The Inherent Immorality of the Trade Deadline
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 4:30 PM MST
in Opinion
Email
Print
For about two weeks every year, the Canadian and American hockey worlds combine to obsess over every detail, pore over every contract, plunge into every rumour, and give life to the vast, remorseless automaton that is the NHL trade deadline. Dozens of players move from city to city, the future of teams sometimes remade in an instant. Some buy, some sell, some just seek great bargains, but there's no fan base who accepts "yeah, we decided to stand pat this year" as an acceptable way to handle the deadline. Either you should be dumping promising assets or picking up essential ones; there never seems to be an in between.
Don't worry, I'm not here to rant about how much attention the deadline gets from the media. It's great theatre for those of us whose teams plumb the flooded basements of the NHL. What I resent is the system of player movement dominant in the NHL and the rest of North American sports. Players are property of the league, not the team, and they are moved around like pawns on a board. If the general manager says you're an Anaheim Duck, then you're an Anaheim Duck. If he wants you to be a Columbus Blue Jacket, you're a Columbus Blue Jacket. No stability, no predictability, no freedom. It's a situation with almost no parallels outside North America. Only the most beaten-down workers would accept that from their employers, and in Europe player movements come almost exclusively with the player's consent. We and we alone hang on to this preposterous system that's not so much "antiquated" as "absurd".
A player signs a contract with a team, and unless he's wrangled a no-movement clause he's free to be tossed around like a softball between owners, managers, and coaches. His future is in the hands of those with anything but the player's best interests in mind. There's no historical basis for this policy, and in the earliest days of professional hockey the system was much freer. But as the NHL evolved during the Clarence Campbell era, the owners inexorably gained more and more power over their players. Some of these have been rolled back thanks to unrestricted free agency, the World Hockey Association, the NHLPA, and the like. But the most heinous laws of all, those governing player trades, are almost unchanged since Harold Ballard decided Darryl Sittler was no longer worth the trouble.
It's unfair and it's unjustifiable. The NHL trade deadline is great, but NHL trades themselves are repulsive.
What a fluke of history it is that, in North American sports, the player is an employee of the league and in the rest of the world the player is an employee of the team. It's not like the Europeans are progressive player-rights-loving peaceniks. The famous Bosman ruling, which was European soccer's equivalent of hockey's abolishing the reserve clause in 1970s, only came in 1995 after a fierce legal battle. Nor does the out-of-contract player have absolute freedom: a wide variety of rules combine to restrict the European professional athlete in any number of ways. Yet a French fourth-division soccer player working part-time in a pâtisserie has far more freedom of action than Sidney Crosby.
This isn't the way it's always been. In the earliest days of the game, players were transferred by joint agreement with their team owners for cash or players. Hockey Hall of Famer Cyclone Taylor famously jumped from the National Hockey Association to the Pacific Coast Hockey Association for $1,200 in 1912, touching off a row with the NHA that was only healed in 1947. The first NHL Entry Draft, tying young players to teams regardless of their consent, came in 1963. Prior to that date, players were free to sign contracts as they liked. While the "'C' form" because infamous for tying a player to a franchise and the byzantine negotiation lists meant that players were the exclusive NHL property of the teams that wanted them, ultimately the player had a chance to sign a contract at his will or make a good living in any of a number of independent professional or semi-professional leagues.
The transition from players controlling their own destinies to the primacy of the team was gradual. During most of the history of the National Hockey League, players had the choice of playing professional hockey elsewhere in North America for leagues outside the NHL aegis: the World Hockey Association, the old Western Hockey League, the glory days of Canada's semi-professional senior leagues: if a player didn't like the way his NHL career was going, then as a last resort he could play elsewhere for less glory but still, ultimately, a living. That's hardly a possibility today. There are professional European leagues and many North Americans do play there, but it's a more difficult move from Ottawa to Helsinki than from Ottawa to Toronto.
A player who sticks up for himself in the NHL gets a ferocious stigma attached to him. Mario Lemieux, drafted first overall by the Pittsburgh Penguins, refused to so much as stand up and walk to their draft table until he had a big-money entry contract and it was years before the NHL's chattering classes forgave him. Eric Lindros became the quintessential me-first player of the 1990s, his parents mocked for their influence on his career, all because he didn't want to suit up for the Quebec Nordiques. More recently, Evgeni Nabokov was criticized in some quarters for refusing to report to the New York Islanders after being plucked off of waivers. These weren't young men who made a commitment and then tried to back out of it like Alexei Yashin. They just didn't want to be dictated to; to be told where they would play by fat guys in suits. A player is drafted, signs an entry-level contract, and goes through years of restricted free agency with no ability to decide his own place of work just because he had the temerity, the bare-faced cheek to want to play professional hockey.
At the lower levels of hockey, we're already seeing the system start to crumble. CHL fans, and most particularly Ontario Hockey League fans, could regale you with stories of top junior prospects quietly informing mediocre teams in lousy cities that, if drafted, they'll refuse to report. Better franchises like the London Knights have the inherent advantage that players want to play there and the players have all the leverage: the NCAA would be more than happy to take them. The resulting system is the worst of all worlds. It's unfair on the players, as only the biggest stars can risk their junior careers in such a fashion. It's unfair on the teams, who in the salary-controlled world of junior hockey can't spend their way out of trouble. Yet any suggestion that the CHL scrap the draft hasn't gotten beyond the lunatic fringe.
If I devote all this passion to the draft, you can imagine what I think about trading players without their consent. Not only do we unthinkingly accept that Mike Sillinger should have to change apartments a dozen times for his job without any say in the matter, but we deride and mock players who try to avoid it. How much abuse did members of the Toronto Maple Leafs come in for when they refused to waive their no-trade clauses? Mats Sundin had spent most of his career in Toronto, didn't want to pack up and move, and in spite of years of gallant service became a villain of the first rank among some Leafs fans. If any of our bosses told us that we had to move across the country to a city we liked less for no more money, we'd tell him to fuck off. But for an NHL player, this is the natural state of being.
Is it any better for fans, either? I'm writing this to an audience of Edmonton Oilers fans. If Kevin Lowe had tried to trade Ryan Smyth to the New York Islanders, only Smyth had the right to say "no"... either Smyth would have said "no" and a great deal of heartbreak/putting up with Ryan O'Marra would have been averted, or Smyth would have said "yes" and there'd have been no doubt on where his sympathies lay. If some mediocre plug wants to hang around and refuse a trade long after his welcome has been worn out, bury him in the minors or buy him out. Obviously most players wouldn't do that: there are few human beings eager to stick around where they're not wanted.
There's a simple solution. Have contracts be with the teams, not the players. If you want to trade for a guy, fine. Re-negotiate his contract with the player, and if you both sign along the dotted line the trade can go through. The idea that players are pawns to be moved around at the will of officialdom is preposterous, rooted in some nineteenth-century ethos where the worker is no less interchangeable a part than a fuse.
Of course, that's not the way we do things around here. But the way we do things around here is wrong.
125 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I completely agree with this. I always feel awful for the player shipped across the country in an instant, maybe to a worse team, maybe to a city he doesn’t like as well, maybe far away from his family without a chance to say goodbye because he has to get to his new team and be in the lineup. I also feel horrible for the family, especially kids who don’t understand why dad is playing so far away from home now. It’s awful.
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
This is part of corporate life too. People working for large corporations get transfered all the time. While they often don’t leave with the speed of hockey players, they still often have to go or quit. More than a few execs I have worked with have faced this, and they get paid a lot less than hockey players.
Sorry, not buying the arguement here. Players are obligated to a team for only 7 years now. Anything beyond that is their choice. In my work travel (which I hate) is a condition of employement. I have to go where my clients are, or find another profession. I like the work so I accept the travel when it comes up. Many other jobs have similar conditions of employment in terms of travel. You go where the company tells you to, when they tell you to go (see consulting, accounting, mining, retail, etc). Is this also indentured servitude, or a career choice? Getting traded is a condition of thier employment until they can negotiate a no-trade clause, if they can. They get paid way more than the rest of us and they get paid to play a game.
So, until you have stood in the security line on Monday mornings at your local airport week after week, you really need to be careful about your perspective on the hardships these players endure from being traded or obligated to a team for seven years. Its certainly no worse than many people in the “real world” and I could find 100 people who would argue even with those conditions, hockey players are still way better off than the average corporate joe.
