HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What If? Eric Lindros had stayed in Quebec

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2012, 01:05 PM
  #51
Soundgarden
Registered User
 
Soundgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 6,204
vCash: 562
I didn't want to start an entirely new Lindros what if thread, but what do you guys think would happen if the arbitrator picked ny's offer? Vanbiesbrouck or Patrick , Amonte or Weight and Kovalev $12 m. And three 1sts.

Now Amonte was rumoured to want none of Quebec and if Beezer was declared UFA then he would be substituted for Patrick.

But with Vanbiesbrouck they get an elite goalie, but do they have enough for depth trades for defense? Do they win at least one cup with Sakic, Sundin, Nolan and Vanbiesbrouck?

Anything I'm missing on this story?

Does Ny win a cup on '94?

Soundgarden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 02:50 PM
  #52
agentblack
Registered User
 
agentblack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 2,062
vCash: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan View Post
He was horrible in both the second and the third round of the playoffs (six points in 12 games and was -4). He also went out and got drunk the night before one of the Conference Finals against Dallas, where he was scratched with "the flu". That was the beginning of the end for Theo Fleury.
I only had a problem with Theo the last two games of the DAL series, but besides that and losing Regher the day he got to the Avs made them so much more dynamic, and fun to watch. Getting him allowed the Avs to form a line of Drury-Deadmarsh-Podein . So yes he didnt put up alot of points in the P/Os but it gave the Avs the offensive depth they needed to come within a win of a cup appearence. Was worth it.

agentblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 03:08 PM
  #53
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
Ask Erik Lindros if he was beaten up by Elvis Stoyko at a Philadephia bar?

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 04:14 PM
  #54
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
^^^^ agree with that.

Lindros was such a talent, but imo, he thought he was above the game, better than everyone else so he didn't have to follow the accepted rules (ways of doing things). He cut his own throat.
True. I have heard Gretzky say that regardless of what team drafts you, you should be honoured to be part of that team. Proud to wear that sweater. Because if you don't a million other guys would. He wasn't poking it at Lindros, but just in general. Here is the best player that ever lived and if there was someone who could easily feel like he was above the game it was him, but he didn't. Lindros, who had never even stepped on NHL ice felt entitled and in a way it started a snowball effect to how we see players today. Young players especially. Lindros earned nothing at that time and even at his best was never in Gretzky's universe at HIS best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Ask Erik Lindros if he was beaten up by Elvis Stoyko at a Philadephia bar?
Yeah right. I've heard that rumour countless times. It always got me thinking, could Stojko have been able to take the Big E? The first thing you think about is just how much bigger Lindros was. Both are in shape, both are athletes so you have that going in both of their favours. I don't know. I always thought it was more or less a rumour for the fun of it because how would it look on Lindros if he loses to a male figure skater?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 06:29 PM
  #55
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
True. I have heard Gretzky say that regardless of what team drafts you, you should be honoured to be part of that team. Proud to wear that sweater. Because if you don't a million other guys would. He wasn't poking it at Lindros, but just in general. Here is the best player that ever lived and if there was someone who could easily feel like he was above the game it was him, but he didn't. Lindros, who had never even stepped on NHL ice felt entitled and in a way it started a snowball effect to how we see players today. Young players especially. Lindros earned nothing at that time and even at his best was never in Gretzky's universe at HIS best.
That's one thing I never understood. You should be honoured that they force you to play for a certain team? A team that you're not interested in and don't want to have anything to do with? Honoured that they take away your choice? For a European like me it's amazing to see that in free-market North America a rigid illiberal system, dwelling in a grey era of the law, is not only openly in place, but also glorified as a moral issue and almost adored like a religious fetish. I believe Lindros had his flaws, but not mistaking the Draft System for a sacred institution is not one of them.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 07:51 PM
  #56
Harry Waters
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
That's one thing I never understood. You should be honoured that they force you to play for a certain team? A team that you're not interested in and don't want to have anything to do with? Honoured that they take away your choice? For a European like me it's amazing to see that in free-market North America a rigid illiberal system, dwelling in a grey era of the law, is not only openly in place, but also glorified as a moral issue and almost adored like a religious fetish. I believe Lindros had his flaws, but not mistaking the Draft System for a sacred institution is not one of them.
While I wouldn't word it that strong, that bothered me (as a fellow European ) for a long time. I'm not even saying that the draft (and trades, since it's a similar argument) is totally unacceptable - I just can't wrap my head around the fact it's in place in north america, the U.S. in particular. We shouldn't get further into politics, but it is a really interesting topic, perhaps for another thread.
But if the healthcare-for-everyone-europeans think that the players lack free choices in comparison to Europe, there might be something to it

