If I remember correctly, Vancouver was one of the few teams that actually finished in the black the past few seasons. I think they made something like $20 million last year.

NOW THIS IS SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!!!

It's all about supply and demand. The most basic, and yet time-tested precept of economics. And yet this is the one concept which proves all sports related player unions to be disingeuous liars with respect to the fans. They claim it's not about the money, it's about freedom of movement, to work where you want when you want. Thereby, they pull the strings of the public, who can relate to such a concept. But they lie!!!

See, if it was really all about freedom of movement, what could be more appropriate than a marketplace where every player was a free agent at the end of every year???

Ask Bob Goodenow if he wants that. Ask Donald Fehr how he would feel. You would probably get some gibberish about how the owners would never want that. But that's nonsense. Since when do either of these negotiators care about what the owners want. They don't want that system because it would hurt the vast majority of their constituency. It would divide the players into two factions. The ultimate superstars (maybe the top 30 players) would receive huge amounts of $ on a one-year deal. But a baseball owner can justify paying Barry Bonds (clear, cream and all) $35M on a one-year deal if he can reasonably estimate that his inclusion on the team will generate $50M of revenue next season. But the other players... OH, the other players. They become (with apologies to Colin Campbell and the NJ Devils) interchangable parts at vastly reduced salaries.

Again, it's supply and demand. By effectively LIMITING the availability of free agents each off-season, the players unions have created not a free market, but a contrived market which ensures maximum dollar for their constituents. I don't blame them, that is their job. But let's look at it for what it is. That's why I get sick of hearing this fallacy that the Owners are responsible for this mess, they offered these contracts. They did so under a limited "free" market place.

By comparison, suppose you want to add a room to your house. Let's say that, in your immediate area, there are 30 contractors who have the resources and expertise to do the job. But, when looking at your options, you are told that during the next 12 months only five of these contractors are allowed to accept bids. Don't you think you will be paying a lot more than if you can make all 30 contractors compete for your needs? This is the same way the "free-agent" fallacy works.

So let's realize that the players unions lie when they tell us that it's not about the money... IT IS!

I see your argument but this "1-year contracts only" would just not be good for hockey even if (a big IF) it worked out financially. Thus it wouldn't be good for the fans either. It would be a horrible chaos every summer. Farewell to team chemistry, to homegrown talent. No way.

Absolutely.


Look what it does to the Rangers every summer.

Actually, I think one-year contracts would be best for the fans. We can forget about keeping a team together for a generation. That passed with the abolition of the reserve clause in baseball back in '76. In fact, if the owners do get their salary cap, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, expect earlier ages for unrestricted free-agency to appease the NHLPA. This will make it even harder to maintain team chemistry. As it is, the rich rule the marketplace (and regarding our Rangers, what they do with the money is another story for another time).

The reason IMO I think the fan will benefit is this: when you plunk down your hard-earned money to watch a hockey game, you are assured that 99.9% of the players are giving thier best effort in return. After all, they are always playing for next seasons salary. And those players who are not motivated to give it up under those cir***stances would not survive in the current, or any, NHL anyway.

This having been said, I am a realist. I know this will never happen. The NHLPA would not want it for reasons stated before. The owners wouldn't want it because they are too scared. It is radical. You know who had this idea? Charles O. Finley... the owner of the Oakland A's championship teams from 72-74. When the owners and players were talking about an imminent free agency process for baseball, Finley said that if they want to be free agents, fine. Make 'em free at the end of every year. Both sides though he was nuts. But he was absolutely right. And he was also smart enough to get out of sports ownership when he knew the negotiated system would raise the cost of labor exponentially.

So I am a team owner. I give a player a one year contract for the 2005-06 season AND, at the same time, a one year contract for the 2006-07 season AND, at the same time, a one year contract for the 2007-08 season. I am abiding by the rules - only 1 year contracts. But 3 of them.

Actually, I guess I should clarify that it would be against the rules (if it is not already) to sign a player to more than one contract. If that is not against the rules now, it would certainly have to be for this system to function.

Actually, I believe team chemistry is only fleeting these days. Once the reserve clause was gone, you are guaranteed player movement anyway. It is ironic how Mike Keenan reportedly told the Ranger players before game 7 against Vancouver that if they win this game they will walk together forever. Of course, he meant that about the 1994 Rangers and thier place in history. Yet Keenan was the first to jump ship.

My point is, gone are the days where team chemistry can be established for the long term. Rather, constructing a team becomes an annual challenge. Since I feel there is nothing that can be done to change that, we might as well let the marketplace become totally free. The net effect would be an overall reduction in the average salaries. You would like to think that would be passed on to the fan, but that gets back to supply and demand (again!). If fans don't go to the games, prices have to go down and salaries will follow.

I do agree about players becoming wayward these days. When I was young, you could become a ball player for about $45K a year, or an attorney for about $45K a year. If you really didn't love sports, you went to law school. Nowadays, you can become a professional athlete for $10M a year, or an attorney for about $150K a year. So if you really don't love sports, you become a professional athlete, play for 5-10 years, then retire with a chance to be financially set for life. Then you can go to law school in your 30's. Years ago, I believe that close to 100% of professional athletes loved what they did. Nowadays, I think the percentage is much lower... and we the fans suffer for it.