So your telling me you cannot find another job in your profession that would require no travel? I’m in accounting, and I know plenty who must travel, and others who prefer not to, and so they do their accounting in another industry, where they have an office where they work in every day.
The choice is there.
I don’t disagree that trades aren’t very fair to the players, and especially to their families, but let’s not forget that NHL players have the same option that everyone else has if they are not happy with their circumstances. Find another job. Something tells me if you were to poll the players to see if they would accept the same average salary as the rest of the North American workforce, in exchange for the guarantee they would never be traded, you wouldn’t find a single player willing to accept that arrangement.
As for the family life, as much as getting moved around would suck, how many fathers get to retire comfortably before they’re 40 and spend all their time at home?
by DeanoTPS on Feb 24, 2011 4:56 PM MST reply actions 4 recs
I’ll save Benjamin the trouble of pointing out that this salary comparison is a false dichotomy. I happen to disagree with his overall point, but I can’t really find a logical way in to disagreeing with him.
I will point out that guaranteed contracts don’t exist in other jobs either, so that might be the trade off. I don’t think any players would trade non-guaranteed contracts for full no-trade clauses.
by Triumph44 on Feb 24, 2011 5:00 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
No one claimed its a dichotomy. Its quite simple. They have a great job, making an incredible income, this is just a side effect. No one is forcing them to play professional hockey.
Do you have a problem with the draft too? Because they don’t get to choose there either.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
It’s impossible to have a reasonable debate with that sort of notion. Minor league players are privy to this indentured servitude as well, are they excluded because they usually make more than $50,000 a year?
by Triumph44 on Feb 24, 2011 5:36 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think using terms like indentured servitude to refer to professional athletes in the developed word is bananas.
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Feb 24, 2011 5:38 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Are you really
Attempting to equate playing professional sports with indentured servitude? Really? I cannot have a reasonable debate with someone who considers someone who freely signs a contract to be played to play a sport "indentured servitude.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
a “false dichotomy” is a logical fallacy, it means that the argument isn’t logically consistent and valid, and Triumph44 is correct in his assessment of it.
No
False dichotomy:
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. …
A logical fallacy means that “an argument isn’t logically consistent and valid”. I guess he could have been claiming that playing or not playing is a false dichotomy, but otherwise I am not sure. More likely he meant to use logical fallacy but instead used false dichotomy.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Guaranteed
Most corporate management people have contracts that are guaranteed. The company generally can’t just fire or lay them off, nor can they just quit and go to work for some other company, a separation has to be negotiated. You may have seen a former division head suddenly in a smaller office on “special assignment”. They are looking for a another job while a financial settlement is worked out. But companies certainly do not get to reassign them or trade them to another company without their consent.
Just look at the teams management, no drafts or trades without their consent. All paid ridiculous money for a privileged job, can seek a job with any team and free agent whenever the contract is up. Why should the rules be different for the players then for management?
Because the Owners have a monopoly, and they could get away with treating players like property, but it is changing. There was no free agency in any sport until Curt Flood took it to court in the 70’s. Sacrificing his career, cut years short, and even though he won the case he got really nothing but the right for all the other players in the future.
The leagues fought long and hard and lost. They swore it was the only way it would work, and they would all go bankrupt, and they were absolutely wrong. Both in what they said about the business outcome, it seems like they actually flourished since, and legally for trying to justify continuing to treat employees/people/players as property in the face of change and improvement in conditions in virtually all other fields of employment. Just because things have been a certain way doesn’t mean they should stay that way or that it is morally right.
Conditions and pay have changed for players, but that does not invalidate that the draft, trades, etc. are the vestiges of a system that treated people like property. They still refer to players as the teams property. That doesn’t mean that the draft or trades will go away immediately, but that they will probably continue to evolve so that the players have more control of their destiny, and that the system functions more like other workplaces.
The entertainment industry studio system used to be very similar. Just because people on wall street or the entertainment industry make even way more obscene amounts of money no-one makes the argument that it’s a privilege and that they should shut up and accept whatever working rules etc. the management/producer/studio heads dictate, or that we should go back to that system, even if they think the movies were better back then.
Can you imagine if, while you were in engineering, law, or medical etc. school they had a draft and some company in your field just picked you, you were now their property for 7 years before you could think about change companies, and until then they could send you, at any time, anywhere across the country, to work for any other company they chose, and you had absolutely no say at all.
Your only choice being your original field of study, and after that the only option is choosing another field. Oh, and even if you were lucky and very, very good your career would probably be over in your 20’s, certainly in your 30’s. The vast, vast majority will then have to start over, not having made anything close enough to retire. Such a privilege.
Not that long ago most jobs in industry were even worse and many of those owners cared little if people were injured or died while working for them. Though in some ways it was an improvement over much of history when all of us would have been serfs and considered as part of the land owned by a few lords. Conditions for most have improved to the point that they are taken for granted by many who now no longer see any need for the unions that were instrumental in those improvements. Could you imagine losing the right to work where you want and the personal control you take for granted? How do you justify denying to others the same freedoms and rights you feel entitled to? Just because it has been that way?
As for the family life, as much as getting moved around would suck, how many fathers get to retire comfortably before they’re 40 and spend all their time at home?
There are a very small amount of players able to retire from their income earned from their hockey careers. A very small amount.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I feel zero sympathy for them
No one is forcing them to play hockey. Its not their only way to make ends meet. They are international stars making (at minimum) $500 000/year and on average ~ $2.3 million/year. When you are making that kind of money it comes with some draw backs, one of which is lack of control of where you play/live. If you don’t like it: don’t play.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I agree with this. It might be hard on the player but boo hoo there are people who are making a fraction of a fraction of their salary and getting a similar “shipped across the country” treatment.
Being a Leafs fan makes me bipolar.
Zero
Most NHL players are not stars, much less international stars, and are forgotten very shortly after their short at best maybe 3-5 year careers are over. Sorry for your lack of empathy, what makes you so bitter?
Although many (perhaps most) NHL players have an NHL career that lasts only three to five years, their hockey careers generally last much longer. The minimum AHL salary is $40,000 Cdn. and while that’s no hell, it’s certainly not a huge step down from the entry-level wage of many other jobs. Most AHL players actually earn more than that, and there are many opportunities in Europe as well. If a player is talented enough to make it to the NHL, a ten to fifteen year hockey career would be pretty feasible, and even if the player only plays two NHL seasons, that should be enough to bank $1M, which is what many folks have to retire on. The individual won’t be able to retire at 30 or anything, but if he gets another job (working to the normal retirement age, the horror!) after his hockey career has ended, he’s in very good shape. The guys who never make it to the bigs are a different story, but a player who spends at least two full seasons in the NHL should be set up pretty nicely from a financial standpoint.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 26, 2011 9:13 AM MST up reply actions
furthermore, those are not the guys who are generally traded around. You see more established players traded in the league, who have made much more money than ‘just’ a million or more.
of course prospects are traded all the time, but by that time they are not -players with established roots i.e family and home and things like that
Rebuild is a convenient excuse for GMs who dont wish to do their jobs
Figures that we would each write a column slamming the deadline today. Nice work Massey. You should write more…
by Stephen Sheps on Feb 24, 2011 5:03 PM MST via mobile reply actions
I think the draft is much more unfair than trades. If a player doesn’t want to be traded he can ask for an NTC. Whenever a player signs a contract without an NTC it is implicit that his destiny and place of work is controlled by the team for the years of the contract.
The draft and the RFA period is the real crime. We should definitely lower the age where a player can be a UFA.
I'm building a beautiful statue, to make sure that no one forgets you
So without trades, what happens when a team wants to get rid of a player? They just fire them? Send them right to the minors? I think a better solution might be to lower the UFA age.
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Feb 24, 2011 5:16 PM MST reply actions
He’s not necessarily saying no trades, just that the players should have some rights in drafts/trades.
Often a trade may be a mutual benefit. The current system is better then it used to be but mostly only the real stars have any say, NT/NM clauses.
Sports are behind, with vestiges still of a very different era. Players are still called the property of the team, and in some ways still treated as such.
