Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hoss

Do the Owners care about the Players?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll guarantee you the next CBA won't be "very favorable" to players. It might give them Olympics and less escrow but I don't see major concessions coming. 

Players have been loud and media always hypes up that they’re fighting for a good deal but everytime the Slav...  I mean team owners win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hoss said:

Players have been loud and media always hypes up that they’re fighting for a good deal but everytime the Slav...  I mean team owners win.

Sorry I don't feel bad for billionaire owners or millionaire players. Players sure as f##k are not slav...

Edited by LGR4GM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Sorry I don't feel bad for billionaire owners or millionaire players. Players sure as f##k are not slav...

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

Edited by Hoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

Nevertheless the players have the choice to play. If you want the money or even love of the game it's still your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

The number of retired players with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts is probably higher than those we are aware of but I don't suspect it reaches as high as you are suggesting. Moreover, you are placing the blame on the owners for the decision of a player.  Brain trauma likely started occurring before entering the NHL and as such it was the player's choice to join the league and continue playing.

That said, the game has been transitioning into a less physical game that should result in lower amounts of brain injury. Who gets credit for that?

51 minutes ago, Radar said:

Nevertheless the players have the choice to play. If you want the money or even love of the game it's still your choice.

I agree. In addition, the players are the one's who choose to eventually sign onto rules that don't benefit them. Players are the one's who allow their own fellow union members to take cheap shots on them without repercussions.  I've never understood why the NHLPA doesn't police its own more than the NHL does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

This seems a stretch. A big stretch. I think you are off the map on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

The owners have a lot invested in their players. You actually think they don't care about their player's health? That's nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This seems a stretch. A big stretch. I think you are off the map on this one. 

I’m fine with that.

6 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

The owners have a lot invested in their players. You actually think they don't care about their player's health? That's nuts.

They legitimately don’t care about their health. They want them on the field/ice as long as they can be but beyond that they do not care. That’s not the same as caring about their health.

38 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

What?

Your world is so peachy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

42% of Reinhart's production came on the powerplay last season. This includes 48% of his goals. Jack Eichel on the other hand had 31% of his production on the PP and only 12% of his goals were PPG. Just interesting when comparing the two. 

More than just interesting, IMHO.  Even-strength productivity is important, and Reino has not been a particularly good ES player.  He'll need to improve if he wants to cash in on his next contract.

2 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I’m fine with that.

They legitimately don’t care about their health. They want them on the field/ice as long as they can be but beyond that they do not care. That’s not the same as caring about their health.

Your world is so peachy.

So -- you've spoken to enough pro sports owners to learn about their individual moral beliefs?

In these conversations, has any of them expressed the sentiment that they are entitled to whip players for breaking the rules, to cripple them if they try to leave or to rape their daughters?

Maybe it isn't necessary to use maximalist language -- or, more importantly, to default to maximalist ways of "thinking" -- when describing a given situation.  Employer-employee relations aren't the same as owner-slave relations. 

The real world is quite different from the way it's depicted in an undergrad gender studies/racial studies curriculum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I’m fine with that.

They legitimately don’t care about their health. They want them on the field/ice as long as they can be but beyond that they do not care. That’s not the same as caring about their health.

Your world is so peachy.

How do you know this? Do you have a problem with "the man"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. 

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

What?

I had the same reaction.

39 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

The owners have a lot invested in their players. You actually think they don't care about their player's health? That's nuts.

There is something to the idea that the teams' care for the players' health is utilitarian in nature.

I think there's much more to the idea that coaches and even GMs take a pragmatic approach to their concern with player safety. (I especially think of football coordinators, who can be infamously nasty about players nursing injuries.)

Being more removed from the day to day effects of injuries, I think owners would profess to having a more genuine concern for their players' well-being.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding of the policies that a league adopts, the terms that are negotiated in a CBA, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hoss said:

They legitimately don’t care about their health. They want them on the field/ice as long as they can be but beyond that they do not care. That’s not the same as caring about their health.

You have a point to make. But you're undermining it by overstating the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

I had the same reaction.

There is something to the idea that the teams' care for the players' health is utilitarian in nature.

I think there's much more to the idea that coaches and even GMs take a pragmatic approach to their concern with player safety. (I especially think of football coordinators, who can be infamously nasty about players nursing injuries.)