And to add something to the thread: If Lindros stays in Quebec, the Avalanche would have less cups for sure. But that trade should be an example for every trade proposal concerning Malkin or Crosby - just from a 'value'-standpoint and without millions of Dollars cash.

Harry Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 10:25 PM
  #57
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yeah right. I've heard that rumour countless times. It always got me thinking, could Stojko have been able to take the Big E? The first thing you think about is just how much bigger Lindros was. Both are in shape, both are athletes so you have that going in both of their favours. I don't know. I always thought it was more or less a rumour for the fun of it because how would it look on Lindros if he loses to a male figure skater?
the story i remember reading is that stojko bumped him a little and made him spill his beer. lindros gets in his face, asks him if he wants a piece, stojko one punches him.

knowing what we know about lindros' weak head, it's not unbelievable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
That's one thing I never understood. You should be honoured that they force you to play for a certain team? A team that you're not interested in and don't want to have anything to do with? Honoured that they take away your choice? For a European like me it's amazing to see that in free-market North America a rigid illiberal system, dwelling in a grey era of the law, is not only openly in place, but also glorified as a moral issue and almost adored like a religious fetish. I believe Lindros had his flaws, but not mistaking the Draft System for a sacred institution is not one of them.
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. just like the salary cap and restricted free agency in the NHL may not have been good for the players, but it certainly has been good for fans in terms of maintaining a competitive balance and helping to keep players in the same place at least for a decent stretch of their careers.

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.

however, i don't think that the NHL has been an inherently exploitative labour-monopolizing system the way, say, college basketball has been (and the collusion between the NBA and NCAA to force elite players into the feeder system for ridiculously low compensation is, i think, morally abhorrent; i.e., the "one year" rule). what you call a "rigid illiberal system" i call a company that has to be organized in a way to ensure that the company works and profits. if we had a 100% free labour market in the NHL where no player is drafted, then you might as well contract columbus because the only entry-level players they'd be able to sign would be leftovers. that's not good for the NHL as a company.

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. say you're an auto executive. you enter the industry at a BMW division in berlin but a year later they transfer you to some little bavarian town two hours out of munich. maybe you're of turkish descent and that little town is super racist and you don't want to live there; maybe whatever division of BMW you get sent to is a terrible organization and working there will be career suicide. maybe eventually you can get transferred back to berlin, maybe not. but you have the option of going back on the job market and trying to find a job with VW. same with lindros. totally free to find some other league to play in if he didn't want to live in quebec city or play for the nordiques organization.

i think the moral thing with lindros is that he acted like he was above the rules. by talent, he was. top picks like he and bryan berard could force a trade; a guy like rene corbet they probably would have just held onto his rights and said "good luck with your european career. maybe we'll agree to have you back if you ever decide to come back." 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. that union negotiated the labour agreement with the league in good faith, and made concessions to make gains. 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. the rookie cap was partly in response to the crazy daigle contract, but i think it was also partly in response to lindros; the league needed to disincentivize entry level players holding out, and taking away the possibility of a bigger payday elsewhere was the best way to do it (even though this wasn't why lindros did what he did). which meant that lindros' actions weren't only insulting to every other player in the PA, but also probably affected the PA itself. all of this, of course, is ironic given lindros' later heavy involvement in NHLPA politics.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 08:31 AM
  #58
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
That's one thing I never understood. You should be honoured that they force you to play for a certain team? A team that you're not interested in and don't want to have anything to do with? Honoured that they take away your choice? For a European like me it's amazing to see that in free-market North America a rigid illiberal system, dwelling in a grey era of the law, is not only openly in place, but also glorified as a moral issue and almost adored like a religious fetish. I believe Lindros had his flaws, but not mistaking the Draft System for a sacred institution is not one of them.
But you have earned nothing in the NHL at that point. Nothing. You could be a bust. You could have a career ending injury. Playing in the NHL is not a right but a privilege and an honour. Why is that? Because you are being paid millions of dollars to play there which means your grandchildren are set for life. There is a bad team somewhere that earned the right to pick you and build their team around you. 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". Lindros didn't know any better at 18 years old, but his parents should have.

