.

    Players are entertainers. All entertainers are overpaid. If the players are too greedy please explain to me why Toronto has a team worth a billion dollars? Seems like an owner knows how to run a franchise to turn profit. Bettman and his southern hockey experiment is what has diluted the league and the only way out is to keep locking the players out until there is no league left.
    Last year’s playoffs were awesome and the players didn’t make any extra money, only the owners. I miss hockey. My team wasn’t even in the playoffs but I loved the games.
    The players aren’t the only ones who have lost more than they will gain through the lifetime of the next CBA, the owners have too.
    I just think that riding the momentum of last year would have been a sound, economic decision but instead the owners got greedy and underestimated the players’ resolve.
    I hate Fehr as much as Bettman but I understand that the players can’t just keep giving in to everything every time they are locked out or these lockouts will happen every CBA.
    I’m done arguing, I just want to watch the NHL. Last I checked that decision is completely up to the owners. They are, after all, locking the players out.

    • valoisvipers - Dec 5, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      joeyashi Come on man Since when do the players not get any share of the playoff pot? Get real,of course they do, No they don’t get a regular check like a punch card employee but every player in the playoffs gets a cut and the further the team advances the more the players cut will be, win or lose and on top of all that, all this playoff generated money falls into HRR and they got 57% of that too.

  15. id4joey - Dec 5, 2012 at 12:13 AM

    joeyashwi, lockout not the players choice, ok, but well within the owner’s right. Nothing wrong with not allowing the employees in the business during a conflict.

    I don’t get the correlation between entertainers being overpaid and Toronto being a $1b franchise. They are rich because they have a huge fan base, which means good tv contracts, revenue generated by adds, season tickets, merchandising etc… There market is bigger than say the market in Winnipeg.

    Bettman came in with a clear mandate from the owners, which was to expand the market in the U.S. how? Put more teams there. We have to stop blaming him for the sunbelt teams, no team is added to the NHL without the approval of the board of governors/owners. Why? They get big bucks from the retry fee associated with expansion.

    The owners can recoup money lost because they have years to make up for it. Their in business for a long time. They can increase the cost of tickets, merchandizing, prices at the concession stands, etc etc etc.. How can the players do the same? They can’t. Their value depreciates over time, whereas the value of a franchise will likely appreciate over time.

    It would have been great to ride the wave from last year. Unfortunately, the last CBA had loopholes exploited by crafty GMs and supported by wealthier owners. This is not good for parity.

    The player’s negotiating power happens during the life of the CBA when their contract is up, and based on their past performance their agents negotiate and attempt to squeeze every penny they can from the owners. The owners negotiating power happens when the CBA is expired, and a new deal needs to be negotiated. That’s just the business side of the sport whether we like or not.

    Why were Psrise and Suter signed to these front loaded contracts during the summer? Simple. Only the richest owners could afford them under the expired CBA. And, they used one of the loop holes, which was front loading a contract. Say the Wild doesn’t sign them. What next? Some other rich team would have signed them. What if no one would have signed them? Then they would have been up for grabs for the less wealthier teams under the new CBA, and the richer owner, like Leopoldo, would have lost out. Don’t think for one minute that not only Leopold knew what the NHL was planning. Players’ agent knew very well what was coming, and so did the players. It’s the agents job to know these things so he can get the most money for his client.

    The players want to get the best deal possible, however, they’ll only get what the owners want to give them. Once the players get their heads around how much owners are willing to budge, or not, then they will sign.

Featured video

Worst team in the NHL?

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. C. Crawford (3303)
  2. E. Staal (3300)
  3. P. Stastny (2583)
  4. M. Gaborik (2572)
  5. E. Kane (2532)
  1. A. Kopitar (2357)
  2. V. Hedman (2179)
  3. D. Heatley (2102)
  4. V. Nichushkin (1998)
  5. J. Franzen (1996)