NHL Players, The Olympics, and YOU

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,487
NC
Arthur Staple ‏@StapeNewsday
#Isles GM Garth Snow spitting mad over Tavares' Olympic injury: "Are the IIHF or IOC going to reimburse our season ticket holders now?"

More Snow: "It's a joke. They want all the benefits from NHL players in Olympics and don't want to pay when our best player gets hurt."

Snow: "It wouldn't matter if we were 10 points up on a playoff spot or 10 points out. We lost our best player and he wasn't playing for us."
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
It sucks given how great the tournament is,
but that's why I'll be stunned if they go to South Korea in 4-years. The owners assume all the risk and get nothing in return. Can't blame them for getting pissed. Ed Snider was steaming about it 2 weeks before the event even started.

Sometime over the next few years they'll come up with a World Cup/WJC type tournament to put on the hockey calendar that doesn't interfere with the NHL season. It won't be the same as the Olympics, but it'll be there.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
cshea said:
It sucks given how great the tournament is,
but that's why I'll be stunned if they go to South Korea in 4-years. The owners assume all the risk and get nothing in return. Can't blame them for getting pissed. Ed Snider was steaming about it 2 weeks before the event even started.

Sometime over the next few years they'll come up with a World Cup/WJC type tournament to put on the hockey calendar that doesn't interfere with the NHL season. It won't be the same as the Olympics, but it'll be there.
 
Nothing in return?  Olympic hockey is huge for the sport's popularity and far outweighs the loss of a player like Tavares to the NHL as a whole. It seems incredibly short sighted of the owners to be against NHL players in the Olympics
 

ajml

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
441
Exactly. TJ Oshie has been on every network, prior to the Olympics how many people in the US had ever even heard of him. It's a large risk/reward and obviously it sucks for the Islanders but long term it has to be a net positive for the league.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I'm not going to pretend to know what the results of a poll would be, but I would be willing to guess that there's a good chunk of NHL players that view playing in the olympics as more important than anything they do in the NHL, especially among those that have already made their money. With that in mind, good luck getting the NHLPA to back anything that would disallow players from playing in the Olympics. Quite frankly, if they did, I think you'd see some star players set up their contracts for them to be FA during Olympic years, and just take the year off to focus on that. I can't see how that's a better solution for the NHL.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
Greg29fan said:
Arthur Staple ‏@StapeNewsday#Isles GM Garth Snow spitting mad over Tavares' Olympic injury: "Are the IIHF or IOC going to reimburse our season ticket holders now?"More Snow: "It's a joke. They want all the benefits from NHL players in Olympics and don't want to pay when our best player gets hurt."Snow: "It wouldn't matter if we were 10 points up on a playoff spot or 10 points out. We lost our best player and he wasn't playing for us."
My initial response to that was that Garth Snow should reimburse the season ticket holders for putting together a shitty roster. He's terrible.

And I don't believe the NHL doesn't get a benefit from the Olympics, but when the games are so afar away that boost isn't as great. I think the players get the most out of it, which is why I don't believe the NHLPA will go along with the owners on this. Plus, if they don't go, and the other pro leagues players do, then those players and leagues will get a huge boost from that while the NHL gets nothing, and alienates their fans and players in the process.

I fully expect them to be playing in South Korea in 2018. I'd be shocked if they didn't.
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
Ed Hillel said:
I'm not going to pretend to know what the results of a poll would be, but I would be willing to guess that there's a good chunk of NHL players that view playing in the olympics as more important than anything they do in the NHL, especially among those that have already made their money. With that in mind, good luck getting the NHLPA to back anything that would disallow players from playing in the Olympics.
 
I am skeptical. A good chunk? I would be surprised if over 10% thought this, and even then, I think that's way too high. In fact, how many active players ever actually said that Olympic gold was more important than the Stanley Cup? I don't recall ever hearing that. Any North American players say it?
 
Bergeron made his thoughts clear on the matter. "Sorry Canada, but I've got to go with the Stanley Cup. The gold medal is up high for sure, but this is a childhood dream. When you're playing hockey, you're thinking about hoisting the Cup. Now I've had that chance."
 