Being more removed from the day to day effects of injuries, I think owners would profess to having a more genuine concern for their players' well-being.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding of the policies that a league adopts, the terms that are negotiated in a CBA, etc.

 

The number one concern for owners is ROI. Any player who isn't playing due to injury isn't earning his keep.

I won't go as far as Hoss and toss the idea of slavery/indentured servitude/etc around because the NHL isn't really like it was back in the 60's anymore. But I think calling the relationship "pragmatic" is a little...soft?

Remember what they did to Teppo when he had heart surgery?

Hell, Bauer invented quick-change skate blades because the owners and their bean counters were annoyed that players had to leave the ice to get skates repaired or change skates. Those are valuable ROI minutes down the drain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, darksabre said:

The number one concern for owners is ROI. Any player who isn't playing due to injury isn't earning his keep.

I won't go as far as Hoss and toss the idea of slavery/indentured servitude/etc around because the NHL isn't really like it was back in the 60's anymore. But I think calling the relationship "pragmatic" is a little...soft?

Remember what they did to Teppo when he had heart surgery?

Hell, Bauer invented quick-change skate blades because the owners and their bean counters were annoyed that players had to leave the ice to get skates repaired or change skates. Those are valuable ROI minutes down the drain. 

Pragmatic may be a mite more charitable than the teams deserve.

I do think there's something to the removed nature of the owners. They can turn screws on their FO and coaches to get results, while also thinking themselves as the magnanimous patrons of these fine athletes. You still hear about that -- players professing love and loyalty for owners (calling them "Mr. so-and-so").

I have memories of Lafontaine saying he was quite close with Seymour and Jean Knox. (As to Jean, by the way, her Facebook is fairly open and she is a LOON. Edit: Her profile is actually fairly closed. But she regularly posts on public pages with Buffalo-related themes. Look for her!)

I agree more than I disagree, though. Pro athletes, to varying degrees, will often get treated like so much livestock. Well-compensated livestock, sure. But still.

Edited by That Aud Smell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This started in the Reinhart thread but how much give a s#!ts do the owners have towards the players well being? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, darksabre said:

The number one concern for owners is ROI. Any player who isn't playing due to injury isn't earning his keep.

I won't go as far as Hoss and toss the idea of slavery/indentured servitude/etc around because the NHL isn't really like it was back in the 60's anymore. But I think calling the relationship "pragmatic" is a little...soft?

Remember what they did to Teppo when he had heart surgery?

Hell, Bauer invented quick-change skate blades because the owners and their bean counters were annoyed that players had to leave the ice to get skates repaired or change skates. Those are valuable ROI minutes down the drain. 

Are you guys comfortable with generalizations?  Because we can generalize all day about all manner of topics to which at some point you'll protest.  

Point is, you have to judge each of the owners as individuals when making these kinds of statements.  Sports teams owners are in pretty unique situations when it comes to players - the investment is high and that investment requires the player be in optimal health for it to pay off. 

The people I know who OWN (or owned) a company, as opposed to those who run it, are all decent-ish to very decent people who care about their employees, but that "caring" has to be balanced with the good of the business.  No different than a casual acquaintance who might send condolences when a person dies, or offer a birthday wish, they care enough to do that but your relationship doesn't make or break their life.   Any owner who takes an interest in their employee beyond that is going far and above and making it hard for them to mind the business properly.

Anyone here ever own a business with employees?  It's far less black and white and bumper-sticker friendly than being portrayed here.  I can't imagine that additional level noted above about investment.

I have a hard time seeing the Pegulas being happy thinking of themselves as slave owners.  Ridiculous.  I'm sure the cleaning staff is treated worse than the players, I wonder if the cleaning staff feels like slaves?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ... said:

Are you guys comfortable with generalizations
....

I have a hard time seeing the Pegulas being happy thinking of themselves as slave owners.  Ridiculous.  I'm sure the cleaning staff is treated worse than the players, I wonder if the cleaning staff feels like slaves?

Well, they're predictive, not determinative.

For sure.

Paid less, but a good org treats all employees largely the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Pragmatic may be a mite more charitable than the teams deserve.

I do think there's something to the removed nature of the owners. They can turn screws on their FO and coaches to get results, while also thinking themselves as the magnanimous patrons of these fine athletes. You still hear about that -- players professing love and loyalty for owners (calling them "Mr. so-and-so").