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.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 03:51 PM
  #59
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,679
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
Old
11-04-2012, 04:12 PM
  #60
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Lindros wasn't member of the union when he refused to sign with Quebec, so what does it matter?



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.

that's exactly what i mean by "bad faith." no, lindros was not a member of the PA at the time. but the logical end point of his actions would be to join that union as soon as he got the result he wanted.

if we condemn today's NHL for negotiating individual player contracts in bad faith, because they were just going to turn around and try to roll back those salaries the next time the labour agreement was up (in some cases-- like parise + suter-- months later), then wouldn't we also want to judge lindros by the same standard?

obviously they are not symmetrical situations, but think of it this way: you say that lindros didn't participate and wasn't a member of the PA when the previous labour agreement was negotiated. well yes. but it seems he wants the benefits of that labour agreement (the guaranteed contracts, RFA rights, salary arbitration rights, etc.) but not the downsides (decreased mobility to start his career). in the working world, when you join a union you don't get to pick and choose what applies to you because you weren't around when the labour agreement was voted on/negotiated.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:55 PM
  #61
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
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.
If not the draft, what other fair system would you use to disperse young players to NHL teams? Every player a free agent to sign with the highest bidder? I think you can see how that wouldn't work. The strong would just stay strong and the weak would eventually fold.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Lindros wasn't member of the union when he refused to sign with Quebec, so what does it matter?
Doesn't matter at all if he didn't want to play in the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
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.
In NA, the NHL does = hockey. You're right though, Lindros had the right to play in any another league. But we all know he wanted to play in the NHL.

And he fully, 100%, put himself and his desires above the game of hockey - the NHL game at least.

Butch 19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-05-2012, 06:40 PM
  #62
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
True. I have heard Gretzky say that regardless of what team drafts you, you should be honoured to be part of that team. Proud to wear that sweater. Because if you don't a million other guys would. He wasn't poking it at Lindros, but just in general. Here is the best player that ever lived and if there was someone who could easily feel like he was above the game it was him, but he didn't. Lindros, who had never even stepped on NHL ice felt entitled and in a way it started a snowball effect to how we see players today. Young players especially. Lindros earned nothing at that time and even at his best was never in Gretzky's universe at HIS best.
Of course, Gretzky didn't enter the league through the draft.

Hasbro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:03 AM
  #63
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously they are not symmetrical situations, but think of it this way: you say that lindros didn't participate and wasn't a member of the PA when the previous labour agreement was negotiated. well yes. but it seems he wants the benefits of that labour agreement (the guaranteed contracts, RFA rights, salary arbitration rights, etc.) but not the downsides (decreased mobility to start his career). in the working world, when you join a union you don't get to pick and choose what applies to you because you weren't around when the labour agreement was voted on/negotiated.
If you're so good that companies are ready to let you pick and choose before you even enter the business and the union - why not? If anything the NHL or the franchises have to be blamed for allowing it, but that's just what the situation was like: even the NHL thought Lindros > NHL rules. Why blame Lindros for taking advantage of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
If not the draft, what other fair system would you use to disperse young players to NHL teams? Every player a free agent to sign with the highest bidder? I think you can see how that wouldn't work. The strong would just stay strong and the weak would eventually fold.
It would work. The NHL would look different and maybe you wouldn't like it as much, but it would work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Doesn't matter at all if he didn't want to play in the NHL.
And the NHL wanted him to play in the NHL. More than anything. So he got what he wanted. Nice for him.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:26 AM
  #64
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If you're so good that companies are ready to let you pick and choose before you even enter the business and the union - why not? If anything the NHL or the franchises have to be blamed for allowing it, but that's just what the situation was like: even the NHL thought Lindros > NHL rules. Why blame Lindros for taking advantage of it?
okay, maybe we should take this away from my union thing, because the NHLPA has always been about maximizing the mobility and earning potential of each individual player.