Just acknowledging that the system is flawed and there is still room for improvement in treatment of players, to require more consent.
I really don’t see how “they get paid a lot!” is a defense to “their lives are at the mercy of their general manager”. I genuinely don’t. They don’t even seem like related issues, except tangentially (i.e. if a general manager needed a player’s consent to a trade, he might be more conservative signing massive long-term contracts). What’s the connection? Is it anything other than the seemingly-inevitable “you get millions of dollars to play a game!” envy? It’s like saying “trades are fine because oranges are delicious”.
I agree that the draft is more heinous than the trade market, and you’ll notice I mentioned the draft a couple of times in the article. To be blunt, the reason this article focused on trades is because it’s trade deadline season; no other reason.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 5:21 PM MST reply actions
No one has 100% job security, saying that their lives are at the mercy of their general manager is a little much,
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Feb 24, 2011 5:24 PM MST up reply actions
I’ll try to explain it. Playing in the NHL (or other NA professional leagues) is a privilege. They get to play the sport that they love against the best in the world and make a fortune doing it. One of the conditions of that privilege is not having control of where they live and play. If they don’t want to give in to that condition they don’t have to play. Its that lack of force that stops it from being immoral.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Playing in the NHL is only a privilege in the sense that any job is a privilege. To us, mad hockey fans that we are, it’s something to be seen with wide eyes and plenty of envy. I understand that, really. But I really don’t see how it affects basic labour freedoms that we all take for granted in our lives. Freedoms that, for that matter, athletes everywhere else in the world also take for granted. Premier League soccer players? Formula One drivers? They’re miles and miles ahead of NHL in both salary and freedom.
Like I said in the article, if my boss told me he’d traded me to New Jersey for a new Dell I’d tell him to fuck off. But, then, if I decide to quit my job my alternatives aren’t “move to Russia and make 10% as much as I do now” or “find another line of work”.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 5:32 PM MST up reply actions
Except
When you sign jobs with SOME companies part of the contract is that you may be moved to other headquarters. You accept that condition or you don’t accept the job.
Also this is just ridiculous:
Playing in the NHL is only a privilege in the sense that any job is a privilege.
If you don’t consider playing professional hockey for at minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars a privelage I cannot agree…
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
And fail again. Most players don’t get paid at minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars. Average pay of an AHLer? ECHLer?
Buddy
Read the article. He wrote it about the NHL. If this were about the ECHL/AHL maybe I would have listened. But again no one forced them to play hockey. No one forced them to throw everything away for a “sports education”. That is the way the league works and I have no problem with it.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
I might have once agreed about the amount hockey players are paid, but not many players fall into the top bracket, and even they aren’t spending many years playing, never mind the risk of a career ending early due to injury.
Fine – you’re going to give something up if you’re lucky enough to be paid good money to do what you love, but is the cost really self determination? “Find another job” is the rallying cry of robber baron.
by eddy the lip on Feb 24, 2011 5:51 PM MST up reply actions
About a year and a half ago, the company I work for got a new GM. He was transferred over from the office in Toronto to Edmonton because the head office was planning to sell that location. His options were A-Move to Edmonton or B-Find a new job. Was this immoral as well? (As a side note: his family lived in Vancouver the entire time he was working in both Edmonton and Toronto. Just as NHL players often live in a different city than they play, he travelled back to Vancouver frequently for his family.) There are any number of jobs out there where relocation and large amounts of travel time are part of the job. I fail to find that immoral on its own, these are conditions that must sometimes be accepted in certain lines of work. And walking away from a pro hockey career might mean you make 10% of what you were making previously, but this isn’t like moving from a $50 000/year job to a $5 000/year job. And players have/had the option of university to give them useful skills aside from hockey. If I spent my early twenties playing in go nowhere bands in an attempt to “make it” instead of going to university or learning a trade, and then found I don’t have the skills needed for a high paying job, whose fault is that? These men knew what they were getting into, they know the odds of “making it”, and they chose the trade-off of the risks of relocation for the chance to make a living doing what they love. It’s not an ideal situation, but options were available to them (also note that hockey families tend to be more affluent than those in other sports, which generally means the players have more options available to begin with) and they chose the game.
I also don’t disagree that the European system is more player friendly on the whole (and I also don’t disagree with the ridiculousness of fans ranting about players who won’t waive their NT/MC’s), but it’s not sunshine and roses either. The case of Blackpool FC rejecting Liverpool’s bids for Charlie Adam despite his wishes (and his father’s pleading) is demonstrative of the fact that, even without a North American-style player trading system, a club can still put its wishes well above those of its player’s.
by despisethesun on Feb 25, 2011 10:55 AM MST up reply actions
The European style is a more player friendly style in that if a club wants to sell a player, but he refuses to accept, the club cannot sell him, and must honor the contract.
That is where it is much more friendly to the player. It works both ways, and all three parties must agree. (The player, selling club, and seller club).
I’m not sure how it’s so much more moral in this specific instance, though. If the team wants to trade a player, but the player wants to stay, then the trade is unethical. If the player wants to leave but the team won’t allow him to, that’s ok? In either case, the player signed a contract. As long as both sides are abiding by the contract, I’m not really sure where the issue is, and if the contract allows for the player to be traded to another team, again, I’m not really sure how that’s immoral.
by despisethesun on Feb 25, 2011 3:59 PM MST up reply actions
I personally don’t think the way the NHL is run is immoral, but I do think it would be more ‘fair’ (for lack of better term) if North American sports were ran with players having a say in where they go.
Players go into the league knowing the rules and presumably accept them by signing their contract, so to me it’s not immoral, no one is forcing them to sign on the dotted line.
I do think the system could, and should be changed to allow for players to be able to reneg on where they are going however.
No. Your argument ignores sunk costs, and makes a false equivalence between Sheldon Souray, Sidney Crosby and Pavel Datsuyk who are paid millions and the average NHL whose career is not nearly as long, and who are paid not nearly as well.
At the point a professional athlete, in particular those at the lower tiers of the NHL, or in the NHL/AHL interface they have given up their education for a ‘sports education’ and their career earnings prospects outside are drastically reduced.
Again
No one forced them into this line. Their goals were to make the NHL. A condition of working in the NHL is that you do not have full control over where you work.
To be fair had he made this article about what its like in the AHL or ECHL maybe I would have listened more. Even so thats the industry and I simply have no problem with it. In the end they are entertainers. If they don’t like it they don’t have to play.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
No one forced them into this line. Their goals were to make the NHL. A condition of working in the NHL is that you do not have full control over where you work.
Absolutely true. That’s the way it is. It’s just not the way it should be.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 5:42 PM MST up reply actions
I disagree
The bottom line is they are entertainers. It makes it more entertaining to have trades. The bottom line is the NHL exists for the fans to entertain us. And I would be willing to bet (I unfortunately do not have data or statistics to back me up) that most fans enjoy trades and would be dissappointed were this to leave the league.
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Gladiators and dancing bears were entertainers, too.
by eddy the lip on Feb 24, 2011 5:58 PM MST up reply actions
In your opinion.
Hey, I would love to work in a world where I could tell my boss, “sorry, I don’t want to work on that client engagement in (Windsor, Winnipeg, Rochester, Akron, etc.). I only want to work on clients in my home city.” I would be shown the door so fast it would make your head spin. No one forces me to be in my industry. Its a reality of the industry.
In sports, they need a system to re-stock the talent pool for all teams (not just those in favourable locations) and allow for re-balancing as needed. Any other system would likely lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, or a two tier league system.
To be fair had he made this article about what its like in the AHL or ECHL maybe I would have listened more bq.
So your premise of argument is salary-based? Ben is talking about the industry as a whole, using the NHL tradeline as his premise, and not the exact point of the article.
Except this situation rarely apploes to AHL or ECHL players.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
AHL and ECHL players are rarely traded?
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 2:01 PM MST up reply actions
A person can make a ton of money being an automotive design engineer too. They get to design cars and car parts for the best companies in the world and make a ton of money doing it. However, they aren’t forced to work for Gentex and only Gentex. And if they want to work for a company other than Gentex they are free to pursue work for other automotive companies at their whim.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Yes but that engineer can be laid off any time. Some else can be brought in as his superior. He may have to take a salary cut. However, in pro sports there is financial security. An employee is works in a compan only as long as his employer thinks that he is benefitting the company. Once a person stops being useful, he is sent back home packing. In the NHL, he is at least still playing and getting paid till his contract is up.