I have memories of Lafontaine saying he was quite close with Seymour and Jean Knox. (As to Jean, by the way, her Facebook is fairly open and she is a LOON. Edit: Her profile is actually fairly closed. But she regularly posts on public pages with Buffalo-related themes. Look for her!)

I agree more than I disagree, though. Pro athletes, to varying degrees, will often get treated like so much livestock. Well-compensated livestock, sure. But still.

I always find the "Mr." thing weird when players talk about owners. I think in some cases it's genuine respect, and other times I think it's more of a fear based/subservience thing. I can think of a few guys where the respect is probably genuine. "Mr I", Mike Illitch, comes to mind. I think the Knoxes were probably down to earth enough to be approachable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting question.

The best I can do is postulate an answer by equating this to my experience through my work/boss situation. The Captain obvious answer is It depends.

I have had bosses that truly did and made you feel like they care, some that pretended and those that you could tell you were just a number to them.

Of course some other dynamics may play into it and I think it starts with the individuals both Owner and player in question.

For the player is he honest, hard working and like able or a Richard and some one hard to like. 

From the owners perspective, why did you buy the team, for fame, fortune, both or because you could. Are you hands off or on, do you delegate or participate and how much time do you spend within that team structure to develop the personal relationships that time spent fosters. 

So I think yes that some Owners can and do genuinely get to know and care about their players.   

Oh and I might add that when that special magic happens when a team gels and does win championships overcomes obstacles it creates a larger bond with the individuals involved including the owner commensurate with how invested he was through the process.   

Edited by R_Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hoss said:

I don’t generally, either. I do think team owners view the power structure as similar, though. And they certainly don’t care about their players’ health, even with all the evidence there are hundreds to thousands retiring with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts.

 

3 hours ago, Radar said:

Nevertheless the players have the choice to play. If you want the money or even love of the game it's still your choice.

 

2 hours ago, LTS said:

The number of retired players with serious brain trauma and suicidal thoughts is probably higher than those we are aware of but I don't suspect it reaches as high as you are suggesting. Moreover, you are placing the blame on the owners for the decision of a player.  Brain trauma likely started occurring before entering the NHL and as such it was the player's choice to join the league and continue playing.

That said, the game has been transitioning into a less physical game that should result in lower amounts of brain injury. Who gets credit for that?

I agree. In addition, the players are the one's who choose to eventually sign onto rules that don't benefit them. Players are the one's who allow their own fellow union members to take cheap shots on them without repercussions.  I've never understood why the NHLPA doesn't police its own more than the NHL does.

 

1 hour ago, grinreaper said:

The owners have a lot invested in their players. You actually think they don't care about their player's health? That's nuts.

 

58 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I had the same reaction.

There is something to the idea that the teams' care for the players' health is utilitarian in nature.

I think there's much more to the idea that coaches and even GMs take a pragmatic approach to their concern with player safety. (I especially think of football coordinators, who can be infamously nasty about players nursing injuries.)

Being more removed from the day to day effects of injuries, I think owners would profess to having a more genuine concern for their players' well-being.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding of the policies that a league adopts, the terms that are negotiated in a CBA, etc.

 

 

50 minutes ago, darksabre said:

The number one concern for owners is ROI. Any player who isn't playing due to injury isn't earning his keep.

I won't go as far as Hoss and toss the idea of slavery/indentured servitude/etc around because the NHL isn't really like it was back in the 60's anymore. But I think calling the relationship "pragmatic" is a little...soft?

Remember what they did to Teppo when he had heart surgery?

Hell, Bauer invented quick-change skate blades because the owners and their bean counters were annoyed that players had to leave the ice to get skates repaired or change skates. Those are valuable ROI minutes down the drain. 

 

34 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Pragmatic may be a mite more charitable than the teams deserve.

I do think there's something to the removed nature of the owners. They can turn screws on their FO and coaches to get results, while also thinking themselves as the magnanimous patrons of these fine athletes. You still hear about that -- players professing love and loyalty for owners (calling them "Mr. so-and-so").

I have memories of Lafontaine saying he was quite close with Seymour and Jean Knox. (As to Jean, by the way, her Facebook is fairly open and she is a LOON. Edit: Her profile is actually fairly closed. But she regularly posts on public pages with Buffalo-related themes. Look for her!)