maybe a better analogy would be this: you enter a company and you're a rock star. top of your class from an ivy league MBA program, previous work experience from other prestigious firms, etc. the board wants you so bad they'll let you do whatever you want. so you show up on day one and start calling your shots. i want the corner office. screw whoever has that office, i want it, it's mine or i walk. i want the best parking spot. maybe you bang three underage interns and everyone looks the other way because, hey, you're the new hot shot. if someone has a problem with it, they have a problem with the boss.

there is such a thing as earning the right to call your shots. there is such a thing as seniority. there is such a thing as enduring what everyone else had to endure for camaraderie. absolute liberal free market capitalism doesn't care about those things; it only cares about maximizing profits, which you can do. but i think the people you work with, the people whose parking spots and corner offices you took, they care. there is a way of doing things in every workplace and organization. sure they're not sacred institutions, but respecting those ways of doing things is basic human civility. not crapping on other people just because you can or because the higher ups are willing to give you that long of a leash... well to make another far-flung analogy, we just received proof that a certain mormon didn't pay taxes for 15 years, hiding behind a non-profit organization that he contributed to as little as still legally provided for the tax exemption. legally, it was justified. morally...

which is not to say that anything lindros did was morally wrong. but it does mean he and his stereotypical toronto bay street rich guy parents were complete d-bags.

not for nothing, by the way, that lindros' first major concussion was reportedly from being punched out by one of his own teammates.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:30 AM
  #65
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
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
i should note that i am not an american, though my country (which is in north america) is becoming every year more economically neo-liberal. politically, however, i think you'll find many canadians were raised with a very acute sense of protectionism, and a good deal of distrust about free trade. at least those of my generation, who grew up during the NAFTA debates and became adults around the time of the G7, G8, APEC, and WTO protests.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
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.
well, the contract is only valid under the umbrella of the league. i.e., if the league is not in operation (like right now), those contracts are meaningless. so no, i don't think teams are independent companies in the sense that you say. that's why they're called franchises.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 08:04 AM
  #66
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
you enter a company and you're a rock star. top of your class from an ivy league MBA program, previous work experience from other prestigious firms, etc. the board wants you so bad they'll let you do whatever you want. so you show up on day one and start calling your shots. i want the corner office. screw whoever has that office, i want it, it's mine or i walk. i want the best parking spot. maybe you bang three underage interns and everyone looks the other way because, hey, you're the new hot shot.
I don't like this analogy either. Underage interns: downright illegal, unlike anything Lindros did. Corner office & parking spot: Lindros didn't take away anything from anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
there is such a thing as enduring what everyone else had to endure for camaraderie.
On the ice, yes. On the negotiation table, no. Why would you go through what unfavourable circumstances forced everyone else to go through if the same circumstances do not apply to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
well, the contract is only valid under the umbrella of the league. i.e., if the league is not in operation (like right now), those contracts are meaningless.
This seems to have to do with labour law and not with the structure of the NHL. Think about it: if the players are on strike their contracts remain valid even though the league is not in operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
so no, i don't think teams are independent companies in the sense that you say.
The NHL is not a single entity with divisions=franchises, it's a "Unincorporated Association" consisting of "Member Clubs". See NHL Constitution, page 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
so no, i don't think teams are independent companies in the sense that you say. that's why they're called franchises.
The teams are independent "Clubs"=companies. Each Member Club "holds a franchise from the League" (NHL Constitution, page 2), hence the term "franchises".

