View Single Post
Old
11-04-2012, 04:51 PM
  #59
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
so i don't totally understand how the european hockey and football (soccer) systems work. but my sense of it is that it works kind of like neoliberal economics: total free market, huge stratification between the haves and the have-nots, every successive year the rich teams/leagues get better and richer, poor teams/leagues get weaker and poorer. not to say we need a "no wto"-style movement against that system, or an occupy hockey leagues per se, but from the fan's perspective, perhaps some kind of protectionism might not be a bad thing.
Spot on. I don't say it's a bad thing, it's just that
1) it astonished me to see this kind of full flight protectionism openly embraced in North America,
and
2) I don't think any players deserves to be blamed or even villainized for not liking the system

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i get what you're saying about treating the NHL draft like some kind of sacred institution, which it of course is not. and the argument that gretzky or orr did what they were told because they were honoured to be in the league at all doesn't in of itself prove anything about it being the morally correct thing to do.
That's my issue. As soon as you say people need to "respect" the Draft or should be "honoured" to be drafted, your pretending the Draft is a sacred institution. In reality it's a business tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
and i think of it like this: NHL teams aren't companies the way, say, BMW is a company. the NHL is a company, and teams are divisions of that company.
But is that the way it legally is? Aren't the franchises entities on their own, companies that could break away from the NHL (of course, it would be costly and risky and all) if they wanted to? Players don't sign their contracts with the NHL, they sign their contracts with a certain team. The teams are the companies, not the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i think the moral thing with lindros is that he acted like he was above the rules. by talent, he was.
Which rules? Business rules born out of business interests, just like the interests Lindros probably followed. No morals involved on either side. And didn't the other NHL teams confirm he was right to consider himself above the rules when they tried to acquire his rights from the Nordiques?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
if lindros places himself above the rules, then he also places himself above the union he'll join the second he gets moved to a team where he's willing to sign.
Lindros wasn't member of the union when he refused to sign with Quebec, so what does it matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
lindros' actions undermined that labour agreement, pissed all over that good faith, and said to his future fellow union members that he was above them.
Lindros didn't negotiate and wasn't even a member of the union when the negotiations took place. And he actually was above (many) of his future fellow union members: the NHL wanted him at any cost. Does that make him likeable? Hardly. Does he deserve be condemned? Not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But you have earned nothing in the NHL at that point. Nothing. You could be a bust.
What he obviously had earned was the interest of the NHL and that was enough at that point. Supply and demand: A player like Lindros has his price, potential bust or not. And the NHL was ready to pay the price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Playing in the NHL is not a right but a privilege and an honour.
Completely disagree. It's a business relation and that's it. Turn the sentence around and it makes just as much sense: It's a priviledge and an honour for the NHL to have the best and most exciting players in the world in its arenas. That doesn't come for free and the NHL admitted it by chasing after Lindros.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There is a bad team somewhere that earned the right to pick you and build their team around you.
Earned the right - according to a NHL rule that you don't necessarily have to like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Thinking you are better and more entitled than the players who came before you - the all-time greats who had to do the same thing - is wrong right from the word "go".
That's a weird way to look at it IMO. With that line of thinking every unsatisfactory order in the world becomes indefeasible. Doug Harvey and Ted Lindsay want to set up a players union? How dare they think they are better and more entitled than the players who came before them! Even the all-time greats always had to obey the rules of the owners: how wrong of Harvey and Lindsay to think they're above them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In the end we have a player who put himself above the game before stepping on NHL ice and he isn't even a consensus HHOFer.
That's another thing I disagree with. In your mind putting himself above the NHL Entry Draft is the same as putting himself above the game of hockey. NHL = Hockey. Not so. Lindros didn't put himself above hockey, he only put himself above the business rules of one hockey league.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote