[News] NHL will not participate in 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

Only here is that viewed as weird. Country trumps Club in every single place in the world besides Canada (and I'm guessing the states).

Ovechkin has had this ingrained in him since he was a child.

If country trumped club, every European player would walk out on their NHL teams in the playoffs to go to the World Championships.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So?

Let them stand up and demand that they want to go to the 2022 games and beyond. The NHL will reply with "what are you willing to give up?"

The very same question that the NHL has been asking the union for the last several years. Maybe once the players are losing their paycheques they will finally tell Don Fehr to do his job and answer that question.

Not sure what you are arguing here?

I just don't want the lockout that is inevitably on the way.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by polak

Except club play stops for Country and every athlete that isn't close to retiring plays for country when requested?

They'll play for club and retire from international duty once they're older to lighten the load (they get paid by club) but lets not act like any player would be in anyway okay with not getting to play in the World Cup because their club wouldn't let them (in some crazy hypothetical scenario).

If players weren't allowed to go then they just wouldn't be allowed to go, it's not a choice. They are under contract.
For example, clubs were not obligated to release their players for the Olympic U23 tournament. So most of them didn't.

But in soccer this is not the case. It is in their contract that they are released for full internationals and it's also FIFA mandated. That's why Africans are allowed to run off in the middle of the EPL season to play in the African Nations Cup while the EPL continues. Some leagues such as Brazil and MLS do not stop for the World Cup but their players get to go.

Why couldn't the NHL just continue it's season while it's stars go the Olympics. That's what the WHL does every year during world juniors. The Hitmen continue.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Not sure what you are arguing here?

I just don't want the lockout that is inevitably on the way.

Neither do I, but the Olympic question was never going to cause a lockout. The larger issues that will cause it exist regardless.

[thefoss1957]

EPL also allows for rescheduling games if a certain number of players are missing due to international commitments...

As for me, I completely DESPISE the Olympics, the corruption, the hype, the pretense...the score swapping and tampering of officials...

I still remember 1972's Basketball controversy: "an Olympic official (Renato William Jones) sitting in the stands overturned the referees and demanded the Soviet team be granted another chance and two seconds were added to the clock. The shot made by the Soviets missed and the American Team began to celebrate, but the official demanded a third try be permitted. On the third attempt the Soviet team made the winning basket"

That killed the Olympics for me...never again cared to even watch...The disruption and changes to the NHL schedule are unacceptable, to this fan, as are the ridiculous "sports" that are subjectively judged...

I sat for a minute with the Wife as she was watching skating when Friggin' Torville and Dean got a "perfect score" in a routine in which he clearly bobbled her...yeah, that was "fair" score...and reinforced my contempt for the whole thing.

Good riddance to NHL participation in that political cesspool of an event.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

"Hi, I scored two points last season and was sat for more than half of my team's games. I'm still going to get a seven figure contract from my NHL team, but please, Mr. Russian Oligarch, pay me more. I don't actually care about you, I just want to use you to stick it to my current employer for refusing to send other players to go play in a tournament I will never sniff."

I got your point, dude. It's just not a significant risk. Only the KHL can pay the kind of salaries the NHL does, and even then, only for a very small number of players. They aren't going to bother on mid level players.

Also, I like how you completely glossed over my part about Hockey Canada's awkward position in your scenario.

Where did sticking it to the employer come from?? If you read my posts, I was saying an owner may regret this stance if an RFA/UFA jumped at the chance to sign a one-year deal overseas so they could play in the Olympics...which you just agreed could happen. So what are you arguing?

As for glossing over Hockey Canada's awkward position...I didn't respond cause your point didn't make sense. If Player X signs an overseas contract this summer with the specific intent to play in the Olympics, Hockey Canada would be ecstatic to add them to the Olympic roster (provided they're good enough). The league they're playing in will shut down for the Olympics and the NHL would have nothing to gain by trying to step in and force a Suiss team to ban a player from playing. It'll only get awkward if players with existing NHL contracts insist on playing at the Olympics (like Ovechkin)....but that wasn't what I was talking about.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

What a pleasant poster you are. Where did sticking it to the employer come from?? If you read my posts, I was saying an owner may regret this stance if an RFA/UFA jumped at the chance to sign a one-year deal overseas so they could play in the Olympics...which you just agreed could happen. So what are you arguing?

I am arguing that, while plausible, the odds of what you are suggesting are completely remote. You want to believe it is instead highly likely to satisfy your wants. And yes, such an act would be specifically to stick it to the NHL, which is why it is not likely at all.

As for glossing over Hockey Canada's awkward position...I didn't respond cause your point didn't make sense. If Player X signs an overseas contract this summer with the specific intent to play in the Olympics, Hockey Canada would be ecstatic to add them to the Olympic roster (provided they're good enough). The league they're playing in will shut down for the Olympics and the NHL would have nothing to gain by trying to step in and force a Suiss team to ban a player from playing. It'll only get awkward if players with existing NHL contracts insist on playing at the Olympics (like Ovechkin)....but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Dude, the "Swiss team" would have nothing to say about it. The NHL would know why your hypothetical version of Sam Bennett left the NHL for one year. And the NHL would make it clear to Hockey Canada that it considers such a player to be a renegade. So while Hockey Canada would have every right to name such a player to their Olympic team, it would have to weigh doing so against pissing off an organization that it is heavily reliant on to field its teams. Hockey Canada might do it anyway, but it might not. Certainly not for unproven players like Bennett and Lazar.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Good call. Missed that. It was the most reputable name of the google so I ran with it. Still though, the first 5 pages of a search pretty much reveal the same 5 sports. Sometimes bobsledding is thrown in.

FWIW - the 2010 final between Canada-US gold medal game was the most watched hockey game in the US since 1980 Olympics with an average of 27.6 million.

The 2014 semi-final between Canada-US was (is?) the most watched broadcast ever on NBCSN and also had the highest ever NBC streaming audience at the time (obviously way lower numbers than 2010 given the time and the channel it was on).

That 2010 audience is about 3 to 4 times higher than a Stanley Cup game. If the NHL can't earn money from that exposure, they've got issues. The 2014 audience close to a normal Stanley Cup game on NBC and it was on NBCSN.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

You don't think the KHL would jump at the opportunity to pay millions of dollars on one-year contracts to pull stars over and grow their league. Anton Lander reportedly signed a huge deal in the KHL and he's an AHLer. You're already hearing guys with contracts (Ovechkin, Kuznetsov) saying they'll go regardless so it's definitely very important to some. Theoretically, why wouldn't an up-and-comer like Lazar or Bennett take more money in the KHL on a one year contract, get more ice time to develop, and get the chance to play for Canada in the Olympics?

No I really don't think, apart from maybe a couple of Russian players, that anyone would do this. Not someone who is an established NHLer.

[PeteMoss]

Always amazed by the pro-owner setiment on this board by some. Unless you dislike Olympic hockey, I'm not sure why you'd support this decision. The fans are missing out on good hockey.

I can see the NHL's side on this and understand discussing why they made that decision, but supporting it is weird and basically against your own interest

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am arguing that, while plausible, the odds of what you are suggesting are completely remote. You want to believe it is instead highly likely to satisfy your wants. And yes, such an act would be specifically to stick it to the NHL, which is why it is not likely at all.

Dude, the "Swiss team" would have nothing to say about it. The NHL would know why your hypothetical version of Sam Bennett left the NHL for one year. And the NHL would make it clear to Hockey Canada that it considers such a player to be a renegade. So while Hockey Canada would have every right to name such a player to their Olympic team, it would have to weigh doing so against pissing off an organization that it is heavily reliant on to field its teams. Hockey Canada might do it anyway, but it might not. Certainly not for unproven players like Bennett and Lazar.

I never said there were high odds this would happen or that we should expect mass exodus. I simply said an owner may regret their stance if they lose a good RFA or UFA because of this. We both agreed this could happen for a select few players. And this isn't about satisfying my wants either. I'm saying the opposite - it'd suck to lose a player for that reason.

You keep telling me what I'm thinking (I think it's highly likely this will happen, I want this to happen to satisfy my wants, etc.) and you're wrong in every instance. Wasn't it you who "kindly" pointed out how much you hate when people do this in the Ryan Smyth thread?? haha...

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

I never said there were high odds this would happen or that we should expect mass exodus. I simply said an owner may regret their stance if they lose a good RFA or UFA because of this. We both agreed this could happen for a select few players. And this isn't about satisfying my wants either. I'm saying the opposite - it'd suck to lose a player for that reason.

You keep telling me what I'm thinking (I think it's highly likely this will happen, I want this to happen to satisfy my wants, etc.) and you're wrong in every instance. Wasn't it you who "kindly" pointed out how much you hate when people do this in the Ryan Smyth thread?? haha...