Rebuild is a convenient excuse for GMs who dont wish to do their jobs
Yes and No
That engineer probably applied and interviewed at a number of companies, selected one that he agreed to work for, and can leave at any time he wants to go to another company, and he can also be laid off, or fired.
Management typically has employment contracts in which the parting of ways has to be negotiated by both sides. That is why you sometimes see a manager moved to another office and job before they finally move on, often with a settlement. Typically the contracts are shorter term.
The draft and the trades/moves with most all power on one side do raise the specter of slavery. Many said free agency would destroy the league and team loyalty but it appears to have done the opposite, and boy was there fear of the salary cap. Bad management should not be able to hide behind authoritarian rule.
There really is no argument to justify the current system, it really boils down to an irrational fear of change. The next CBA will be a changed from this one.
Can we please stop using the slavery word here… it cheapens the argument significantly.
The argument to justify it is that it has been agreed to by the players as a whole. Not only that, but not doing it this way has never even been considered by them before.
They haven’t been bargained out of this with other perks, they’ve actively chosen not to pursue it.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
These guys are making millions for god’s sake.
Sure the guy applied around and got a job, but that is not the main issue here. The topic here is the trading part. Ben did talk a little about it but its not the focus.
Rebuild is a convenient excuse for GMs who dont wish to do their jobs
Hockey players have that choice as well. They can sign short term deals and move to other leagues (Europe, KHL) as they see fit each and every summer once thier entry level deal is up. They just won’t make the obsene money they make in the NHL.
Or, they can do something else, like go back to school, become a business person, a carpenter or a TV analyst, whatever. Sorry mate, they can’t have thier cake and eat it too.
If you want substance from me then boy are you looking the wrong direction.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 6:08 PM MST up reply actions
Maybe the “finally” was over dramatic… but personally, i missed the Benjamin Massey post game summaries.
Anyone can slap together a summary from watching highlights and slapping together innane banter cough cough
but when Ben used to sum up an Oiler game? … man you could almost feel the misery
by Bananahammer on Feb 25, 2011 3:51 AM MST up reply actions
I didn’t realize Ben’s mom was a regular here.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
She actually is but I’ve made her promise to never comment.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 9:02 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Your Whitecaps may be moving into MLS, but that’s some very non-MLS soccer thinking there.
Onto poorly articulated pipe dreams:
It won’t happen with the major North American leagues being cartels, but I would like to see sports in North America be more market-oriented like soccer is overseas. No draft, no restrictions on free agency, no salary cap the new-contract after transfers you propose (as an aside, relegation/promotion is a pipe dream; the infrastructure isn’t there and there is no way owners would want to open up their cartel). All you need is to ratchet up the revenue sharing to spread the wealth and encourage parity most desire and I think things would look pretty good.
The upside is you wouldn’t have managers carrying out nefarious activities to circumvent arbitrary restrictions like the salary cap with a contract like Marc Savard’s, or Kovalchuk’s. If an owner is hyper-competitive or irrational he can go ahead and spend himself or the team into oblivion. At least they wouldn’t be compelled to do so like I believe a few of the Sunbelt teams are right now.
With no disrespect to any of the other C&B writers, I do like your articles, Ben. Thanks for this.
While they are well compensated monetarily (sometimes ridiculously so), the emotional toll that years in hockey at various levels takes is unappreciated. Trades are a huge part of that. I simply don’t understand the fan mentality that can disparage “I love this city and don’t want to leave it.”
This isn’t a service to fans, either. I find I’m keeping more of an eye on teams I frankly wouldn’t care about, except as opposition, because players I enjoyed watching as Oilers have been traded. I’m happy when Ryan Smith scores against us because, damnit, I like the guy. And I have to have a place in my heart for Tampa Bay, of all teams, because Rollie’s in net?
Whatever “entertainment” trades provide, the current situation is a huge disservice to players that dedicate their lives to the sport, and to the fans who watch it over a beer.
I was predisposed to disagree with this post based on the headline alone, but I have to say the post is pretty well laid-out.
I still disagree. But it’s nice to have actual points to disagree with.
It’s true that players are treated like property, by definition not treated like people. But I don’t believe you can really claim trades are immoral when they are in fact a stated and codified part of the system, that is to say:part of the rules of the game.
The player enters into the system of his own free will. He is drafted (if he is drafted) and becomes the property of a team. He doesn’t have to play for that team. He doesn’t have to play in the NHL at all. It’s no more immoral that the player has no choice than it is when kids on the playground “choose teams” and you are “picked” to play on so-and-so’s team. You wanted to play on your friend’s team? Too bad. And you don’t have to play.
Now, if a player signed with a team and somehow the fact of trades was hidden from him, and in violation of his contract he was shipped off to wherever, that would be immoral. And illegal. But he knows about the existence of sports trades, and he is part of a union that agreed to a CBA that spells out exactly what is allowed and what isn’t. He could have said, like the kid on the playground, or Eric Lindros, I no longer want to play. But they mostly make the choice to play, because not only do they want to play, but it’s probably the culmination of their life’s dream to play.
I think of it this way. The player (who, as you point out, is actually an employee of the NHL) is playing a game, and the game is not the individual games of hockey during a hockey season, although those games are a part of the bigger game. The bigger game is called The National Hockey League. It plays out over years, or decades. Players in this game sign on to play by the rules of the game, and one of the rules of the game is that players can be traded. That’s part of it. They know it. They assume the risk.
Another thing: every player is entitled to insist on a NMC once he gets to free agency. There’s nothing stopping every player from demanding one. Nothing, except for the fact that they want to play in the NHL more than they want the NMC. Again, their choice. They have known from the age of 7 probably that one aspect of the game is that players get traded. They don’t have to play hockey in the NHL.
Wait till this year.
by Quisp on Feb 24, 2011 6:30 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Again, it seems to me that you’re saying “this is the way it is”. I fully agree that’s the current situation. The player choses to spend his teenage years developing his skills such that the only thing he can do is play in the NHL and serve under these restrictions? He sure does! Absolutely, one hundred percent true!
That’s just not the way it should be. That’s what I’m saying. Hockey players shouldn’t have to endure more restrictions than the employees of any business, or for that matter employees of professional sports organizations in most of the world, just because the general managers want them to.
It’s true they agreed to it, but the history of labour is filled with people agreeing to things that they thought they had no other choice than to agree to. If a kid with no marketable skills besides the ability to hit a puck is given the choice to make $1 million in the NHL or go swing a hammer in the oilpatch, with the caveat that if he takes the NHL money he belongs to them, of course he’ll take the cash. And it’s perfectly legal. That doesn’t mean it’s morally right. I argue only from ethics, not from any other position.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 6:40 PM MST up reply actions
I’m sorry, you keep bringing this up and it has zero relevance.
Who gives a shit that the only marketable skill he has is to hit a puck? What relevance does it have to the point you are trying to make? Whose fault is it that this mouth breather can’t do anything else? Certainly not the NHL’s or the way sports are managed in North America.
As for being morally right, I guess that depends on your definition. I find nothing immoral about taking a job, understanding the restrictions and being bound to them.
I’m a web developer. One of the restrictions one job wanted to place on me was that I couldn’t work for anyone else because of the nature of the work I was about to do. That wasn’t acceptable to me so I didn’t take the job.
There are restrictions placed all the time on workers, some jobs/companys more than others. It’s up to you whether you want the job or not.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
I can work in consulting, which I like, or take a government job. I make more money in consulting, I like the work more, but I have to travel to where my clients are and be away from my family. I could take a 9-5 job with the government, make less and be home every day by 6:00, or your oilpatch job. I like consulting and the money, so I work in consulting and travel when required. By your arguement, is my firm morally wrong when they send me and my colleagues out of town to work on these assignments when most of us don’t like the travel? If so, where does it end? Where is the balance between the need of the organization to set conditions of employment that are required for an effecient organization vs personal preferences restricting the employers rights?
There world is a lot greyer than you are making it out to be.