NHL Constitution: http://www.bizofhockey.com/docs/NHLConsitution.pdf

EDIT: Another source: "The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty member clubs..." (© Deputy Commissioner William Daly). Link: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/con...oyotesDaly.pdf (Page 2, under "Structure and Organization of the National Hockey League").
A joint venture, not a company.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:48 AM
  #67
mattihp
Registered User
 
mattihp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Årsta
Country: Finland
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 50
Sundin had been known as one of the greatest right wingers of all time.

mattihp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 12:26 PM
  #68
butteryslugz
L.A. Kings Fan
 
butteryslugz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: los angeles, ca
Country: United States
Posts: 1,408
vCash: 500
life as we know it would cease to exist.

butteryslugz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 03:05 PM
  #69
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post

It would work. The NHL would look different and maybe you wouldn't like it as much, but it would work.

Come on - at least try to be a little realistic. If all players (and new players to NHL) were treated as free agents every offseason and could sign with any team, how would the teams ranked 25 - 30 EVER get any good players?

What if you were a fan of one of those teams? Why even bother?

Yeah, you're right, I wouldn't like it as much...

Butch 19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 04:30 PM
  #70
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
Of course, Gretzky didn't enter the league through the draft.
It was a technicality. Other than that, he is drafted like any other player. And he still signed an ill-advised contract when he was 18 just because his father encouraged him to do so because job security was important. This was the Edmonton Oilers, which were a team that was just as bad as Quebec was in 1991 when they entered the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
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.
The issue I have, is that more or less every single player before or since him has sat there, just excited to make the NHL and are happy to be picked by the team that chooses them. Crosby had to sit and wait for the NHL lottery to finish on live TV before he knew where he was playing. It was down to Anaheim and Pittsburgh and the entire NHL wanted him including his childhood team, Montreal. He could have pulled a Lindros and whined that the Habs (who chose 5th overall) should be where he deserved to go but he didn't. He faced the challenge of leading a franchise in ruins to a Cup. I can't remember which one of Lindros or Crosby won a Cup.............

The point is, Mario did a similar trick (not putting on the sweater at the draft) to the Pens that Lindros did. This was about his contract. The difference is Mario still played for the team that drafted him. He singlehandedly led that team to a Cup (with some help). To be honest, it took several years for Mario to really be forgiven by people for that little draft trick. That reputation followed him around for a long, long time until he won his Cups and he came back from cancer. Even then he had his critics. Lindros chose the path he took and it followed him his entire career, for good reason.

Quote:
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.
Quebec had a gun held to their head. They had a kid who was not going to play for them - ever. An 18 year old kid. He went back to junior for crying out loud. He played in the Olympics. I've read his book, he was very prepared for a long holdout. Quebec HAD to trade him and it took them almost a year to finally give in. If I was an opposing team I'd have chased him too. But I think it is more a case of a team just throwing their hands up and saying "here you can have him" than the NHL enabling him.


Quote:
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!
Setting up a player's union doesn't break any unspoken verbal contract though. In hindsight we know now that setting up a union was correct. 20 years later, barely anyone defends Lindros for his actions. Time has gone by on both counts and we've had time to dissect each of them. Most people still think Lindros was in the wrong and no one thinks Lindsay was. That tells you something.


Quote:
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.
He still had the feeling of entitlement and he had absolutely no reason to feel that. Well, maybe he did because his parents certainly raised him to think everything could go his way. But it doesn't make it right either. The thing that has always bothered me is that he didn't even TRY Quebec at all. My goodness, compare him to Peter Stastny. He defected from his country at a high risk in order to come over here. He played the bulk of his career in Quebec. He learned French and he can speak it darn good (as well as English). He is a HHOFer which no one doubts. He didn't sit there and say "Well what is in it for ME?" He understood the honour of playing in the greatest league in the world. The character of these two players is vastly different.


