Tavares out for the season

[losveratos]

Compensate them for what absence??? I really just can't understand your argument there.

Do they not still play 82 games a year? Do they not sell just as many tickets and perhaps even more as I'm sure some of their fans might have chosen an olympic game over an NHL game during the olympics if it was to take place in America or Canada.

The playoffs are just as long.. the TV rights aren't affected at all.

The NHL loses nothing but time... and it's time they don't actually lose anyways. In the years when there's an Olympic break the summer is shorter.... the time they get no money in the summer is the time that's shorter.

However those olympic games might have sold a few more TML Kessel jerseys or the like which will also gain more money for the NHL.

What outside of injuries of course does the NHL actually lose? It seems to me nothing.

And as for the insurance. I understand how it works. What I meant was that the players could afford to have no pay during the time they're injured if they actually had no coverage due to an olympic games injury.

Another thing I just thought of. The American's getting the silver last olypics I read had increased interest in the game for young athletes. Which I thought was the second reason Mr Bett had a job. The first being the Cap, I thought the second was expansion to garner interest and breed more American players to expand the talent pool.

I just don't see a loss from the NHL side in this.

Convince me please. Don't just tell me where you think my opinion is wrong. Show me how and why the NHL is losing and how and why avoiding the olympics is a real gain for the NHL.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

As for hockey taking over the Olympics, it's the number one draw, there's no doubt about that. I think it's why the IOC wants it there.

But that's why I feel like it's a little hollow when people complain about the NHL owners objecting to sending their players. I have no doubt that the owners are rich, greedy jerks who object on the basis of it costing them money but the flip side of that is that the IOC and IIHF are rich, greedy jerks who want the players there because they make money off of it.

So this is one of those very, very few areas where I kind of see the owners point. If the international committees want NHL players there they should at least be footing the bill for the insurance.

I'm not arguing for hockey being there or not being there, just trying to give the IOC's point of view. I don't disagree with anything you've said above.

 

[Kin]

Convince me please. Don't just tell me where you think my opinion is wrong. Show me how and why the NHL is losing and how and why avoiding the olympics is a real gain for the NHL.

Ok. So, before we get into specifics, do you think that NHL owners have a relative clue as to the ins and outs of their business? Forget whether or not you agree with their strategic decisions, do you think they know what makes them money or loses them money?

Ok, so, aside from the injuries which are a big a deal and you gloss over there's also the matter of selling tickets in a compressed schedule(which, by it's nature, forces more games into bad times or less optimum days), there's the way a compressed schedule makes individual games worse(and likelier to result in injuries themselves), there's also the costs associated with running a hockey team that exist day to day that continue to exist during an Olympic break and that aren't abated by simply extending the season.

Not even DGB, in his piece that Potvin quotes above, doubts that the owners object to the Olympics because it costs them money. Unless you're of the opinion that NHL owners either don't know what makes them money or don't care then I think you have to respect the fact that the reason that NHL owners object to players going to the Olympics is financially based and that the benefits you proclaim, and lets be fair most of those are anecdotal, don't compensate them enough for them to be in favour of continuing their relationship with the Olympics.

 

[Kin]

I'm not arguing for hockey being there or not being there, just trying to give the IOC's point of view. I don't disagree with anything you've said above.

Yeah, I was building off your post. Not arguing with you.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

I'm not arguing for hockey being there or not being there, just trying to give the IOC's point of view. I don't disagree with anything you've said above.

Yeah, I was building off your post. Not arguing with you.

We don't argue around here, we discuss in loud voices...That's what I tell my wife we're doing when she tells me to stop yelling anyways.

 

[Leaflifer]

Do they not still play 82 games a year?

They play 82 plus the Olympic schedule + playoffs if they make it. I personally think the 82 game season is a long haul to begin with. I think they do Olympic camps too.

The NHL loses nothing but time... and it's time they don't actually lose anyways.

Its also wear and tear on the biggest assets of their game.

I agree its very exciting, however,  I also think the WJC is, Under 17 tourneys, Womens hockey...point being it doesnt HAVE to be NHLers to be exciting. It just needs to be intense.

As a seasons ticket holder (my family is anyway) it would be hard to swallow seeing your team's most exciting player knocked out for any stretch in a non-NHL situation. A large investment is drastically reduced in value due to a preventable situation.