The player enters into the system of his own free will. He is drafted (if he is drafted) and becomes the property of a team. He doesn’t have to play for that team. He doesn’t have to play in the NHL at all. It’s no more immoral that the player has no choice than it is when kids on the playground "choose teams" and you are "picked" to play on so-and-so’s team. You wanted to play on your friend’s team? Too bad. And you don’t have to play.
Would you say the same thing to a welder?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
the analogous thing would be what? something like...
There is this skill called welding. the best welders in the world work for company x. when you sign a contract with company x, you agree to certain rules, the rules of the game of welding for company x. if they suddenly decide to violate the terms of the contract, that’s wrong and unfair. But for a welder to complain that there is welding going on and there shouldn’t be… never mind, i can’t even think of a good metaphor.
but i’ll tell you what. it occurred to me after my comment above that there IS a circumstance in the NHL currently that I think is immoral, and it’s very close to the one you guys are describing.
It’s the practice of burying contracts in the minors. in one sense it’s the same lack of control as being traded — you’re sent soemwhere you didn’t want to go but have to because of the “rules of the game.” i.e. your contract. but the difference is that the idea that you — an nhl player — would be demoted to the minors for no reason than your contract is too big, that in an unforeseen consequence of the contract, in this case, of the CBA. The player, in a sense, was tricked into this agreement. Now, he wasn’t really tricked, I don’t think, because the loophole seems to me to have been discovered after the fact (though I ‘m not up on the history of it). But I think the GMs have acted immorally by burying players — maybe forever — in the minors simply because they — the GMs — screwed up and offered them too much money in the first place. Now, there’s enough immorality to spread around, because the agents and the NHLPA are not doing their clients any favors by driving their prices up so high, getting the biggest paycheck possible no matter what the future effect of that might be.
But to me, it comes back to what is standard industry practice (trades) and what isn’t (banishing players to another league).
This happens in other industries, where (for example) bands sign with a record label for a bunch of money (yay) only to find that (usually after a record flops) the label rejects every album they submit, yet won’t let them out of their contracts and won’t let the work be released. It was not foreseeable (when this practice started) that signing a contract would prevent the band from ever releasing its material. The label did not say, “and if we don’t like what you submit we will bury it and no one will ever hear it.” But the NHL does say “you might be traded.”
Now, somebody brought up the issue of whether this should be the way things are done.T hat’s a different question. There may well be a better way to do it. Personally, as a fan, I hate the fact that players change teams so much, but I don’t like it any more when it’s a free agent signing somewhere. I liked it when rosters stayed more or less the same.
My question about “should” is how do you avoid unforeseen and unintended consequences? For example, owners of NHL clubs are frequently willing to invest millions in player x because they know the contract is tradeable if it doesn’t work out. Making contracts less tradeable would influence salaries downward, and players — and thus the player union — would have something to say about that. The idea of having contracts be set in stone with no re-negotiation possible, and no optional extensions, and limitations on bonuses, was to protect the player. But it didn’t work out that way.
But to come back to the welding comparison. I think my answer would be (1) yes, the welder must assume that he’s in the welding business and the practices employed in that business are implied, and (2) the whole notion of comparing professional athletes to blue-collar laborers is deceptive. It matters that the welder gets paid whatever his hourly wage is, and the NHL player gets $1.8MM a year whether he works or not.
It’s much more like writers in the movie business. Writers get paid a lot of money. But what they give up when tthey get paid that money is the actual copyright to their original work. You sell a script to Warner Brothers, when the movie comes out, it is — in terms of the law — written by warner brothers. and they can do anything they want to what was previously yours. it’s in the contract. writers know it.
is it immoral for the studio to buy a writer’s work and then destroy it? to some degree, yes. but writers are free to negotiate a different contract, where they don’t sell the copyright to the studio. the only problem is, studios absolutely will not make a movie, committing a hundred million dollars or more to a project, if they don’t own every last one of the rights. So the price of demanding a contract that protects you from the immoral act is that you can make the movie yourself with your own camera and your friends as actors. as with the nhl player, you don’t have to play.
and, while movie studios, being bureaucracies, are powerful and evil, it’s easy to see that it’s their right to spend their $100 million as they see fit. Because they have stockholders to answer to. And if I had stock in Warner Bros, it would concern me if they suddenly starting committing resources to properties they didn’t control. That’s bad business.
Probably the bigger problem in hockeyland is that the fans love trades.
I’ve tired myself out. i hope i haven’t taken up too many inches here. this is obviously a pretty fascinating topic.
Wait till this year.
I would like to see another league come in and battle the NHL for top spot, it really sucks that there’s nothing really challenging the monopoly held by the league — next closest thing would be the KHL and that’s only a step above the AHL, and slightly lower than what we are blessed with.
The point posted within the article would make the sport drama-filled all year long and not just at the trade deadline if there was something in place to threaten the NHL.
Players have freedom. If they don’t like where they’re traded, they play elsewhere. Play in Europe. Play for some podunk bush league that nobody cares about. Play senior’s hockey in your home town rink.
In the real world, employees are transferred all the time. They always have the option of quitting and seeking other work, they only have to move if they want to remain with the same company.
There is literally nothing immoral about accepting a job with specific legal and cultural expectations, and then being bound to those restrictions. Don’t take the job if you’re not down with them. It isn’t like Ryan Smyth was shocked to be told by his agent that NHL players are often traded between clubs and that they have to report to their new club if they wish to remain in the NHL.
The worst in my mind, is when a player gets a NTC or NMC in his contract because he enjoys playing for one team and wants to stay there…but it means very little because he is pressured to drop it when the team would find it convenient to ship him off elsewhere. Sometimes (such as Brad Richards and Tampa) it isn’t just public pressure, but actual threats.
If someone has a NTC or NMC, and is asked to consent to a trade, and says “no, I like it here” that should be the end of it. Yet often it isn’t the end and the player is pushed out anyway, in spite of what he negotiated into his contract.
Random Ramblings from a Somewhat Scattered Mind
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
by Baroque on Feb 24, 2011 10:44 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
First of all the team and its media machine turn the fans against the player. The Sundin situation was real ugly that way, poor bastard was portrayed as disloyal to the Leafs cuz he wanted to play for them. That’s just nuts.
Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Feb 24, 2011 11:36 PM MST up reply actions
I find it difficult to agree with your position simply because NHL players, as a whole, are a reasonably powerful group. They belong to a union, and if they perceive that they are being treated immorally, they can stand up together and demand that things change. No doubt, they’d have to give something up (or fight a long legal battle) to get it, but it seems very possible to me that they could have collectively bargained a clause that doesn’t allow players to be traded except in the summer, or doesn’t allow them to be traded at all, or grants all players on one-way contracts a no-movement clause, or whatever else in the last round of collective bargaining if they were willing to take less money (say, 45% of league revenues). They chose not to. They are, essentially, agreeing as a group to sell the right to not be traded for more money. As such, I have a hard time seeing that they’re being treated immorally.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 24, 2011 10:58 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
As we saw during the most recent lockout, the NHL players as an organization are neither terribly bright nor terribly good at acting in their own interests.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 24, 2011 11:05 PM MST up reply actions
This is true to some degree. Still, I’m not comfortable with the idea that the players should do it your way because you think it’s best for them even though your way would likely cost them millions of dollars. At some point there’s fair compensation for not being flexible on where you work. I fail to see why it is immoral for the players to choose money over being certain of the city that they will live in. People makes this same choice in other jobs all of the time.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 24, 2011 11:48 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Whoops. You can call me Bev Oda, because I’ve got an extra “not” in there. That should read, “At some point there’s fair compensation for being flexible on where you work.”
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 24, 2011 11:50 PM MST up reply actions
When one player demands an NTC, he gives up money in his contract to do it.
But if every player had one as part of a collective bargaining agreement, would it really cost the players a cent? I doubt it. Would NTCs reduce the amount of revenue available for hockey operations? Would they lower the salary cap? I really doubt it. People don’t come to hockey games and pay for NHL Centre Ice because they just love trades so much. There’ll still be the same-sized pie to be divided up, and while some of the slices might be different as a group it wouldn’t cost the players a dime.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 9:04 AM MST up reply actions
Really?
How much does it cost for player transfer fees in European Soccer? Do you think teams would pay these fees + the current salaries?