Last edited by Big Phil: 11-06-2012 at 04:36 PM.
Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 05:17 PM
  #71
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I don't like this analogy either. Underage interns: downright illegal, unlike anything Lindros did. Corner office & parking spot: Lindros didn't take away anything from anyone.



On the ice, yes. On the negotiation table, no. Why would you go through what unfavourable circumstances forced everyone else to go through if the same circumstances do not apply to you?



This seems to have to do with labour law and not with the structure of the NHL. Think about it: if the players are on strike their contracts remain valid even though the league is not in operation.



The NHL is not a single entity with divisions=franchises, it's a "Unincorporated Association" consisting of "Member Clubs". See NHL Constitution, page 1.



The teams are independent "Clubs"=companies. Each Member Club "holds a franchise from the League" (NHL Constitution, page 2), hence the term "franchises".

NHL Constitution: http://www.bizofhockey.com/docs/NHLConsitution.pdf

EDIT: Another source: "The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty member clubs..." (© Deputy Commissioner William Daly). Link: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/v5/con...oyotesDaly.pdf (Page 2, under "Structure and Organization of the National Hockey League").
A joint venture, not a company.
it was an analogy, not a legal argument.

as for the other analogy, obviously it's the nature of being a professional athlete that unless you have a NTC (and sometimes even if you do), you can be moved at any time. still, four players' lives were uprooted for lindros. not the biggest deal for a super young guy like ricci, or a tweener like huffman; maybe a bigger deal for a guy like duchesne, who'd just gotten there the year before but no one likes to move every year. but to a guy like hextall, firmly entrenched on that team, been there his whole career, and whom philly probably wouldn't have given up if quebec hadn't demanded a goalie back (being that they had traded wregget that same year and rolled with soderstrom, roussel, and beauregard in eric's first year).

guys in the NHL are pros, and they don't let grudges hold over on the ice, but for example, it's my understanding that the detroit guys never forgave hasek for pulling what he pulled on cujo. what i mean is, there's reasonable (young guy getting called up, replaces someone in the lineup; that's sports, you take that in stride; similarly, GM trades for you at the deadline, someone goes the other way; out of your control) and then there's unnecessary (elite player holds out for seemingly no good reason, forces blockbuster trade; guys, some with families, move).

as for the illegal underage interns thing, i think you're taking the analogy too literally. let's say they're 18 year old interns. legal but frowned upon, possibly even against corporate policy (due to the power dynamic and the threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit). but if you are the lindros of your company, guys will look the other way because you're too valuable. seems like just because your stature puts you above the law, doesn't make taking that opportunity okay, right?

not sure what you mean in the strike comment.

re: the harvey/lindsay comment that big phil responded to: the key difference is one was for the benefit of all of the league's players. fundamentally unselfish move; both guys jeopardized their careers and almost certainly hampered their legacies (due to years not played with dynasty teams), for a greater good. lindros: 100% completely selfish. not for a second did he think of anyone but himself. the people of quebec lost their team, which almost certainly would not have happened if he'd stayed. but not his problem, right? he doesn't owe them anything.

but that's enough of this from my end. while i respect your opinion, i think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on what a free labour market can and should provide for. you are free to have the last word if you wish.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 05:22 PM
  #72
jroc86
Registered User
 
jroc86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Then Detroit would have had cups in 96, 99, and 2000.

jroc86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 11:57 PM
  #73
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
re: the harvey/lindsay comment that big phil responded to: the key difference is one was for the benefit of all of the league's players. fundamentally unselfish move; both guys jeopardized their careers and almost certainly hampered their legacies (due to years not played with dynasty teams), for a greater good. lindros: 100% completely selfish. not for a second did he think of anyone but himself. the people of quebec lost their team, which almost certainly would not have happened if he'd stayed. but not his problem, right? he doesn't owe them anything.
You can definitely say that Lindsay more or less lost his career at that time. He was traded out of Detroit for no other reason than to be punished. Harvey eventually backtracked his opinion of a union. Harvey ended up dying without a penny to his name. You are right on the ball that Lindsay made the most unselfish move possibly even in NHL history. No one else put their neck on the line more than him.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 05:18 AM
  #74
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Come on - at least try to be a little realistic. If all players (and new players to NHL) were treated as free agents every offseason and could sign with any team, how would the teams ranked 25 - 30 EVER get any good players?

