HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=104771)

Licentia 09-20-2004 02:47 PM

Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie
 
Quotes from McKenzie:

"It is not as simple as saying these guys created their own mess, too bad for them," TSN hockey expert Bob McKenzie said. "At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. When Titanic hit the iceberg, nobody was asking if the captain was at fault or not. It was 'man the lifeboats!' "

Yep, so let's get "cost certainty" so that we never have a Titanic situation again.

"I don't think the NHLPA could care less if four to six teams went down the drain. Some people would say that is a loss of jobs. If you got the truth serum out with the players, they are less interested in preserving 100 to 150 jobs than they are in maintaining the salary levels or a reasonable facsimile for the better players. I honestly believe that 150 of the lowest-paid players in the NHL would get thrown under the bus in a heartbeat if the balance of the membership could maintain their income."

I agree. It is about greed on the player's part.

McKenzie: "The easy answer for me is the NFL has a cap, the NBA has a cap, why shouldn't the NHL have a cap? The players would say 'because we don't want one.' Is that a good enough reason?

"I am sure there is some system with a cap that could work."


I agree, not a very good reason why the NHL shouldn't enforce "cost certainty."

:bow: McKenzie Rulez!! :bow:

Bicycle Repairman 09-20-2004 02:55 PM

McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.

Seachd 09-20-2004 03:00 PM

Yeah, McKenzie nailed it. "We don't want it" isn't a good enough reason. They don't actually have a good reason. Goodenow has all but admitted himself that it's all about the money (no big surprise). So, yeah, greed factors in quite a bit.

hockeytown9321 09-20-2004 03:21 PM

What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.

Sammy* 09-20-2004 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.

Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

Legolas 09-20-2004 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy
Well, if pure greed = not wanting to lose tens of millions of $$$, I really think you are on to something.

We all know that both sides are greedy. The reason we have a lockout is because each side thinks they're justified in being as greedy as they are.

West 09-20-2004 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.

Would you quit a good paying job in a finacially sound company for an excellent paying job in a company that was financial trouble?

I'm not sure that I would.

Legolas 09-20-2004 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by West
Would you quit a good paying job in a finacially sound company for an excellent paying job in a company that was financial trouble?

I'm not sure that I would.

If your salary was guaranteed, you most likely would. Hmm...guaranteed salaries, financially troubled companies...where have I heard that before?

Puckhead 09-20-2004 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
McKenzie is a Megalencephalic blowhard. Say Hockey Night in Canada (ergo the CBC) came up and offered him a huge raise to jump ship I somehow doubt he'd care one iota what the network's bottom line was like.

That is very short sighted and childish of you to say.
1 - That's his job, and
2 - are you a hockey fan or not?

If your answer is yes, then check back into the REALTIY MOTEL where most of us choose to spend some time, and look at the mess that this league is in. I understand that the owners created this mess, and I am not saying that the players are wrong for trying to get as much money as they can, but the game should it continue without cost certainty is not going to make it. Selfishly and realistically, I hope there are some teams that are forced out. It will make the product better, which will make it more entertaining for the fans, and that will draw sponsors and new fans to the sport. The way things have been going I don't think this game is drawing any new fans in the States, as evidenced by no major TV deals. Why should the sport suffer for the sake of teams that don't have a hope in hell of making a serious go of it anyway?

Say what you want about Bob McKenzie, but if you are a hockey fan, he speaks the truth and he is very good at what he does. You may not like what he has to say, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Legolas 09-20-2004 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckhead
That is very short sighted and childish of you to say.
1 - That's his job, and
2 - are you a hockey fan or not?

If your answer is yes, then check back into the REALTIY MOTEL where most of us choose to spend some time, and look at the mess that this league is in. I understand that the owners created this mess, and I am not saying that the players are wrong for trying to get as much money as they can, but the game should it continue without cost certainty is not going to make it. Selfishly and realistically, I hope there are some teams that are forced out. It will make the product better, which will make it more entertaining for the fans, and that will draw sponsors and new fans to the sport. The way things have been going I don't think this game is drawing any new fans in the States, as evidenced by no major TV deals. Why should the sport suffer for the sake of teams that don't have a hope in hell of making a serious go of it anyway?

Say what you want about Bob McKenzie, but if you are a hockey fan, he speaks the truth and he is very good at what he does. You may not like what he has to say, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all. He says that the players would likely allow contraction because they don't really care about the lower wage earners. That's probably true. But he needs to examine the owners with the same scrutiny instead of allowing them a free pass. He seems to be saying that even though the owners are at fault for putting the league into financial trouble, the game needs to be fixed so NHLPA get on side and owners, you're entitled to make mistakes.