I doubt it.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Transfer fees aren’t a necessary component of this system (actually, I think they’re rather irritating but also mercifully impractical in a salary cap league – as MLS is demonstrating).
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 11:37 AM MST up reply actions
They’d have to be wouldn’t they?
Or what incentive is there for you to grant said player their transfer wish (and get out of their contract)?
Isn’t the whole basis behind the system player transfer fees?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
The whole basis is the exchange of value. There’s no reason that value couldn’t be in the form of (consenting) players or draft picks like it is today.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 2:14 PM MST up reply actions
So wait, player trades aren’t fair but the draft still is?
I don’t understand how you can view both. If anything the draft is what is morally wrong.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Oh, god no. I hate the draft. I was just giving an example for the sake of completeness, not an endorsement.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 2:34 PM MST up reply actions
Well, if the players try to negotiate a NMC or NTC for every player in the next CBA, I guarantee they’re going to have to give something back to get it (probably part of their percentage of league revenues). It’s clearly not in the owners’ interest to give players a veto on player movement, so why would they give that up for free? For the players, it is in their interest to have said veto, but they don’t want to give up the money to get it. Why should they be morally obligated to do so?
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 25, 2011 10:29 AM MST up reply actions
I agree with Scott here.
Also a few more points. If you give the amount of power in the hands of players, everyone would want to go to San Jose or Fla, where they want to live for the rest of the lives. So teams like Edmonton will get screwed. So we can’t a player in a trade, we can’t get a player via draft. So how do we acquire players? You say that once we start winning players will want to play for us, but we do need goos players to start winning!
While I agree that making Sundin a villain is not good, but you are citing an example without fully stating it. The saga behind Sundin was that he was going to let go in the summer, in any case. So the choice for him was to go in at the deadline or go in summer. The choice wasn’t to go at the deadline or stay permanently.
Rebuild is a convenient excuse for GMs who dont wish to do their jobs
I do see what your’re saying but I think I would take the romantic side and say the players know what they are getting into. They know that tomorrow they could go from Florida to Edmonton or Ottawa to Denver (although if they’re goalies we’d rather they didn’t). It’s part of professional sports. Yeah, you might have to work on holidays or be sent to another city that you know nothing about , but that’s why you get paid more than $500k if you’re in the NHL. If you’re in the AHL or some other league, and you can make more as a butcher or stock broker, hey, you’re welcome to go do that. If you’re going to argue about the inherent unfairness of trades, then you might as well abolish the draft as well.
Each of my replies is a work of art, each more brilliant than the last.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Feb 24, 2011 11:15 PM MST reply actions
If you’re going to argue about the inherent unfairness of trades, then you might as well abolish the draft as well.
There ya go.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
There ya go.
And stop retiring sweater numbers!!
Whoops, wrong thread.
Lead Writer for Oil On Whyte - An Edmonton Oilers Blog
I imagine that the majority of players in the NHL that aren’t plugs could negotiate a NTC / NMC into their contracts. Of course, they’d more than likely have to accept a paycut for that happen. Given that they tend to value money more than security with one particular team, players generally spring for the best financial offers available. But if staying on one club in one location was so important, you’d see players making sacrifices within their contracts to make it happen. They aren’t, so it’s hard to feel any sympathy there.
by 2kji8 on Feb 24, 2011 11:46 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
^ Agree 100%
Nucks Misconduct Contributor
"If you find yourself alone, riding in the green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!"
by Sean Zandberg on Feb 25, 2011 12:21 AM MST up reply actions
Good article...
…but two points. First, if all players had control over whether they were traded, wouldn’t that make it much more difficult to get rid of players who don’t fit a team’s needs, and put together winning teams?
It seems to me that restricting teams’ options re: trading players would tend to create even more of a caste system than already exists in the NHL, in which the good teams would stay good and the bad teams would stay bad. In the long run, that weakens smaller markets, hurts quality of play, reduces interest in the game and ultimately negatively affects everyone involved.
We’ve already seen examples of no-trade and no-move clauses limiting a team’s options (which isn’t to say they shouldn’t exist, only that it’s impractical for every player to have them or an equivalent).
Second, I’d agree that fans and the media have a bad habit of overlooking the impact on individual human beings that trades and the draft have, but it’s not like this is something that’s unheard of in other professions. As a teacher, if I sign a contract with a school board, that means the school board can decide which of their schools I work at. In a city like Edmonton or Calgary, that might mean periodically moving to a new job 10-15 km away from my old one, but in a rural area, it could easily mean a move of 50-100 km.
Granted, that’s not quite the same as having to change cities or even countries on an annual basis…but then, there’s a big difference between a 5-figure salary and a 7-figure salary too.
by Ben Johnston on Feb 25, 2011 12:38 AM MST reply actions 2 recs
I can understand this article’s appeal to morality, but the fact is, in many jobs, we accept certain “occupational hazards” to get what we want (i.e., pay).
I’m a Ranger fan (don’t shoot!) and given the team’s perpetual state of mediocrity, player movement is constant. But, honestly, it’s hard to feel sympathy for individuals, playing a children’s game, who make millions upon millions of dollars. Don’t like getting treated like Chattel? Well, there are countless other jobs that offer stability but that don’t offer perks like endorsements, huge paychecks, groupies, first-class flights to and from all points in North America, the adulation of millions, etc.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m pro-player when it comes to labor disputes. But the threat of movement is the risk inherent to the occupation and one that, for nearly 700 NHL players, is outweighed by the enormous benefits. If the trade deadline is immoral, then so is the value society places on pro sports, which is held in higher regard than say, teaching and volunteer work.
by Andrei Petrovitch on Feb 25, 2011 9:33 AM MST reply actions
The NHL won't come to an end.
The NHL is a monopoly, that is why we should look at how the system works. The rules get negotiated into a new CBA from time to time. The owners acting together generally have more power then the players. Most players generally have a short window of opportunity that usually works against them, and against them working together.
The changes in free agency turned out to make things better, but Owners were absolutely against it being changed. The Owners often have to be dragged kicking and screaming into changes that often are in their best interest, especially if it threatens their autocratic authority.
Giving up power is hard, but change, and shared power, certainly in the NHL usually turns out for the best.
Coming soon in the Everyday Immorality series:
“The inherent immorality of professional sports”
“The inherent immorality of eating meat”
“The inherent immorality of modern medicine”
“The inherent immorality of humankind”
Professional hockey players have very few options, this is true. They can play hockey in the NHL, for whoever they’re told to play for, or they can play in some inferior league for much less. But they’ve decided to pursue the NHL because the money is good, and they’re following their dreams. They accept the limitations it puts on their freedom because of those things they get out of it: Mostly money, but also the possibility of winning the Cup and getting the glory that comes with it. The NHL insists on it because they and their teams invest heavily in these players, and have no interest in losing those investments for no compensation to other leagues—in fact, competitors in the market.
Sure, hockey players are left with little options since they have few marketable skills. Although that fact isn’t inevitable: Players have the NCAA as a realistic option, and the CHL offers scholarships based on how much time players give to teams. Plus players make plenty of money (signing bonuses and their regular pay) to pursue other skills.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 10:07 AM MST reply actions
The thing is, you could have made this exact argument in the days of C-forms and Gordie Howe making a carpenter’s salary so he’s spent the rest of his life working autograph shows. “Sure, it sucks, but they accept those tradeoffs to Chase the Dream and besides, they could always go do something else.”
Eventually, the players wised up and used their leverage to get better conditions for themselves.
I don’t want to pretend this is as bad as bombing protesters in Tripoli, but the truth is that hockey players are expected to accept restrictions very few of us would accept in our jobs as a matter of course, and their alternatives are either “move halfway across the world for a fraction of the money” or “go into a completely different field”. People who say “they’re making so much fucking money!” are missing the point entirely: it’s not about money, it’s about freedom.
And as for the players having chosen this life, even if you accept being brought up from early childhood to try and make the NHL with almost your entire existence from age ten onwards aimed at that specific goal as “a choice”, this isn’t an issue that’s been on the radar in any of our lifetimes. It’s not a choice players are asked to make, it’s an accepted thing that happens. I think that it shouldn’t.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 11:45 AM MST up reply actions
Eventually, the players wised up and used their leverage to get better conditions for themselves.