I love best on best hockey, but I am an emotional Leaf fan...a little short on logic sometimes I admit...I am a little worried about Kessel and JVR logging more icetime than neccesary. The way the team is playing, and especially PK, the Leafs could fare better this year in the playoffs, and this just adds more mileage to the year for 2 of our best players.

Leafcentric, maybe...but if I owned a fast car and made my money from it, I wouldn't lend it out to a race track who intends to drive the snot out of it. If they smashed it, I would want more than, well...nothing.

If PK gets a puck in the head tomorrow, or is concussed...I am upset on many levels.

 

[L K]

Do they not still play 82 games a year?

They play 82 plus the Olympic schedule + playoffs if they make it. I personally think the 82 game season is a long haul to begin with. I think they do Olympic camps too.

The NHL loses nothing but time... and it's time they don't actually lose anyways.

Its also wear and tear on the biggest assets of their game.

I agree its very exciting, however,  I also think the WJC is, Under 17 tourneys, Womens hockey...point being it doesnt HAVE to be NHLers to be exciting. It just needs to be intense.

As a seasons ticket holder (my family is anyway) it would be hard to swallow seeing your team's most exciting player knocked out for any stretch in a non-NHL situation. A large investment is drastically reduced in value due to a preventable situation.

I love best on best hockey, but I am an emotional Leaf fan...a little short on logic sometimes I admit...I am a little worried about Kessel and JVR logging more icetime than neccesary. The way the team is playing, and especially PK, the Leafs could fare better this year in the playoffs, and this just adds more mileage to the year for 2 of our best players.

Leafcentric, maybe...but if I owned a fast car and made my money from it, I wouldn't lend it out to a race track who intends to drive the snot out of it. If they smashed it, I would want more than, well...nothing.

If PK gets a puck in the head tomorrow, or is concussed...I am upset on many levels.

It's not nothing though.  For all that the NHL is, it is not a World-wide product.  It doesn't even have ubiquitous appeal in North America.  The Olympics sell America on hockey.  The World Juniors don't.  The Spengler Cup sure as heck doesn't (and that is pretty much the quality of hockey that would be played).

Right now the only sports that matter are Basketball and Hockey.  No-one really cares about the NBA in ho-hum games when the Olympics are on.  This is a marketing bonanza for the NHL, and if they are going to get pissy about the value of their players (which is fair to do) they are throwing away a valuable component to growing the game.

 

[Kin]

It's not nothing though.  For all that the NHL is, it is not a World-wide product.  It doesn't even have ubiquitous appeal in North America.  The Olympics sell America on hockey.

See, I don't know that it does. No more than the Olympics "sell" America on figure skating. I think America, like most other countries, get momentarily excited about sports their athletes do well in during the Olympics and then quickly revert to their regular viewing patterns once the Olympics are over.

Like just about everyone else, I loved watching the women's soccer in London. Watched every second of that semi-final game. Have I watched a second of Women's Soccer since? Nope. Would I buy a ticket to watch a fledgling Women's pro soccer league tomorrow? Probably not. Will I watch and get excited about Women's soccer in the next Olympics? Unless Canada goes on a similar run, almost certainly not.

So the idea that the casual hockey fan watches hockey at the Olympics and gets really into it in a more permanent sense, I've never seen anything that makes me believe that's a widespread thing. I think most North American casual sports fans are familiar with hockey, either like or have passed on the NHL, and then enjoy the Olympics with very little connection between the two.

 

[Leaflifer]

Plus, Bettman has been trying to sell the NHL in expanded NA markets by bringing in teams throughout the US. It hasn't been all that successful IMO even with having a team based in those markets. Olympics aren't going to do any better.

 

[losveratos]

See, I don't know that it does. No more than the Olympics "sell" America on figure skating. I think America, like most other countries, get momentarily excited about sports their athletes do well in during the Olympics and then quickly revert to their regular viewing patterns once the Olympics are over.

Like just about everyone else, I loved watching the women's soccer in London. Watched every second of that semi-final game. Have I watched a second of Women's Soccer since? Nope. Would I buy a ticket to watch a fledgling Women's pro soccer league tomorrow? Probably not. Will I watch and get excited about Women's soccer in the next Olympics? Unless Canada goes on a similar run, almost certainly not.