What if you were a fan of one of those teams? Why even bother?
I'm realistic. What you describe is reality in Europe. Football, hockey, every sport. You don't need to like it, but it's not unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Yeah, you're right, I wouldn't like it as much...
Fair enough, but don't pretend it's not realistic and wouldn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The issue I have, is that more or less every single player before or since him has sat there, just excited to make the NHL and are happy to be picked by the team that chooses them.
Not an argument in my eyes. Just because more or less every single player before or since him was dumb enough... But I think we're not going to agree on this, no matter what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
If I was an opposing team I'd have chased him too.
Then you're not in a position to critize him, you're his accomplice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Setting up a player's union doesn't break any unspoken verbal contract though.
Which unspoken verbal contract are you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
20 years later, barely anyone defends Lindros for his actions.
Well, I do to a degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Most people still think Lindros was in the wrong and no one thinks Lindsay was. That tells you something.
It tells us something about the mentality of people, but not about whether Lindros was right or wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously it's the nature of being a professional athlete that unless you have a NTC (and sometimes even if you do), you can be moved at any time.
No, generally speaking it's not. Only in North America. And while it is the case in North America, I wouldn't say it's in the nature of North American professional sports either, it's just another man-made rule born out of business interests. Nothing natural about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
still, four players' lives were uprooted for lindros.
So you're having issues with the illiberal practice of trading players while you're fine with the equally illiberal Entry Draft. Both of course are part of the same system. You're either against both or you're fine with both. You can't complain about players getting moved like pawns and at the same time defend the straitjacket that is the Draft, that's inconsistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
let's say they're 18 year old interns. legal but frowned upon, possibly even against corporate policy (due to the power dynamic and the threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit). but if you are the lindros of your company, guys will look the other way because you're too valuable. seems like just because your stature puts you above the law, doesn't make taking that opportunity okay, right?
Then you're not above the law, only above corporate policy. Up to the company to decide whether you're worth it or not. BTW I'm not defending Lindros for what he did once he was on the team, I defend him for refusing to join a team he didn't want to join.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
the people of quebec lost their team, which almost certainly would not have happened if he'd stayed. but not his problem, right? he doesn't owe them anything.
Why were the Nordiques in such a bad position in the first place? Not the fault of Lindros and not his responsibility to be their saviour. And the people of Denver won their team, so I guess they have to thank Lindros and owe him a lot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
not sure what you mean in the strike comment.
You said NHL contracts are meaningsless when the league is not in operation. Not true. During a strike the NHL is not in operation either but the contracts stand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
but that's enough of this from my end. while i respect your opinion, i think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on what a free labour market can and should provide for. you are free to have the last word if you wish.
Lindros didn't have the noble motives the founders of the union had, no doubt, he comes off badly in this comparison. But were his motives poorer than those behind the Entry Draft or the Restricted Free Agency in general? Business motives vs business motives.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 03:30 PM
  #75
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Not an argument in my eyes. Just because more or less every single player before or since him was dumb enough... But I think we're not going to agree on this, no matter what.
Dumb enough..............or grateful enough? Think about that.


Quote:
Then you're not in a position to critize him, you're his accomplice.
Well if the guy is being put on the block by Quebec you'd be stupid not to go after him. If no one does, that is pretty much what we call collusion. It still doesn't mean I condone him turning his back on the franchise that needed him.

Quote:
Which unspoken verbal contract are you referring to?
You are right, it is not unspoken. It is in the CBA. Even better.

Quote:
It tells us something about the mentality of people, but not about whether Lindros was right or wrong.
He basically broke the rules of the draft. They are set in place, they are agreed upon by both sides - even agents. I guess if meddling parents don't like it though........

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.