And they could do so again today to gain the freedom you’re talking about, but have chosen not to because it would cost them money (or other considerations, but likely money). The idea that this needs to be about either freedom or money is wrongheaded. It’s about both. The players (as a group) are selling their freedom to know exactly which city they will work in, and in exchange they are receiving more money. This is a perfectly acceptable exchange. Why should they be obligated to make a different choice?
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 25, 2011 12:36 PM MST up reply actions
At this stage, we’re getting into discussing how the NHLPA should negotiate this or that. I’m reluctant to start that conversation: in the last lockout the NHLPA pretty much crapped their pants, but then again in 1994 they got lots of what they wanted and for the decades prior to that the owners hardly got a concession out of them.
Would the players have to give up money for freedom? To put it bluntly, it depends.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 12:44 PM MST up reply actions
Well, if you’re talking about how the business of the game ought to be run in the context of the NHL, I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about it except on the level of collective bargaining (or deunionization). Do you really think it’s realistic that the owners would simply give all players NMC’s as a part of the SPC without the players giving up something in return? Personally, I think that’s ridiculous, but if they would have done so, then all the players had to do was ask and it would have been given in the last round of negotiations. With the number of players negotiating these clauses individually, it’s clear to me that they’re keenly aware of the issue at hand. If all they needed to do was ask, and decided not to then that’s their own stupidity, not someone else being morally reprehensible.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 25, 2011 1:35 PM MST up reply actions
There are hundreds of Canadian kids, not to mention kids in the US, Sweden, Finland, etc. who have been brought up their whole lives to try to make it to the NHL. Not to mention the thousands of kids in a myriad of other sports whose parents have pushed them into the drive towards pro sports stardom. The number of people who wash out (either because of talent, or injury, or maybe they had kids too young and had to settle down, whatever) vs. those who make it is incredible. All of those people had to “go into a completely different field”. Shit happens. Justin Bourne writes frequently of his minor league career. He notes of signing with a team to be close to his fiancee, only to be traded across the country. He chose to walk away not long after that, and somehow he’s managed to get by. Many of my favourite bands hold down day jobs and go on tour using vacation time, dump their meagre earnings into expensive music equipment, and play dingy bars for maybe a couple of hundred people. They knowingly make sacrifices to do what they love, and know that if they want stability, they have to focus on something other than strumming a guitar. Ultimately, the option to play a game you love vs. work a 9-5 job comes with some trade-offs. The NHLPA has the bargaining power to force a change if they want (or reach some compromise) but ultimately, not enough hockey players have considered the system to be broken enough to change to this point. They’ve accepted a slight loss of freedom in exchange for a big paycheque, and those in the minor leagues have accepted it as a compromise to play a game they love for a living. The option here isn’t “play hockey or work in a coal mine”. Even career minor leaguers make a respectable (if not huge) salary, and many have either had the option of university in front of them at some point, or are young enough that it’s still a real option. This isn’t “indentured servitude”. They signed a contract of their own free will, with information about the pros and cons readily available, and have to abide by it, even if it means relocation (which happens in many other fields as well, I’m sorry to inform you.) Getting traded across the country may not be an ideal situation, but it’s hardly modern slavery, especially when those involved are often well compensated.
by despisethesun on Feb 25, 2011 1:26 PM MST up reply actions
Here’s the thing though… they are compensated well for that restriction.
And no, saying "they’re making so much fucking money!" is not missing the point. There is a reason why jobs that involve heavy travel are also attached to a much higher salary than the same job with less travel.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Except that they did consent. The terms of the CBA were agreed to by the players, and the terms of the contract were agreed to by the individual player. At each level, the player(s) was free to negotiate a no-movement clause but elected not to do so.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 25, 2011 3:47 PM MST up reply actions
Are you really that afraid of change?
So there should be no bill of rights, and America should still be a British colony because the British invested in America. Why stop there? The world can never be perfect so why change anything, ever? You don’t really believe that do you?
The poor Owners really are just forced to treat players as property, it’s not their fault. If the players are treated like people not property the NHL will come to an end. The Owners don’t care about power or control, they are always just acting to preserve the league, and thinking of the fans, can’t you see? They hate that it’s a monopoly, and what they are forced do.
Fans love free agency even more then they love trades. The NHL will adapt to changes in the draft, trades, free agency, and probably be better off for it in the end. Most fans will love it, and the Owners will do just fine, (tho some fans/owners will still want to get rid of the salary cap). Trust me.
You’re brutally misrepresenting my argument. But that’s fine, you can do that if you want to.
Here’s my point: If a competitor league came around and offered players the kind of freedom Benjamin’s calling for, but at (on average) even as high as 1/4 the salary players can make in the NHL, what do you think they’ll choose? If I had to bet, I’d say the majority of players would choose the NHL anyway.
Offer people enough money and they’ll easily give up a bit of freedom for it.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 7:09 PM MST up reply actions
Do you really think the comparison is between “100% of salary + no movement control” or “25% of salary + movement control”? I don’t. Remember, giving players control of their own trades would cost the owners flexibility, but it wouldn’t cost them money. There’s no reason beyond collective-bargaining-negotiation gotta-give-something-to-get-something theories that player salaries would have to take a haircut at all.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 7:54 PM MST up reply actions
You’re right, it was just a random number to make the point.
But I do think a league that offers movement control wouldn’t be able to (or interested in) paying as much as a league with movement control. I could be wrong there, but there are team costs associated with it. Costs spent on a player’s development, for instance, which—if the player is lost—are gone for nothing. Also, costs associated with the fact that trade value might not be its highest, as the Senators experienced first-hand with Dany Heatley. If every player had the “options” that Heatley had, trade value would be massively deteriorated.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 8:03 PM MST up reply actions
But would that cost the owners money? That’s the most important question. Would it lower the total amount of cash in the league available to pay players with?
If yes, then obviously the players would have to make less money. If no, then just because life’s more difficult for general managers (undoubtedly true!) doesn’t mean they can’t pay the same wages. Remember, bad trades and good trades are an equilibrium: Ottawa gave Heatley away for peanuts, but San Jose got Heatley for next-to-nothing. The total amount of talent in the league didn’t decline! Just because the pie’s a different flavour doesn’t mean it’s any smaller.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 8:08 PM MST up reply actions
Maybe you’re right. Maybe I’m assuming universal movement control would come with a costs because typically in contract discussions, a value is attached to limited-movement clauses (one that typically lowers the dollar value of the contract). I might just be arguing a gut feeling instead of a provable point.
Still, I do think that movement control for players would be a disincentive for teams to invest in their players, so it could very well result in poor development and a pretty massive disparity between wealthy teams (which can afford to invest in their players even if they might lose them, and can also afford to poach players which other teams have invested into) and the lesser teams. That disparity exists today, but the certainty that comes with the entry draft, team-controlled movement, and restricted free agency mitigates it.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 8:31 PM MST up reply actions
When I served in the Canadian Forces I understood that, on a whim, the military could send me wherever they need me. If they needed me to do deneral duties for an Officer course in Gagetown I’d be on the next flight, if someone got knocked off in Afghan then there was a possibility I could head over. None of this ever happened to me in my brief time in (the worst things that happened to me were missing a few hockey games and not getting a desired posting with the majority of my friends), but I know guys who have had extremely important times in their lives fucked up because the military needed them to pull this shift at this hour for this reason.
It’s the nature of the beast, and we accepted this. Why? We got into the job knowing the situation, and knowing it was a possibility. We signed on the dotted line. No one I knew in the military was making more than $60,000 a year, and I can guarantee you that if entry wage for the Forces was $500,000 we would have signed away even more freedoms.
This hyperbolic talk of indentured servitude, and “being at the mercy of their GMs” is ridiculous. None of it is life and death, they’re getting paid handsomely for their “sacrifice” (Hmmmm, luxury high rise in Manhatten or Toronto???), and they’re playing a sport for a living.
This article is incoherent. On its face it appears to be suggesting that the trading of contracts is immoral because it represents a violation of the “freedom” of the players. However the moral standard of freedom is never articulated and hence serves as a nebulous filler designed to justify any arbitrary position the author chooses.
