I really don’t understand Brooks’ logic here. Sure, it’s a gamble with these long-term contracts, but at least it’s money spent on potential rather than spent forces which was what happened under the last CBA. If owners are gonna overspend (and they always will, regardless of any restrictions)I’d rather see them spending on players with potential. At least then you know there’s a better chance of the player actually getting his worth rather than throwing away money on past-their-prime veterans.

And his statement about Ovechkin’s contract coming out of escrow payments and his teammates pockets is absurd. Does anyone really think his teammates will resent that fact? The best players always get the best salaries and nobody begrudges them that when they’re playing well and earning that money. This was expected when this CBA was ratified and isn’t an issue. Brooks is using this to make a mountain out of a molehill.

As an aside, I think the criticism being levied at Ovechkin and the Capitals for his new contract is ridiculous. Their situation is almost similar to Crosby and the Penguins, but because Sid’s “a good Canadian boy” everyone nodded in agreement over how wise the Pens were to lock him up for six years at $8.7 million per.

Ovechkin, a Russian, is tagged as shortsighted and greedy for actually wanting to stay in Washington and help rebuild a mediocre franchise. If he were Canadian,he’d be drawing comparisons to Steve Yzerman for his loyalty to his franchise. 

Bill Watters of Sportsnet actually raised the issue of Ovechkin being European, saying “those guys from the other side of the ocean” slack off after getting their big money, citing Jagr and Bure.

Jagr’s a moody cuss but I don’t think he ever slacked off but rather his performance was affected by injury (his continually nagging groin injuries) and off-ice issues (compulsive gambling). Bure’s career was cut short by knee injuries. If those two were Canadian or American, you wouldn’t hear Watters make such an outrageous statement.

Some players do slack off after getting their big contract, but being Canadian, American or European has nothing to do with it. For those players, it just human nature. Many others, including many Europeans, play up to their big money expectations.

Nik Lidstrom and Pavel Datsyuk never slacked off after making big money with Detroit. Zdeno Chara is playing his heart out trying to carry a thin Bruins blueline. Ilya Kovalchuk remains one of the few bright spots on the Atlanta Thrashers. Dominik Hasek was for years one of the NHL’s top goalie back in the day when he earned top dollar. Marian Gaborik when healthy is the only pure offensive talent on the defensive minded Wild and has been for years. Martin Havlat works so hard in Chicago he keeps injuring himself. Andrei Markov is finally gaining recognition as an All-Star in Montreal after being arguably the most under-rating blueliner in the NHL.

Nobody points at Brad Richards, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, Daniel Briere, Ed Jovanovski, Wade Redden and Bryan McCabe and claim the reason they’re not earning their money is because they’re North American.

Watters’ bigotry is disgraceful and proof that he cannot be taken seriously as a hockey analyst.

Posted by Lyle Richardson from Charlottetown, PEI, Canada on 01/13/08 at 07:27 AM ET

Lyle Richardson—the “Anti-Grapes of Wrath”

Great commentary Lyle, as usual. 

Without question, “anti North American” sentiment creeps into analysis or commentary—sometimes right through the front door.  Generalizations are always fraught with exception, sometimes overwhelmingly so—as you so clearly pointed out.  The competent writer avoids them, citing only specific instances to reinforce his contention. Researching multiple references would have undoubtedly led Mr. Watters to conclude his contention was not well-founded—that or he carefully chose his references to support his argument; in which case would suggest that he has a motive or agenda to promote through his article. 

What I found so appalling about Westhead’s column was his clear implication that the League should somehow dictate what city the “star” players should be allowed to play for. (Big Brother knows what is best for the League—never mind the fact that many of the owners have earned their title through independant and brilliantly run business operations resulting in the financial ability to pay for that privilege).  It is astounding to me that the business-decision making ability of Mr. Leonsis is being called into question—by people who have little or no demonstrated business-decision making history (let alone with the recorded ability of Mr. Leonsis).  Plain arrogance.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Hockey Netherworld on 01/13/08 at 09:59 AM ET

Lyle -

I’m not sure that “hockey people” know what to do with guys like Ovechkin and Kovalchuk because they’re charismatic, passionate, and have a bit of a mean streak even in them.  They’re not only as talented as some of the “ Good Ol’ Canadian boys”, they also have some semblance of a fire and personality that quite frankly most North American players are lacking any more.

I would say though that Jagr is, at times, lazy, and has been for years.  He’s moody, yes.  But you can just watch him play sometimes and tell he’s mailing it in.  But he’s an exception—not the rule.

The point is though, that I’d kill for the league to be blessed with a couple more Ovies and Kovies in a couple markets.  It’d do wonders for the league’s interest, image, and morale.  It’s difficult to watch Ilya and Alex play and not be struck by how much they love the game and how good they really are.  As much as people make some ridiculous fuss about watching Crosby play, quite frankly he’s boring as hell compared to watching Ovechkin.  And it’s that passion and joy that makes the big difference.

And maybe that’s what scares these N. American writers about them the most, that their homegrown boys can’t muster up that same joy or interest.

Posted by Primis on 01/13/08 at 09:44 PM ET

“And what kind of a league is it, and what kind of a system is it, exactly, under which the NHL operates, where an immense and dramatically increasing percentage of the players’ overall take goes to athletes who have been in the league for three seasons as opposed to those who have played for 10 or 15 years?”

Is this the beginning of the famous Carl Marx Communist Manifesto?

The section then goes on to argue that the struggle under NHL system is between those who 20 or 21 years old making the most, and those who labor for a wage for 10 or 15 years.

Posted by PeterGower on 01/13/08 at 11:08 PM ET

Jumping out of the jingoistic part of the article (cite Larionov as a prime example). Its funny to see how there are always two sides to this debate about long term contracts to the young. The veterans always look at it like you are paying a young guy who hasn’t done anything to prove himself and the young guys will look at it like you are paying the vets for past performance and not for what they are currently worth. The vets will always point to what has a youngster ever won and an owner will pay for potential even if it is never achieved. The guaranteed income could make the young player complacent, but that is the job of the GM to decide.

The reality is that the current CBA was designed to remove the GM from the equation and leave it at the feet of the owners. Brian Burke is lamenting the participation of players in the rule change process etc, but if the GMS hadn’t made such colossal mistakes in the past handling their budgets they wouldn’t have been taken out of the loop. A good GM/owner will recognize the talent to lock in long term and a poor GM will burden their organization with a lame duck for 10 years.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 01/14/08 at 11:49 AM ET

The veterans always look at it like you are paying a young guy who hasn’t done anything to prove himself and the young guys will look at it like you are paying the vets for past performance and not for what they are currently worth.

The only way to get around it would be to give everyone a one-year contract - especially if you make it payable at the end of the year based on their accomplishments.

Somehow paying hockey players on commission doesn’t sound like the best idea.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 01/14/08 at 01:09 PM ET