So the idea that the casual hockey fan watches hockey at the Olympics and gets really into it in a more permanent sense, I've never seen anything that makes me believe that's a widespread thing. I think most North American casual sports fans are familiar with hockey, either like or have passed on the NHL, and then enjoy the Olympics with very little connection between the two.

Sorry I didn't reply to this a long time ago. I got suddenly busy and forgot about this yesterday.

While I think you're right about adults feelings towards sports. I've never really thought that that equation was important. You are definitely right that adult sport fans will go back to the sports they've been watching with their friends and family before any of these events. What I think is the more important aspect is the children and teenagers. They are still deciding (or having decided for them) what sports they're interested in. And that generally stays for the rest of their lives. Even the team they like hardly ever changes even if they more away to a new city.

And what you were saying before about it costing the franchises money to keep everything operating during the couple weeks downtime for the olympics. I just don't think that's reason enough.

Now I don't deny that there are costs involved with the time away. They still need to pay salaries and cleaning and rent and whatever. It all adds up. But this time is special. And it doesn't matter if you agree with that. It just matters if most people agree that it's something special.

I'm sure my boss does't want to pay me for Christmas while I'm home on my ass not working. But it's the law and culturally acceptable loses. He doesn't want to give me my multi-week vacations every year either but the countries that most people live in and its citizens have agreed together that again that's an acceptable loss for companies.

I'm pretty sure that if you added this question the the Canadian census (Should NHL franchises operating in Canada allow their contracted players to play in the Olympics?) it would destroy the opposition.

And in my books... wen it comes to these kinds of special times like holidays and the like. People's opinion is more important than I'm sure works out to a inconsequential amount of money for these Canadian companies.

I could care less what the American's do with their players. Not my country.

Also I forgot to add... they actually covered the players insurance. The IOC is covering the insurance for the Islanders. And the other players that were injured to. So... yep.

 

[Kin]

Now I don't deny that there are costs involved with the time away. They still need to pay salaries and cleaning and rent and whatever. It all adds up. But this time is special. And it doesn't matter if you agree with that. It just matters if most people agree that it's something special.

Well, no. What ultimately matters is what sort of agreement the NHL and NHLPA come to, not public opinion. If public opinion ruled the day over the concerns of those two groups, there wouldn't have been a NHL lockout or a CBA dispute at all.

And you're mistaking what I'm saying for some sort of personal opinion about what I want to see. My point here has never been that I don't like NHL'ers in the Olympics but rather that the NHL owners have very good reason not to want players to go and that being as they're one of only two groups of people who actually get a say in the matter, that is pretty significant. Likewise, I reject the idea of painting this as good vs. evil when it's the IOC vs. the NHL's board of governors. That's just one group of scumbags vs. another.

That you think that the NHL should send their players to the Olympics is all fine and dandy but unlike workers having certain basic rights to time off(which is not the best analogy for this situation, wherein millionaire athletes who already get three months off a year want to compete in the Olympics) there is no moral or legal obligation for the NHL to agree.

Again, this isn't about me. I like watching best on best hockey as much as anyone else. That doesn't change the fact that I can see why the NHL doesn't want to go and respect that ultimately, it's their decision.

 

[losveratos]

Just like you're saying this isn't about you. I likewise think this isn't about them either. I think that there are two main opinions outside of popular consensus and only those two that truly matter in the end.

The Countries choice of who will represent them in a given event.
Then the chosen athlete's accepting or declining of the honour.

Adding into that equation what those franchises care about (money) is just not appropriate.

I've been reading the largest concerns about the Olympics for the owners. What it seems to come back to time and time again is the TV rights and promotional rights. Also the ability to have playbacks and highlights on their own channels. Like Mapleleafs TV or NBC in the US. Whatever the current contracts are for.

If the IOC gave them what they wanted it would be a horrible step back for employees in the NHL. Imagine if you will that somehow the NHL players all got together and did one gigantic commercial for a company like McDonalds. McDonalds pays the players and earns money from the commercial.... but why should the NHL get their fingers in the pie too?

Or move over to something else. The TML players on their own release an album of hockey songs. No charity... just because they wanted to. Does TML deserve part of the money from the record sales? Maybe if they put the Maple Leaf on the CD cover. But that's a whole different story.