Seachd 09-20-2004 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all.

Oh. I was under the impression that players benefited from outrageous salaries, and that they'll continue to even under a salary cap.

How does it not benefit the game at all?

Puckhead 09-20-2004 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seachd
Yeah, McKenzie nailed it. "We don't want it" isn't a good enough reason. They don't actually have a good reason. Goodenow has all but admitted himself that it's all about the money (no big surprise). So, yeah, greed factors in quite a bit.

I agree. I keep hearing that hockey players by and large are among the more intelligent of the major sports. That doesn't mean as far as I.Q. levels are concerned. But rather very knowledgable about the goings on in their sport and the ramifications of this lockout.

Well, Buzz Hargrove (President of CAW - Canadian auto workers) is no stranger when it comes to negotiating deals on behalf of his many constituents. When asked his opinion on the labour stoppage in the NHL he said that "If I had to tell the many thousands of people I represents that they would not be working for a year, I would out of a job".

Think about it, it makes a lot of sense! How are you dealing in the best interests of your players Mr. Goodenow if it is in their best interests to play the game and you are basically telling them that they won't for an entire year.

I have read on other threads that Goodenow and Saskin won't be paid during the lockout...that makes sense too, because they haven't done anything to warrant them being paid.

When you hear retired players giving advice to younger players its always the same thing...Enjoy every minute of your career, because it goes very quickly. With that in mind, how can these players want to lose an entire year of what is already a short career? Why waste a years worth of income? Many veterans are looking at 1 - 2 years left to play, do you think they want to be put out to pasture under these circumstances? They don't want to be remembered like this. They want to continue to put their stamp on the game that has afforded them all of the finer things in life. It is lunacy, and it will blow up in their faces. The owners will break the union if they do not start to concede some serious points in the new CBA.

Puckhead 09-20-2004 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas
The problem I have with McKenzie is when he makes these statements that are "for the good of the game" types of things and yet the end result only benefits the owners and not the good of the game at all. He says that the players would likely allow contraction because they don't really care about the lower wage earners. That's probably true. But he needs to examine the owners with the same scrutiny instead of allowing them a free pass. He seems to be saying that even though the owners are at fault for putting the league into financial trouble, the game needs to be fixed so NHLPA get on side and owners, you're entitled to make mistakes.


Right or wrong, the owners make it possible to have this great game. They are under a completely different set of scrutiny. They are not being paid in direct co-relation to how they perform on the ice. Guaranteed contracts are ridiculous in todays sports world. Why should the owner have to take all the risk? Give the players some incentive to remain at the top of their game.

Legolas 09-20-2004 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seachd
Oh. I was under the impression that players benefited from outrageous salaries, and that they'll continue to even under a salary cap.

How does it not benefit the game at all?

If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

Regardless of whether players' salaries are outrageous or not, if the money that teams save from a cap ends up going to the owners as profits (which they are entitled to take) then it does nothing for the good of the game. If McKenzie said that the owners have a right to make money and the NHLPA refuses to see that, then okay, that's a fine statement. Instead, he seems to be saying, in my opinion, that the NHLPA doesn't actually care about preserving jobs, they just want to maintain the top end of the salaries for the best players, which is bad and therefore they should just agree to a salary cap to help out the owners. That isn't too convincing to me.

SuperUnknown 09-20-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
What do you all think the owners are in it for? They want a cap because they can maximize profits that way. It has NOTHING to do with competitive balance or anything else. Pure greed.

We live in a greedy economic system... I mean, all owners of all companies want to maximize profits! So evil, so greedy! Communism, here we come! ;)

Legolas 09-20-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckhead
Well, Buzz Hargrove (President of CAW - Canadian auto workers) is no stranger when it comes to negotiating deals on behalf of his many constituents. When asked his opinion on the labour stoppage in the NHL he said that "If I had to tell the many thousands of people I represents that they would not be working for a year, I would out of a job".

Think about it, it makes a lot of sense! How are you dealing in the best interests of your players Mr. Goodenow if it is in their best interests to play the game and you are basically telling them that they won't for an entire year.

I think the players will lose this one as well. However, I see why they've taken their position. First of all, history has shown that players' unions have fought to the very bitter end to prevent a salary cap from being put in place. The NFL union was broken over that issue. The NBA union only agreed to a salary cap after public opinion turned against them and their own membership became divided. For players who are used to the ever increasing salaries, a salary cap is death, the NHLPA will do anything to stop it from happening.

