If NHL players had to take 10% less across the board tomorrow? Horrors…

Look, I will be up front:  I don’t pretend to understand HRR.  I have no idea if the owners are all crooks and the players are all like Mother Theresa  (was) in their spare time.  I don’t have a clue if the offer from the owners this week was based on their public relations firm trying to “spin” a story and put public pressure on the NHLPA, or whether it was a genuine effort to close the gap.  I know some people in the industry, but I have no inside information.

So when I speak, as simply a long-time fan of the sport, understand that I probably am biased.  I try to think I’m not, but I’m probably biased toward the league and the owners who take the risks associated with running a big business like the NHL.

Similarly, I am loyal to one thing (hockey-wise), and that is the Maple Leaf crest.  Yes, I’m a fan of hockey.  At various times in my life I’ve followed everything from Canadian University hockey to Junior hockey and everything in between off and on for the past 50 years.  But primarily I follow the Leafs because that’s been my team since 1958.  I cheer for the history that is the blue and white, that legacy.  I follow Leaf players and am interested in how they play for my team.  I enjoy watching the truly talented guys in the league, and always have, dating back to the days of Beliveau, Hull, Howe, Keon, Ullman, Mikita, Pilote, Orr, Lafleur, Perreault. Gretzky, Coffey, Lemieux and all those that have come after them. (By the way, every one of today's players should give some of their salary to Bobby Hull, seen on the right the night he scored 50 goals for the first time in 1962.  He's the man that opened the salary floodgates for all players when he signed with the WHA in 1972...)

But that said, I could live without the superstars if I had to, as long as there was good hockey to watch and the Leafs were involved.  And I would have zero interest in a new league, for example.  If the very same players who are with the Leafs now suddenly started to play for a team in another league trying to compete with the NHL, I would not pay a nickel to go to the games, or watch them on TV.  Again, my rooting interest is abiding and deep—but solely about the Maple Leafs as part of the best hockey league in the world, the NHL.  Full stop.

I have had and continue to have all kinds of issues with the league, and with the Maple Leafs as an organization.  But that’s an ongoing thing.  I’ll take all that to my grave. But I acknowledge that that “background” does shape my current views on the so-called labour negotiations.  (I do not see the players as “labour” in my perception of what that term is supposed to mean…)

I listened to a spirited debate on the radio this week from a U.S.-based outlet about the latest back and forth between the owners and players in the ongoing NHL CBA dispute. One of the hosts made the point that, if (CBA aside) some rule fell down from the heavens that NHL players could only make, say, 90% of what they are now earning, would youngsters stop wanting to play the sport?

Of course some will say that’s a ridiculous question, because there is no such made-up “rule” and this would all be against free enterprise anyway.  But for me the question stands.  What would be so terrible about a sports world where really 'top' athletes made 5 million a year, rather than 10 or 20 (as already happens in baseball, football and basketball)?

Why, in this debate, do we never hear about all the little extras that players receive, in addition to their salaries?  You won't hear that from the NHLPA.  I’m sure this is all part of the “HHR” dispute (hockey-related revenue) but my point is this:  Players don’t just get millions of dollars through their contract—they receive all kinds of extra money through licensing and merchandize sales, hockey cards, all kinds of stuff.  And this doesn’t even take into consideration that these guys also receive (this is amazing) per diems.  So their food is paid for, their travel is paid for.  They accept under-the-table freebies on a regular basis. They have access not just to front-of-the-line medical treatment, but to instant medical treatment.  Many have major endorsement deals.  The “perks” are unbelievable.

Yet Don Fehr isn’t satisfied with the owners’ latest salvo (not that that’s a shock—we all understand that for him, this just gets negotiations started…Hey, didn't Jeremy Roenick say the players should take the offer?).

As we mull over the above, (and trust me, I’d rather be writing about NHL hockey than this stuff), here are some questions that I would love get your feedback on:

1. All leagues like the NFL and NHL have “minimum” salaries under the CBA.  Would you support a maximum salary for individual players?
2. What would be wrong if every NHL owner, independently, decided that he/the company no longer was willing to pay any player more than say, 5 million a year?  Is that collusion?
3. Was the owners’ latest offer disingenuous, or a serious effort to make a deal and start the season?
4. Do most fans realize that players are making their salary and all this extra money?
5. Would kids stop wanting to play hockey for a living if they thought they could only make 90% of what current players are making?  What about 20%?  50%?
6. If players aren’t happy, why don’t they start their own league?  (That’s a real question—if they think the owners are unfair, why don’t they set up their own league and run it themselves?)
7. If the NHL minimum salary was $250,000 a year, would no one want to play any more?

The rest of the world has suffered a great deal through the economic downturn that has impacted thousands of businesses and millions of families since 2008.  The players somehow felt hard done by in the last set of negotiations.  But haven’t salaries risen astronomically since 2005?  Oh, right, that’s the owners’ fault—the owners who, if they tried to be reasonable and stopped handing out those salaries would be accused of collusion for suppressing a "free" marketplace.

Somehow, some are saying they support the players because the players are being taken advantage of by the owners.  I guess there’s a sense that players are part of a union, and many people identify with that.  But as much as I try to understand that sentiment, in my mind, the players could not be further from being an everyday union.  These guys are rich and their life circumstance is not even remotely—and I mean remotely—comparable to the hard-working individuals who work 48 to 50 weeks a year in a job and are part of a union in order to ensure that they receive adequate compensation and benefits.

Let’s be honest, the players work hard, yes.  And they are skilled, yes.  But they lead luxurious lives.  What do they pay for out of their own pocket?

I think fans (that’s us) are a huge part of the problem.  We criticize owners and GM’s who don’t pay huge money to get our team star players, then we rip the owners and GM’s who do for being “dumb” and paying out that big dough if and when the players under-perform, or the team doesn’t make the playoffs or come close to winning a championship. 

We can’t really have it both ways. 

I’ll be honest:  as much as I’d like the Leafs to spend enough to be competitive, I really want to see a team of hard-working individuals.  Some of my favourite Leafs of all-time have been the hardest workers:  Dave Keon, George Armstrong, Allan Stanley, Bobby Baun, Ron Ellis, Brian Spencer, Scott Garland, Rocky Saganiuk, Doug Gilmour, Gary Roberts.   I mean, if we built a team filled with guys who played their hearts out every night, like a young Jordin Tootoo—I’d be happy—and I’d be entertained.

Sure, you want and need some skill, but if my ownership said:  “Hey, this is our philosophy: we’re not ever going to pay out huge contracts.  No deals more than 4 years.  No player will make more than 4 million a year.  But we will draft, develop and build with these guys.  We’ll treat them great.  We’ll give them every opportunity to play in a tremendous city in a huge hockey market on the best hockey stage in the world.

If after they finish their second contract and they’re UFA’s and they’re not happy playing in Toronto, in front of the best fans in the world, where everyone adores them, we’ll let them go if their thing is making more money.  We want young, hard-working, team-oriented guys, not superstars with huge egos who only want to make ridiculous money.”

You know what: that I would pay to see.  But I have little interest in paying absurd sums to go to the ACC to see mediocre teams who are listless most nights (or for two-thirds of many games), and players who don’t give max effort night in and night out and always make excuses.

So I say, make a deal.  Now.  This week.  The owners don't "love" hockey.  They are greedy business people.  They are about making as much profit as they can.

But you players....you always tell us you play because you love the game.  So get back to playing the game you supposedly love and don’t play just “for the money”.  (It’s never about the money, but it always is…)

The forum is here to have your say.  It’s your turn.