By my count, there are about 145 NHL players in the Olympics this year. Using 23 man rosters and ignoring call ups, LTIR, etc, that gives ~690 regular NHL players and 906 guys have played at least a game in the NHL this year. So, only 15-20% of the league is even involved in the Olympics. And that's before taking out guys from countries with no shot at medals or particularly gold, reserve players, etc... Even if every player who goes over there views the Olympics as more important (clearly not the case), you're looking at a high of about 15% of the NHL. I doubt it's even a third of that.
 
 
Ed Hillel said:
Quite frankly, if they did, I think you'd see some star players set up their contracts for them to be FA during Olympic years, and just take the year off to focus on that. I can't see how that's a better solution for the NHL.
 
This might be the craziest thought I've heard on the issue. I don't think there would be a single American or Canadian player who did this. It's possible a Russian might try to go to the KHL or just straight up violate his contract (Ovechkin said he would go to Sochi regardless, but views a Cup as just as important), but sitting out a year? To focus on the Olympics? That just wouldn't happen. Also, any player who decided to sit out a year likely wouldn't be picked for an Olympic team.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
According to the league, the "free" exposure is more of a perceived bonus than anything else. They don't actually see any sort of boost in business from the Olympics. 
 
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--nhl-vs--olympics--going-to-games-is-treat-for-players--troubling-for-owners-174829606.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory
 
To the owners, the Olympics are more trouble than they’re worth, especially when they’re outside North America. The owners are pausing play midseason to lend their high-priced assets to someone else’s tournament, sometimes halfway around the world. What’s in it for them? Not as much as you might think. Certainly not as much as they thought when the NHL started going to the Olympics in 1998 in Nagano. For all the talk about exposure and all the anecdotal evidence that the Olympics generate buzz about hockey, the league has reviewed the hard data.
“I don’t think from a business standpoint – from a tangible business standpoint – it has any positive impact on our business at all,” said NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly at the World Hockey Summit in Toronto in 2010. “And in some cases, it has a negative impact.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
I think it's much more likely that the Olympics have a positive effect on the game of hockey around the country, less so on the NHL directly. I bet it makes kids more likely to play and be fans rather than driving increased revenue for the NHL.
 
The NHL could see a boost in 10-20 years from the Olympics, but that's basically impossible to measure and even if we could, I doubt NHL owners would care to look out that far in the future.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
The Four Peters said:
I think it's much more likely that the Olympics have a positive effect on the game of hockey around the country, less so on the NHL directly. I bet it makes kids more likely to play and be fans rather than driving increased revenue for the NHL.
 
The NHL could see a boost in 10-20 years from the Olympics, but that's basically impossible to measure and even if we could, I doubt NHL owners would care to look out that far in the future.
I would argue that boost has already happened. I think the depth of the US hockey program shows it, and showcases like the Olympics are where it happens. And when more people play hockey and fall in love with the sport, the more they will spend money on the bet form of pro hockey there is, the NHL.

If it turned solely amateur again, it is a different story. But with professionals being allowed to play, I don't think the owners will win this argument. Pandoras Box has been opened, man, and it's, like, not gonna close.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
The Four Peters said:
I think it's much more likely that the Olympics have a positive effect on the game of hockey around the country, less so on the NHL directly. I bet it makes kids more likely to play and be fans rather than driving increased revenue for the NHL.
 
The NHL could see a boost in 10-20 years from the Olympics, but that's basically impossible to measure and even if we could, I doubt NHL owners would care to look out that far in the future.
That's a great point, I'd agree. 
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
ForceAtHome said:
 
I am skeptical. A good chunk? I would be surprised if over 10% thought this, and even then, I think that's way too high. In fact, how many active players ever actually said that Olympic gold was more important than the Stanley Cup? I don't recall ever hearing that. Any North American players say it?
 