As for Goodenow, he has every reason to be confident, rightly or wrongly. In his history, he's seen the owners cave into him without fail. He's seen his association and the agents absolutely dominate arbitration, contract negotiations, etc. He has no reason to think the owners won't cave again. He thinks he has all the leverage. I think he's wrong this time, but I can see why he thinks he's right.

SuperUnknown 09-20-2004 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

Problem is that the individual salaries won't be "capped". Also, btw, most workplaces have a "cap" on how much you can earn in a position (ie: scale might be $12 to $18/h).

Besides, if in this case, everyone was earning $0.05 per day and you were earning $8, what would you say if the owner told you: "I can't operate profitably unless we revise your salary to $5. It's that or nothing since I can't go on paying you that much."? If the most you could earn in other places around the world was $4, agreeing with the owner actually means you'll still be making $1 more than if the league closed. Not good enough for you?

hockeytown9321 09-20-2004 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smail
We live in a greedy economic system... I mean, all owners of all companies want to maximize profits! So evil, so greedy! Communism, here we come! ;)

A salary cap is is communistic.

Seachd 09-20-2004 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

How am I pocketing the extra $3? My payroll's $150 but I'm only making $115.

Guest 09-20-2004 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
A salary cap is is communistic.

What's wrong with communism, as you put it, in pro-sports?

I personally don't prefer the hard cap, but think that revenue sharing must go hand-in-hand with a cap, and you don't see the owners insisting it is necessary.

I'd like to see a looser cap that would reward the positive management of teams, that gives the advantage of drafting well or having professional scouting that can pick diamonds in the rough up cheaply. Part of that is to increase the draft age, so it is less of a gamble and a little more likely of a science. Let teams draft a set amount of underage players, or specify it for certain rounds of the draft.

If the owners are stupid enough to put themselves at risk, I don't think the players should be held responsible for the owners mistakes. However, I think it's important for teams to be able to maintain their roster without gutting it for financial concerns unless they choose to.

hockeytown9321 09-20-2004 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
What's wrong with communism, as you put it, in pro-sports?

I personally don't prefer the hard cap, but think that revenue sharing must go hand-in-hand with a cap, and you don't see the owners insisting it is necessary.

I'd like to see a looser cap that would reward the positive management of teams, that gives the advantage of drafting well or having professional scouting that can pick diamonds in the rough up cheaply. Part of that is to increase the draft age, so it is less of a gamble and a little more likely of a science. Let teams draft a set amount of underage players, or specify it for certain rounds of the draft.

If the owners are stupid enough to put themselves at risk, I don't think the players should be held responsible for the owners mistakes. However, I think it's important for teams to be able to maintain their roster without gutting it for financial concerns unless they choose to.


Well, there's nothing wrong with communism in and of itself, just that it is impossible to acheive, and every attempt at it has failed. For communism to work, you need total 100% cooperation from everyone inviolved. It can't happen in real life, and it certainly can't happen in pro sports.

the looser cap would be kinda like socialism, I guess. So why don't all the canucks want it?

thestonedkoala 09-20-2004 05:28 PM

Let's take this one step further...

What if the owners get a cap they want, 31 million dollars.

They are still pulling in 80-100 million roughly (I don't know I'm pulling a number out of my head) with ticket sales, local TV contracts, what little merchandizing they have...

And instead of going, hey let's cut ticket prices (which is outrageous), they pocket the money instead and then take it a step further and RAISE ticket prices, making it 110 million next season and then another 120 million the next...

Is that fair?

top_gun36 09-20-2004 05:34 PM

Even if they do have a cap @ $31 million, what happens to the teams that are over tha cap...kick players off the roster until they reach the cap :loony:

thestonedkoala 09-20-2004 05:36 PM

Fine them heavily?

Or a percentage that is put into a pool and distributed to the 5-10 small market teams?

me2 09-20-2004 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legolas
If you're paying me $8, and then you cap me at $5 but you pocket the extra $3 instead of making the workplace better, how is that improving anything except your profit margin?

Regardless of whether players' salaries are outrageous or not, if the money that teams save from a cap ends up going to the owners as profits (which they are entitled to take) then it does nothing for the good of the game.

Sure it fills the pockets of the rich revenue clubs, but over all it helps. It helps the snaller clubs compete on the ice. It helps the small clubs remain financial viable. It gives more fans a chance to feel positive about their club, its future and their cup chances. The more clubs the more players get employed (and higher wages through talent dispersal).

So it does help.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.