(This a part 3 of series detailing why the NHL lockout must
come to an end You can read Part 1 discussed the lockout’s negative impact on
the legacy of the league. Part 2 details how the fans will be hurt. Part 3 will
focus on the players.)
The possibility of a second lost season in eight years grew
ever more likely last week when negotiations between the Player’s Union and the
Owners broke down. We’re now approaching Christmas time with no end to the
lockout in sight.
Both Players Union Head Donald Fehr and Commissioner Gary
Bettman stated their views on why negotiations broke down and expressed
pessimism when confronted with the idea of the 2012-2013 season being played.
Of course another lost season would hurt the legacy of a league whose reputation
has already been damaged beyond the possibility of receiving the attention of
the masses in America. A hockey-free winter would also be a slap in the face to
the small minority of people in America who live and die with their NHL teams.
Plus, we haven’t mentioned all the cameramen, sound people, statisticians and
minimum wage earning food vendors who are suffering through this lockout.
Yet there is another consequence of this lockout that hasn’t
been addressed much by the mainstream media; the effect of losing two seasons
on the player’s legacy and career path. As I discussed in Part 1, the 2012-2013
season was shaping up to be one of the most fun and important seasons in years.
The league was finally beginning to emerge from the last lockout as long-term
stars and consistent playoff teams with identities were beginning to form. Yet
all this progress was halted with the talk of a new labor deal. In the past
three months nothing has been accomplished. So now I believe it’s time to
wonder, how important is it to players/teams if the season doesn’t happen? A
lost season could affect the careers of each player in a different manner.
Sidney Crosby is not only the face of the NHL but also its
best player. If this season is lost, Crosby will have played 22 games in a span
of 33 months. Basically, three full seasons in the middle of Crosby’s prime
have been wasted. Yes, this was mostly due to injury but the fact that a league-wide
lockout is adding to this waste of his prime is a travesty. But, having broken
into the league in 2005, Crosby was not really affected by the first lockout.
He’s lucky as there are a few players who could lose two full years of their
prime for no other reason than the league’s complete inability to create a
sustainable labor model. Guys like Ovechkin, Kovalchuk and Parise will have
lost two full years of their early prime. Guys like Martin Broduer and Ray
Whitney waste more of what precious years they have left. Guys like Nail
Yakupov have to wait another year before entering the league. The momentum of
career years will be derailed for guys like Stamkos and Malkin.
The underlying point in all of this is that every player in
the league will lose a year of their career because of the ineptitude of those
who are supposedly “in charge” of labor negotiations on both sides. This isn’t
fair to nearly every player in the league who has nothing to do with the
lockout. Why should they suffer because the Owners generally run their teams poorly?
This is the same type of situation we saw in the NBA, why does there have to be
a limit on the number of years in a contract? Why should the players be hurt by
team management’s inability to determine what a fair price is? The ineptitude
of the leadership in the NHL is not only going to kill the 2012-2013 season, it’s
going to damage the career paths and legacies of nearly every player.
No comments:
Post a Comment