 
I don't know, has there ever been a poll? I'm quite skeptical that 10% is "way too high". I think you underestimate the value that many individuals place on patriotism. Not to mention, many players will already have a cup and it may be that the medal has moved to the top of their list at that point.
 
 
 
Also, any player who decided to sit out a year likely wouldn't be picked for an Olympic team.
The coach choosing from a bunch of college players and amateurs isn't going to take the NHL-caliber player on his roster? Why exactly? I'm quite skeptical of your assertion that "not a single player" would not play in the NHL or violate his contract, but I think it's more likely to come in the form of the NHLPA and threatening to strike over the issue than it ever getting banned to begin with. Like Realness said, Pandorra's box has been opened, and I thinkit would be a much bigger deal than you're making it out to be for more people than you believe.
 
I think we're so far off, it may have to be agree to disagree, but I would love to see a poll.
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
Ed Hillel said:
 
I don't know, has there ever been a poll? I'm quite skeptical that 10% is "way too high". I think you underestimate the value that many individuals place on patriotism. Not to mention, many players will already have a cup and it may be that the medal has moved to the top of their list at that point.
 
Let's clarify the situation you've laid out:
  • "star player"
  • "set up their contracts for them to be FA during Olympic years"
  • "especially among those that have already made their money."
  • "already have a cup"
Since they're all on Team USA, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as star players. Here is a run down of players on Team USA who could have in theory hit UFA to time a year off for 2013-14:
  • Paul Martin: Martin had made $15m in contracts when he signed his first big deal a few years ago. He would have had to give up $10m on the back end of that deal to be a free agent in time for the Olympic year, or 25% of his career earnings.
  • Zach Parise: Actually got paid prior to his first big contract due to his injury/apparently not wanting to stay long term in NJD. After missing nearly all of 2010-11, Parise signed a 1 year deal for the next season for $6m to reach UFA and then get paid. Of course, if Parise were to have timed his contract to take this year off, he'd lose out on at least $86m guaranteed.
  • Ryan Suter: Suter had never made over $3.5m per season before signing his mega deal. Still, he'd made a very comfortable $16.3m and could have afforded to take a year off. Like Parise, timing a contract to take this year off would cost Suter at least $86m guaranteed.
  • Dustin Brown, Paul Stastny, Ryan Callahan, Phil Kessel: would have had to cut years off first post-ELC deal.
  • Joe Pavelski, Ryan Kesler, Brooks Orpik, Jonathan Quick: would have had to cut years off first contract worth more than $1.1m-1.8m AAV
  • Jimmy Howard, David Backes, Ryan Miller: would have had to cut years off his first contract worth more than $2.2.-$2.7m AAV
So, how many of these guys were really in a position where they had already made their money? Martin, Parise, and Suter are the best options. Parise and Suter would each be giving up a guaranteed $86m which seems just a little bit unlikely. Martin would be giving up a "more reasonable" 25% of his career earnings.
 
And of those guys, none of them have won the Cup. Dustin Brown, Brooks Orpik, and Jonathan Quick are the only eligible possibilities. There simply aren't many/any guys who fit your criteria. I would stand by my claim that I don't think there would be a single American or Canadian player who did this.
 
Edit: Also, you think it's higher than 10%? As in, over two-thirds of all NHL players who play in the Olympics value winning Olympic gold over the Stanley Cup?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I'm really not sure what you are trying to do here. I was talking about a situation in which NHL players were not allowed to play in the Olympics. Obviously nobody playing now would have set up a contract to play in the Olympics, because the players are currently allowed to play in the Olympics. You are overthinking this. It's apparent you think that NHL players. by a gigantic margin, would pick playing in the NHL for a year over playing in the Olympics that year. I think that, certainly, most would, but I would not at all be surprised to see a few players at some point shun the NHL in one way or another (sit out, play in another league, violate a contract, etc.) in order to play. I was just looking at a few possibilities that would weigh against a policy not allowing NHL players to play in the Olympics. Even if it's one guy like Ovechkin, is it really worth it for the NHL to lose that guy over the risk of someone getting hurt? That's ignoring all the other benefits of playing in the Olympics that have been referenced in this thread.
 
