Playing For The Love Of The Game... Or Money?
Posted 11:35 PM ET | Comments 6
Is it me or are NHL players just getting greedier and greedier? Just take a look at the salaries that some of these so called “superstars” are going to start making in the 2007-2008 season. Scott Gomez and Chris Drury are both great examples of unproven overpaid players. The New York Rangers jumped at the chance to pick up Scott Gomez for seven years at $51.5 million and Chris Drury for five years at $35.25 million, but both players have yet to reach the 90 point mark while Drury hasn’t even reached 70 yet. I don’t know what Glen Sather was thinking when he signed these two but I’m sure it wasn’t “One of these guys is going to be the next Sidney Crosby” I mean almost a hundred million between two DECENT players is not something I would do as general manager. But I don’t blame Gomez and Drury at all, who wouldn’t take that money? Instead maybe the general managers of the league should reconsider throwing such high figures at superstars, let alone a couple of players who may or may not produce over 80 points in the next few seasons.
It just seems like hockey isn’t hockey when huge dollars are involved, it just ruins the “playing for the love of the game” aspect of it. Of course, it’s a multi-million dollar business and everyone’s out there trying to get their slice of the pie, but I like to believe that, for a select group of players in the NHL, they still play for the love of the game and winning a Stanley Cup is more important to them then $7 million a season. But for most players, instead of being happy with winning a cup they’re already thinking ahead to their next contracts and it just takes away so much from the game. I guess we just have to except the fact that the Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr days are long gone and now it’s all about marketing, revenue and all the financial mumbo-jumbo that comes with Gary Bettman’s NHL today.
It just seems like hockey isn’t hockey when huge dollars are involved, it just ruins the “playing for the love of the game” aspect of it. Of course, it’s a multi-million dollar business and everyone’s out there trying to get their slice of the pie, but I like to believe that, for a select group of players in the NHL, they still play for the love of the game and winning a Stanley Cup is more important to them then $7 million a season. But for most players, instead of being happy with winning a cup they’re already thinking ahead to their next contracts and it just takes away so much from the game. I guess we just have to except the fact that the Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr days are long gone and now it’s all about marketing, revenue and all the financial mumbo-jumbo that comes with Gary Bettman’s NHL today.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.Blog Archive
19 Back-Up For Luongo?
22 Pittsburgh Penguins: The NHL's Next Superpower
24 Mystery Surrounds Recent Nashville Trades
25 Big Time Busts Of The 2006-2007 Season
26 Vancouver Canucks... Deal Or No Deal?
28 Paul Kariya Belongs In B.C.
22 Pittsburgh Penguins: The NHL's Next Superpower
24 Mystery Surrounds Recent Nashville Trades
25 Big Time Busts Of The 2006-2007 Season
26 Vancouver Canucks... Deal Or No Deal?
28 Paul Kariya Belongs In B.C.
I agree with you. Players are getting greedier. Although in comparison to what other players are getting, I do think that Gomez and Drury's salaries fit in. It's just that the entire collective salary of all of the players is too high.
It’s the fault of the NHL organizations as much as the fault of the players which drives the salary demands. There has been a lot of excitement in Philly, with all the recent acquisitions and signings, since really the trade frenzy last season. Flyers fans are happy we were able to acquire and sign these guys, for sure. But, did we overpay for Timonen, Hartnell and Briere? A lot of fans around the league will say we did, and to a certain extent, I agree. It would have been nice to have signed Hartnell for 3.25M/yr, Timonen for 5.25M/yr and Briere for 5.5M/yr. Not only are these salaries more realistic, but these salaries would have saved the organization 3M/yr, which means the Flyers would have a chance to sign another all star caliber player like Selanne for 3.75M/yr and still have enough cap space to add one more player to the roster. Adding a player of Selanne’s caliber to the Flyers current roster would only improve their chances of not only winning the division, but also challenging for the Cup. So, overpaying to acquire players limits a team’s ability to build a more competitive team, in the short and long run, and it begs the question – would this years UFAs have signed with their current teams for less, giving the team more flexibility to build a better team? I have to wonder.Briere said he was offered more by other teams, but chose the Flyers because he felt it was the best fit for him, he liked the direction of the organization, and he liked their commitment to winning. Because other teams were offering over 7M/yr to sign him, would he have signed with the Flyers, Sabres or any other team for 5.5M/yr? So, is it really about salary or is it about winning? For sure, it’s a little of both, but blame the organizations as much as the players, since they are the ones offering the salaries. And, credit organizations such as Buffalo for not being willing to overpay to sign players – although, I believe they did in Vanek’s case, but by that point, there hands were tied, and they had no choice but to match, and keep one of the players whom they had targeted to make sure they signed. An RFA, whom they knew they could keep, by matching any offer. Obviously, Briere and Drury decided they wanted to go in other directions, with other teams. But would they have signed with those teams at salaries comparative to what Buffalo offered? If signing with the teams with whom they signed wasn’t just about the money, then you have to believe they would have signed at a comparative offer. So, why did these organizations offer higher salaries? And even more, why didn’t the player’s agent say, look, my guy really likes your organization and wants to be a part of whats going on here; he’s willing to sign for less than what you are offering, so you can continue to build a championship team here.I really have to wonder. I think its more than about the organization and the team; I think it IS about the money, too – sadly.
Personally I am just peeved at how Scott Gomez made such a big deal about being closer to his family in Alaska for the last two seasons but then hightailed it across the river when he had 50 million thrown at him. Yet again I have to hate a former hero.
Nobody does anything for free. You wouldnt work for craker jacks either.
And then there's an actual superstar like previous 100 point scorer Joe Thornton who signs for just over 7 million. Enough money to feel good but not so much to suck your team dry so they can't sign other quality players.
in a sense I agree with you but in a sense I believe that the NHL is doing a great job of not letting these contracts get out of control, like some of the contracts in MLB, NFL, and the NBA! No NHL players makes over 10 million dollars a season and doesn;t the CBA state that no play may make 60% of the team's overall salary. I think it is just the way of business these days, but I think the NHL is the only one doing something to prevent inflated contracts to a degree