I agree more than I disagree, though. Pro athletes, to varying degrees, will often get treated like so much livestock. Well-compensated livestock, sure. But still.

 

23 minutes ago, ... said:

Are you guys comfortable with generalizations?  Because we can generalize all day about all manner of topics to which at some point you'll protest.  

Point is, you have to judge each of the owners as individuals when making these kinds of statements.  Sports teams owners are in pretty unique situations when it comes to players - the investment is high and that investment requires the player be in optimal health for it to pay off. 

The people I know who OWN (or owned) a company, as opposed to those who run it, are all decent-ish to very decent people who care about their employees, but that "caring" has to be balanced with the good of the business.  No different than a casual acquaintance who might send condolences when a person dies, or offer a birthday wish, they care enough to do that but your relationship doesn't make or break their life.   Any owner who takes an interest in their employee beyond that is going far and above and making it hard for them to mind the business properly.

Anyone here ever own a business with employees?  It's far less black and white and bumper-sticker friendly than being portrayed here.  I can't imagine that additional level noted above about investment.

I have a hard time seeing the Pegulas being happy thinking of themselves as slave owners.  Ridiculous.  I'm sure the cleaning staff is treated worse than the players, I wonder if the cleaning staff feels like slaves?

 

6 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I always find the "Mr." thing weird when players talk about owners. I think in some cases it's genuine respect, and other times I think it's more of a fear based/subservience thing. I can think of a few guys where the respect is probably genuine. "Mr I", Mike Illitch, comes to mind. I think the Knoxes were probably down to earth enough to be approachable. 

Background posts to catch people up. 

Edited by LGR4GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ... said:

Are you guys comfortable with generalizations?  Because we can generalize all day about all manner of topics to which at some point you'll protest.  

Point is, you have to judge each of the owners as individuals when making these kinds of statements.  Sports teams owners are in pretty unique situations when it comes to players - the investment is high and that investment requires the player be in optimal health for it to pay off. 

The people I know who OWN (or owned) a company, as opposed to those who run it, are all decent-ish to very decent people who care about their employees, but that "caring" has to be balanced with the good of the business.  No different than a casual acquaintance who might send condolences when a person dies, or offer a birthday wish, they care enough to do that but your relationship doesn't make or break their life.   Any owner who takes an interest in their employee beyond that is going far and above and making it hard for them to mind the business properly.

Anyone here ever own a business with employees?  It's far less black and white and bumper-sticker friendly than being portrayed here.  I can't imagine that additional level noted above about investment.

I have a hard time seeing the Pegulas being happy thinking of themselves as slave owners.  Ridiculous.  I'm sure the cleaning staff is treated worse than the players, I wonder if the cleaning staff feels like slaves?

I think I'm trying to soften the hyperbole you're railing against, no? 

I do think, though, that bad behavior by business owners with respect to their employees is too often couched in "business decisions". That's 80's capitalism stuff. We live in a different era now. It's irresponsible to ignore the human aspect of "business". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take this over to the thread about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

More than just interesting, IMHO.  Even-strength productivity is important, and Reino has not been a particularly good ES player.  He'll need to improve if he wants to cash in on his next contract.

So -- you've spoken to enough pro sports owners to learn about their individual moral beliefs?

In these conversations, has any of them expressed the sentiment that they are entitled to whip players for breaking the rules, to cripple them if they try to leave or to rape their daughters?

Maybe it isn't necessary to use maximalist language -- or, more importantly, to default to maximalist ways of "thinking" -- when describing a given situation.  Employer-employee relations aren't the same as owner-slave relations. 

The real world is quite different from the way it's depicted in an undergrad gender studies/racial studies curriculum.

If you think Hoss' perspective was taught to him in an undergrad class, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. He's way off the deep end comparing paid labor relations to slavery.

However, if we want to be snarky instead of promoting meaningful dialogue, the real world for a person of color and/or woman is quite a bit different than someone such as yourself, a middle-aged middle-class white dude.

Edited by TrueBlueGED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

If you think Hoss' perspective was taught to him in an undergrad class, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. He's way off the deep end comparing paid labor relations to slavery.

However, if we want to be snarky instead of promoting meaningful dialogue, the real world for a person of color and/or woman is quite a bit different than someone such as yourself, a middle-aged middle-class white dude.

Interesting thoughts... lets all talk about it here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×