ForceAtHome said:
 
Edit: Also, you think it's higher than 10%? As in, over two-thirds of all NHL players who play in the Olympics value winning Olympic gold over the Stanley Cup?
 
 
What exactly does this show? I'm sure there are more players who would play in the Olympics if it was simply a matter of choice. What I'm trying to capture is the general feeling of the importance of the Olympics to NHL-caliber players. I'm not really sure what laying out the actual number accomplishes, we're talking about a percentage. You're saying you expect that way less than 10% of the overall population of NHL players would take a gold medal over a Stanley Cup. I disagree, and think it would be higher. So what? We disagree on what percentage of NHL players would rather win a Stanley Cup than a gold medal. The question has never been asked from what I have seen, and I'm surprised you are seemingly so passionate about it. I don't think my position is absurd, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. As I also mentioned, if something like this ever came up in the CBA, I don't think the NHLPA would ever allow it to happen. I think it's too important to too many players.
 

ForceAtHome

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2008
4,011
Maine
Ed Hillel said:
I'm really not sure what you are trying to do here. I was talking about a situation in which NHL players were not allowed to play in the Olympics. Obviously nobody playing now would have set up a contract to play in the Olympics, because the players are currently allowed to play in the Olympics. You are overthinking this.
 
I totally understand what you're saying... which I why I looked at the issue from the angle I did. I looked to see --under the assumption that NHL players couldn't participate in the NHL unless they sat out a year-- what players would have been in a position to give up contract years and money to sit out a year? As I found, and made clear, the answer is not many. With hockey getting younger, and Olympic teams taking a lot of young players, many to most of these guys simply would not have been in a position to take that risk.
 

 
Ed Hillel said:
Even if it's one guy like Ovechkin, is it really worth it for the NHL to lose that guy over the risk of someone getting hurt? That's ignoring all the other benefits of playing in the Olympics that have been referenced in this thread.
 
If the NHL loses (e.g.) Ovechkin, that sucks. But the league has already lost Kovalchuk and Radulov. It lost years of Jagr. It will lose players in the future --especially young Russians, I suspect-- due to money. It will go on regardless. I also believe that the majority of these guys, Ovechkin included, are dying for a Cup. That's one major incentive the NHL offers over all other leagues.
 
There are also other downsides. In an Olympic year, teams play more condensed schedules which can raise the issue of fatigue and probability of injury. Keeping operations running for a longer season is also more expensive. There are certainly teams who are losing money trading February games for more October games. Owners love money. If there such an obvious benefit to their pocketbooks, there would be strong support from the owners. They obviously disagree, especially in the short term. With the next Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, the positives to be had are reduced based on the distance.
 
Also, the majority of NHL players get an awkward hiatus in the middle of their season that is good for those unlucky enough to be hurt or fatigued, but not ideal for everyone. The NHL allowing players to play in the Olympics is probably one of the grandest examples of star treatment around.
 
 
Ed Hillel said:
What exactly does this show? I'm sure there are more players who would play in the Olympics if it was simply a matter of choice. What I'm trying to capture is the general feeling of the importance of the Olympics to NHL-caliber players. I'm not really sure what laying out the actual number accomplishes, we're talking about a percentage. You're saying you expect that way less than 10% of the overall population of NHL players would take a gold medal over a Stanley Cup. I disagree, and think it would be higher. So what? We disagree on what percentage of NHL players would rather win a Stanley Cup than a gold medal. The question has never been asked from what I have seen, and I'm surprised you are seemingly so passionate about it. I don't think my position is absurd, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. As I also mentioned, if something like this ever came up in the CBA, I don't think the NHLPA would ever allow it to happen. I think it's too important to too many players.
 
Why does it matter if Shawn Thornton would rather win Olympic gold than a Stanley Cup when it comes to the risk of losing NHL guys? He's never going to get that chance. He, like the majority of the NHL, are irrelevant as potential Olympic hockey players.
 