The difference is that in the Smyth thread, people were taking statements not made at all and assigning it to others - i.e., that people would like Smyth more if he played for Calgary. In this case, I am taking your very own words as your opinions. If you think it is an unlikely scenario, then why are you even bringing it up? The NHL is exceedingly unlikely to lose a good RFA or UFA, and even in the unlikely event that it happens, guess what? The NHL will continue on just fine. Players come and go all the time, even good ones. The league doesn't miss a beat.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Always amazed by the pro-owner setiment on this board by some. Unless you dislike Olympic hockey, I'm not sure why you'd support this decision. The fans are missing out on good hockey.

I can see the NHL's side on this and understand discussing why they made that decision, but supporting it is weird and basically against your own interest

The fans are missing out on good hockey because neither the IOC nor the NHLPA are willing to negotiate a deal. It is merely an issue of blaming the right parties for why we are where we are.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Always amazed by the pro-owner setiment on this board by some. Unless you dislike Olympic hockey, I'm not sure why you'd support this decision. The fans are missing out on good hockey.

I can see the NHL's side on this and understand discussing why they made that decision, but supporting it is weird and basically against your own interest

It is not that I dislike Olympic hockey, it is that I care a hell of a lot less about it than the Calgary Flames. So if Johnny goes over there representing the States and blows out his knee I am going to be super pissed or any other Flame for that matter.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The fans are missing out on good hockey because neither the IOC nor the NHLPA are willing to negotiate a deal. It is merely an issue of blaming the right parties for why we are where we are.

The NHLPA gets as much out of it as the NHL. They just want to go, so I'm not sure why they should have to give up anything to do it. I guess you can have at the IOC if you want but according to them they offered the same deal as before so not sure why its their fault.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The NHLPA gets as much out of it as the NHL. They just want to go, so I'm not sure why they should have to give up anything to do it. I guess you can have at the IOC if you want but according to them they offered the same deal as before so not sure why its their fault.

The players that go get to play for themselves and their nations, and the rest get a vacation. Put simply, the NHL does not want to go. The players do. The NHL controls the season. If the players want the NHL to make allowances for their desires, then the players need to negotiate.

This is no different than the All-Star Game. The NHL wanted to change to 3 on 3, but the players insisted on something in return - the bye week for each team. Funny how things only flow one direction in the NHLPA's world. If the NHL wants something, they want compensation. If they want something, they expect to be handed it for nothing.

[sureLoss]

How the NHL can prevent players from going to the Olympics:

http://www.tsn.ca/how-the-nhl-can-pr...mpics-1.715216

So, what can the NHL do to curb individual players from leaving their club?

One option would be to issue a rule stating that any player who leaves his club next February to play in the Olympics will be banned from playing for his team for the remainder of the season, including the Stanley Cup playoffs.

The belief is any such unilateral order would quickly be grieved by the NHL Players’ Association, who would likely feel that stiff a penalty and change to the rules would need to be bargained.

There are a number of other, more creative options on the table.

According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, any player under NHL contract leaving his club to play for another without being loaned is grounds for a material breach of contract.

A club could then seek to terminate that player’s contract, and even potentially sue that player for millions in damages that occurred as a result of the breach, including an impact on the team’s poor performance or lost revenue due to reduced attendance.

If a player like Ovechkin were to follow through and go to the Olympics with Leonsis’ permission, such a breach of contract would probably not be contested. The Capitals wouldn’t want to terminate Ovechkin’s contract or hold him liable for damages.

But what if Leonsis and other team owners don’t have a choice?

Under the NHL constitution, Bettman is afforded broad powers to “ensure the integrity of the game and public confidence in the League.”

According to Section 6.3 (j)(b), Bettman can impose a fine on a team owner for as much as $1 million and revoke draft picks. He can increase that amount “as much as may be prescribed by any League rule or By-Law.”

In other words, Bettman could issue a decree that any breach of contract by a player not pursued by his club would be subject to a fine of $10 million.

Would Leonsis write a cheque for $10 million for Ovechkin to play in the Olympics? What about for Kuznetsov, Backstrom and Oshie?

[Benched]

Wonder if Putin would bankroll a mass Russian exodus in February in order to see Russia take gold.

[Coach]

If the NHL came out and said "the IOC is a corrupt organization and the NHL does not want to participate in activities involving the IOC until blah blah blah" I would be forced to agree. Not sure what an NHL player sit out would do to convince the IOC of anything, but it would be nice to just hear them say it.

[Gaudfather]

Bettman on PTS with Bob McGowan this afternoon, would not touch the Ovechkin comment other than to say players are contractually obligated to the NHL.