They claim that the olympics are profiting from their product. Well what about the SEL or the KHL or the AHL or whatever other leagues these players also came from? Do we start divvying out the pie 7 ways? Is it proportional to the amount of players sent from each league?

It's just all incredibly selfish and self serving.

They have stock holders and chairmen and whatever else they've got that they need to answer to. But I just don't think that those people should be asking "How can we monetize the Olympics?" That's not their window or their product. Kessel wasn't wearing a Maple Leaf. He was wearing red white and blue. The NHL should grow up and respect that.

Unless I see some insane figures of 7 digit or more losses across the board for every franchise in the NHL... I just don't understand it outside of greed.

You don't hear the other leagues complain. Just the NHL because their fingers aren't in the pie that was never theirs to begin with.

 

[Leaflifer]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

 

[bustaheims]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

No one is forgetting about them. Injuries at the Olympics just isn't going to cause enough of a change in their behaviour to have enough of a financial impact to influence the decision making process. It's really not like a meaningful percentage of season ticket holders across the league aren't going to renew their tickets because a handful of players that play in the league were injured at the Olympics.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

Why would they get something in return?  They've lost 10-15% of their ticket value?  How? 

Plus, they knew about the Olympics prior to renewing their season tickets. 

 

[pnjunction]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

They get the exact same thing if he takes a hit like that in any away game (with only the added benefit of seeing the injury live if it happens at home).

I see the principle of it not happening in an NHL rink, but logically it's just 6 more games in 4 years where the NHL would have them play up to 440 competitive games in that time not including preseason. 

Unless you suggest professional NHL players significantly 'phone it in' and play soft then the chance of injury per game is about the same (maybe even higher in the NHL with fighting and more hitting?) so we're talking less than 1.4% increase the risk that a guy like Tavares catches a bad break and screws up his knee. 

Yeah it sucks when it happens but that's hockey, as someone else said would it really be much better to injure it during a visit to Buffalo with the Islanders?  The fact that it didn't (happen with the Islanders) was literally a 1.4% fluke in my opinion and should be treated as such.

 

[Kin]

Just like you're saying this isn't about you. I likewise think this isn't about them either. I think that there are two main opinions outside of popular consensus and only those two that truly matter in the end.

The Countries choice of who will represent them in a given event.
Then the chosen athlete's accepting or declining of the honour.

Adding into that equation what those franchises care about (money) is just not appropriate.

You're making this entirely more abstract an argument than it actually is. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the NHL's concerns are appropriate. What matters is that the NHL does have to consent to letting players play in the Olympics. Since that's a stone-cold truth then it becomes a matter of arguing that there is a reason for the NHL to agree there has to  incur the costs you've admitted to. I don't see that there is one outside of my own self-interest in seeing best on best international hockey which, while the Olympics are a good way to see that, isn't necessarily something that the IOC needs to be a part of.

If the IOC gave them what they wanted it would be a horrible step back for employees in the NHL. Imagine if you will that somehow the NHL players all got together and did one gigantic commercial for a company like McDonalds. McDonalds pays the players and earns money from the commercial.... but why should the NHL get their fingers in the pie too?

Well, would filming the commercial require that the NHL take three weeks off and compress their schedule for the year? If you're under contract to someone and ask them for two weeks off so that you can go and make money for someone else why are they obligated to let you?

By requiring that the NHL shut down for three weeks and using the players, you are involving the NHL and requiring their consent. You realize that's true, right? 

It's just all incredibly selfish and self serving.

I don't disagree. I'm just not going to pretend that the NHL are the only ones being self serving here. The IOC wants NHL players out of their greed, the NHL owners don't want to let them go out of their own. There's no moral divide there.

And the truth is that, right now, the NHL and your various other hockey leagues around the world are doing something that no other professional leagues do to accommodate the IOC. Major League Baseball never shut down their schedule in the middle of summer to let players go into the Olympics, which is a reason some people believe the Olympics dropped baseball. The international federations in FIFA don't send their best players to the Olympics. International basketball all takes place in the off-season(and even then, some owners are pretty vocal about not liking the toll it takes on their players).