I think there's going to be a real fight for the 2018 Olympics, and rightfully so. I love seeing NHL players in the Olympics. It's appointment television for me. (Though to be honest I'd watch amateurs as well. The WJC is my favorite annual non-Stanley Cup tournament.) Unless the owners/NHL get something out of a deal, I can see and understand them being very reluctant to keep the status quo.
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
11,938
Multivac
Great discussion, all.

My opinion is that, while some players value the Olympics enough to make it a real sticking point, that for most, as FAH points out, it is irrelevant. For them and for the PA, it is a bargaining chip for negotiations and no more. The PA as a whole would likely gladly give it up for an increased share of revenue. I am actually surprised it wasn't bargained away in the last agreement.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,466
Gallows Hill
TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
 I am actually surprised it wasn't bargained away in the last agreement.
 
 
It was part of the last CBA agreement. It was a bone that the owners threw the PA when they got them to agree to roll back the players' share of the HRR and put term limits on contracts. The owners will use this or another similar issue in their next money grab attempt, I mean CBA negotiation.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
Salem's Lot said:
 
 
It was part of the last CBA agreement. It was a bone that the owners threw the PA when they got them to agree to roll back the players' share of the HRR and put term limits on contracts. The owners will use this or another similar issue in their next money grab attempt, I mean CBA negotiation.
Olympic participation is not covered under the CBA. It's a separate agreement between the NHL, NHLPA, and the various governing bodies of the Olympics and international hockey (IIHF, IOC).
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
Yep, they specifically punted it out of CBA negotiations so that it wouldn't derail things at the end since there were so many moving parts.
 

TheRealness

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
11,694
The Dirty Shire
kenneycb said:
World Championship 2.0 I'd imagine.
 
Pretty much. The KHL, SEL, and other Euro leagues will all still likely send their players. It's good exposure for them with the NHL sitting at home. Then the US and Canada would field a team of amateurs/juniors/AHL players I would imagine, so the US and Canadian teams would end up much like the World Championship teams they field. 
 
 
TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
Great discussion, all.

My opinion is that, while some players value the Olympics enough to make it a real sticking point, that for most, as FAH points out, it is irrelevant. For them and for the PA, it is a bargaining chip for negotiations and no more. The PA as a whole would likely gladly give it up for an increased share of revenue. I am actually surprised it wasn't bargained away in the last agreement.
 
The owners will never give that up. What they save from those hard-line CBA negotiations is far more than what they "lose" by sending their players to the Olympics. I'm sure the NHLPA would give it up to for the right price, but I don't believe the owners would ever get near it. 
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,466
Gallows Hill
cshea said:
Olympic participation is not covered under the CBA. It's a separate agreement between the NHL, NHLPA, and the various governing bodies of the Olympics and international hockey (IIHF, IOC).
 
You're right, it wasn't part of the CBA "agreement" because the IOC & IIHF aren't involved in NHL matters, but we all remember how that went deal went down. The league didn't officially agree to let the players go to the olympics but they made it clear that the league wouldn't take a hard stance against it this time. As long as the players signed the deal and gave back the 7% of HRR and agreed to the contract length rules that the owners wanted. 
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
There actually wasn't much of a fight between the players and the league. The league fought with the IOC over insurance. The IOC is paying $8 million towards insuring the players contracts while playing in Sochi.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
The NHL is short sighted. The Olympics gets people watching hockey and kids want to play. The spike in girls hockey after Nagano was huge in both the USA and Canada. I remember a marketing class that had a "Good way/ Bad Way" page and the good way was the NFL. It said the NFL was looking for TV viewers 30 years down the road. A condition of Carolina getting the Panthers was throwing money into high school football, because guys that play football are almost always going to watch on TV. Meanwhile in Phoenix all the NHL looked at was luxury box sales.
 
There may be no short term gain in NHL attendance ratings, since many people tune in out of nationalism. But kids are more likely to play and those kids will watch the NHL. I don't suddenly watch pro women's soccer after the good showing Canada had in the Olympics, but my daughter plays now and she will watch the Toronto FC games on cable now.