If by freedom the author means consent then the fact that things like trading of contracts and the entry draft are subject to collective bargaining means that the author is simply wrong.
Perhaps he means that collective bargaining itself is a violation of individual freedom. The suggestion here would be that it is not possible for a collective group to give up individual rights in exchange for some collective good. In which case the author must have a fun time living in society.
If that argument were to stand it would have to be on some kind of defense of the inalienable right to the free movement of labour. Which is to say that it isn’t possible for someone (an individual or a group) to freely give up their freedom of movement in exchange for some kind of good because the free movement of labour was the source of all other goods. This argument is nonsense on its face. In order for it to have substance it would require some kind of metaphysical justification that I can’t even begin to imagine.
What seems to be happening is the author is vascilating between a natural right argument (hence the continued appeals to the way things should be as opposed to are) and a social right argument (no other job requires this sacrifice). However besides the fact that these arguments are contradictory they are, even if taken independently, inadequate. As alluded to above the natural right argument requires a metaphysical justification that the author is incapable of providing.
The social right argument is more plausible however if we take the social right argument to its conclusions what we find is that the restriction on free movement is reasonable. For instance the suggestion appears to be that the provision of trades is wrong because it imposes an unfair restriction of movement that other jobs do not. The question of consent here is irrelevant because it imposes a false choice upon the hockey player. They can consent to trades or they can stop being a hockey player but they are never free to have both. This ends up being wrong because the types of positions being compared in these cases are not analogous and insofar as there are analogous positions they do impose the same kind of restrictions. The difference between a hockey player and a plumber is that the market for the services of a plumber is determined by the perceived need of the consumer while the market for the services of a hockey player is created by the NHL. The league creates the demand in the consumer by forming the league. This explains why a plumber can quit his job (that is remove his consent) while remaining a plumber while a hockey player cannot quit the league while remaining a hockey player. The NHL is the prior condition for the demand for hockey while Joe’s Plumbing is not the prior condition for the demand for plumbers.
In this regard a hockey player is analogous to a University Professor. Like a hockey player a University Professor cannot leave their University and remain a Professor because it is only in the context of a University that one can be a Professor. And for the same reasons University Professors accept all sorts of restrictions that other jobs do not. Thus the hockey player like the university Professor forsake their right to free movement in exchange for their right to purse their calling. This is a just exchange because the right to pursue their calling is not something they own or produce of themselves but rather is a product of, respectively, the league and the University. The league owns that right because it is solely responsible for the existence of the calling itself.
The other article on the commodification of players is much more convincing from a moral point of view. However if read in conjunction with this article it appears that they are both wrong. The Massey article argues from the standpoint of an implicit libertarian theology that if pursued to its logical end results in the commodification of everything. The Marxist article successfully outlines how the process of commodification is operational in the NHL. While this is true it is operational everywhere in society. What separates hockey players, and university Professors for that matter, from other positions is that they are the least commodified professions around. What lies at the root of Massey’s unease is the notion that we as individuals are not in control of our commodification. His argument isn’t that we shouldn’t be commodities but rather that we should have some kind of arbitrary control of the location of our commodification.
However the reasons that justify the restriction of movement upon hockey players and university professors also act as mitigating factors in their commodification. In this regard both positions are much more in keeping with feudal forms of social organization and as such are the least amongst the least commodified elements of our society.
by Captain Obvious II on Feb 25, 2011 1:23 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
This is going to sound really, really awful, but: I’ll have to read and reply to your comment when I haven’t got a head chock-a-block with cold medicine.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Feb 25, 2011 2:01 PM MST up reply actions
This is a great response
The one problem with the university professor analogy, though, is that the university is like a team, whereas the NHL itself would be like some some non-existent league of universities. If a professor wants to leave a university, he is free to do so without giving up being a professor—he just has to go to a different university. He also can’t be forced by one university to head to another without consent.
Aside from that, I can see your points, and they are good ones.
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 7:25 PM MST up reply actions
#DanEllisProblems
I was almost going down and then I didn’t go down and then it came and it was too late to get down.
Battle of California
by Megalodon on Feb 25, 2011 1:53 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Basically, this seems like a long article written because it seems somehow “mean” to ask players to move around a lot. I’m the last person to side with the NHL system on just about anything…but I just can’t get worked up about the alleged “immorality” of businessmen negotiating job terms with other businessmen. So long as the two parties are fairly equal in their bargaining power, it’s perfect moral to me for one side to give up something in negotiation with the other.
I don’t want to pretend this is as bad as bombing protesters in Tripoli, but the truth is that hockey players are expected to accept restrictions very few of us would accept in our jobs as a matter of course, and their alternatives are either "move halfway across the world for a fraction of the money" or "go into a completely different field". People who say "they’re making so much fucking money!" are missing the point entirely: it’s not about money, it’s about freedom.
This seems very naive to me. No one in the world has a right to a particular job. Whatever that job is, if you want to work at it, you have to accept some trade off for it, and, most importantly, to work within the system in which that job exists. Every person trades some freedom for a job. The NHL player job comes with very clear limitations: limited openings, limited lifespan, limited security. Even if the NHL players got together the strongest union, and completely crushed the NHL in CBA negotiations, those basic limitations would remain. And I don’t know what job you work in, but the large majority of people work in much more restrictive (is less “free”) situations than NHL players.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
How about you write an article...
on the crap real, hard-working people have to put up with? Public service workers in Wisconsin are having their CBA scrapped and you turn out 1500-words of apologia for one of the most privilged classes of people in the world? What a joke.
To quote those who have opposed Ben thus far, “the Wisconsin teachers negotiated the loophole that allows their CBA to be scrapped.”
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect this is a pretty dishonest argument. Were most of the Wisconsin teachers well aware that the CBA could be scrapped when they made the agreement? I don’t actually know, but I suspect that they didn’t. The players, however, all knew that they could be traded under their CBA and agreed explicitly to that condition; they could easily have had it changed if they were willing to give something up, but decided not to. The two situations are (I suspect) very different, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about the Wisconsin teachers.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 26, 2011 9:20 AM MST up reply actions
Probably because this is a hockey blog
… where people typically write about hockey?
I understand your sentiment, but that’s not really a constructive comment, isn’t it?
An Ottawa Senators fan blogging at www.silversevensens.com
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 25, 2011 7:27 PM MST up reply actions
For the sake of argument Benjamin
What are your alternatives to the current system? How do teams improve? Presumably trades will only result when both parties feel it is in their best interest, which is to say that it won’t happen very often, and can not be looked at as a reliable option for GMs to improve their team.
From there, we’re left with the draft and free agency. Given your stance on trades being immoral because they take away the freedom of individual players, I can only imagine you would want to abolish the draft too. So how do young players get into the NHL? Do they sign wherever they’d like as an unrestricted free agent? Do we keep the draft and instead allow players to casually say “no thanks” when the Thrasher or Panthers select them and force those teams to pick again?
What we’re left with now is free agency. Disregarding all of the advantages certain markets have over others in attracting talent, how do we deal with unhappy players signed to long term contracts? Are they allowed to just quit like somebody at McDonalds and go work for another team of their choosing? Likewise, can teams rip up contracts of underperforming players?
Considering some of the alternatives, I don’t see how it can really be considered beneficial.
Uhhh
I’m sorry, but for $500,000 a year I would live with the uncertainty of what city I play in being up in the air. Let alone for 3.5 mil. If they don’t like the work conditions, get a different job. Pretty sure the job market is as open (or more so) for them than it is for us. But oh wait, then maybe they’d be making more like what the average Joe does.
They deserve the money because it’s what the market will bear and that’s fine and dandy. But they know what the job requires of them and getting traded from sunny Anaheim to winter in Edmonton is part of the gig. If address stability is something that’s important to you as a player, hope you’re good enough to negotiate a no movement clause.
Here's an article about increased player freedom in the NBA
Not really increased freedom, per se, as NHL players could do the same thing. But definitely an issue of team control of assets vs. freedom of movement vs. loyalty of players.
by potvin vs hextall on Feb 26, 2011 8:09 AM MST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Shawinigan wins, advances to Memorial Cup semifinal
- Cataractes romp to 6-1 win, eliminate Oil Kings from Memorial Cup
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