So the idea that the NHL has an obligation here to the IOC just doesn't wash. Again, I appreciate liking the tournament and I appreciate that the players like the tournament but if the argument is that the NHL, unique among basically every major sports league in the world, has some sort of special obligation to the IOC or to not monetize the best international competition in the world...there's no convincing argument for it.

 

[Leaflifer]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

No one is forgetting about them. Injuries at the Olympics just isn't going to cause enough of a change in their behaviour to have enough of a financial impact to influence the decision making process. It's really not like a meaningful percentage of season ticket holders across the league aren't going to renew their tickets because a handful of players that play in the league were injured at the Olympics.

I agree that it's not going to make a huge impact, but I will maintain it does have enough to disappoint fans. Honestly ask yourself, if you could afford only one or two games a year, are the Islanders going to be on your list knowing you won't see John Tavares? I'm sure I'm like many fans who are interested in seeing the other teams best players, as well as the Leafs best.

I know this is a rare occurrence, and this alone is likely not worth keeping the NHL out of the Olympics, but I do think its a serious enough factor to have an impact.

My insurance company felt I need to move my wood-stove one more inch to the left before they insured it. To an insurance company, there are no small margins. That's just another way of looking at it I guess.

Whatever Ken Holland says, you can't tell me Zetterberg couldn't have used the rest. They're lucky to have Datsyk, and a strong following.

Again, I realize this isn't a widespread opinion, it mostly stems from watching PK and JVR being shipped out while they're hot, and the Leafs needing all the points they can get for a good position. I've invested to much time and money into the Leafs to not care about such things.

I won't dwell on that aspect too much. I think the imposition is spread out among fans and owners, and it's enough to consider a different option for the Olympics.

 

[losveratos]

I think we're forgetting about season ticket holders. They get nothing in return. NYI ticket buyers have probably lost about 10/15% of their ticket value, depending on whose in town.

No one is forgetting about them. Injuries at the Olympics just isn't going to cause enough of a change in their behaviour to have enough of a financial impact to influence the decision making process. It's really not like a meaningful percentage of season ticket holders across the league aren't going to renew their tickets because a handful of players that play in the league were injured at the Olympics.

I agree that it's not going to make a huge impact, but I will maintain it does have enough to disappoint fans. Honestly ask yourself, if you could afford only one or two games a year, are the Islanders going to be on your list knowing you won't see John Tavares? I'm sure I'm like many fans who are interested in seeing the other teams best players, as well as the Leafs best.

I know this is a rare occurrence, and this alone is likely not worth keeping the NHL out of the Olympics, but I do think its a serious enough factor to have an impact.

My insurance company felt I need to move my wood-stove one more inch to the left before they insured it. To an insurance company, there are no small margins. That's just another way of looking at it I guess.

Whatever Ken Holland says, you can't tell me Zetterberg couldn't have used the rest. They're lucky to have Datsyk, and a strong following.

Again, I realize this isn't a widespread opinion, it mostly stems from watching PK and JVR being shipped out while they're hot, and the Leafs needing all the points they can get for a good position. I've invested to much time and money into the Leafs to not care about such things.

I won't dwell on that aspect too much. I think the imposition is spread out among fans and owners, and it's enough to consider a different option for the Olympics.

But if we look at it another way... people who were injured before the olympics which is substantially more than were injured at the olympics. Those players all got 3 weeks more rehabilitation during the games!

Take a look at the jet's for example spoken about in this article.

"The Jets Evander Kane, Jim Slater, and Matt Halischuk are all on schedule to return, missing fewer games thanks to the break in the schedule. This is a real positive for Winnipeg, especially the return of Kane who has been injured often this year but is probably the Jets most talented player when healthy. The break afforded Kane more time to recover from his infection and allowed him to miss fewer games."

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/sochi-winter-olympics-2014/2014/2/24/5436802/why-the-nhl-should-be-at-the-olympics

I think the olympics injuries and the recovery time for previously injured players is pretty much a wash. Look at us for example. We lost no one in the tournament but we gained a huge amount of recovery time for Bolland.

 

[losveratos]

And Nik. On your front coming from the business side of things I'm wrong. Olympics is bad business today. But I don't see this once every 4 years event as being something that should be loathed so much by the governing bodies of the NHL. But I don't think I'll reach you on the sentimental side of things.

So I guess we're at a stand still on opinions. Thanks for the discussion