Petshark: Talking Stick
by petshark on 07/21/12 at 06:00 PM ET
There’s nothing to report from Shark Territory, but it’s been a long time since I posted anything so here are some thoughts on the latest lack of news.
A little over a week ago, Kevin Kurz asked if the Sharks owners should be allowed to profit from their NHL team. I winced at the word “allowed.” Lyle Richardson asked why the team is not profitable in his article from the 18th. But to ask if the owners should be allowed to make money is absurd. There is no law, rule or viable lobby that argues team owners should not be allowed to profit from their teams. Of course NHL teams are for-profit ventures. That said, there’s a difference between allowing someone to do something and finding ways to help them do it.
It gets sticky in terms of PR (which owners may or may not actually care about) when you cry poverty and you aren’t poor, and then try to make your employees pay for your unsatisfactory profits. Whether the NHL thinks they will benefit from a more closely regulated expense system or not, they had time under the 2005 CBA to figure out what a cap system can and can’t do to save owners from each other.
Perhaps they should adjust the rate of increase, but to roll the cap back and cut the players’ profit share below 50% is just silly. Right now, there are only 13 teams under that wildly proposed reduced cap of around $56 million. Forgive me if I don’t go verify what it was, it was preposterously impractical. As for the players’ profit share, that isn’t what makes some teams unprofitable. Far better to address what causes that than expect the players- who have nothing to do with faulty management decisions- to pay for it. It’s more 21st century roving bandit economics. Such thinking goes nowhere but down, even if the floaters get out unscathed.
In short, I wish the NHL owners gave a hoot about what anyone outside their club thinks or whether they look like jerks. But no one will starve (at least no one with a say in these negotiations), the world will go on, the teams are their toys to play with, they can break them if they want to.
This week, Daniel Winnik signed with the Ducks, for less money and term than the Sharks paid Burish. It would be hard to argue that the players are similar, even if they both spend time on the third line. Presumably play quality isn’t why Burish is now a Shark and Winnik isn’t. The negotiations between the Sharks and Winnik don’t seem to have made it past July 1. Wilson made the comment about moving on when he announced the Burish signing but probably it was over before that. We are unlikely to ever know exactly why, but people will speculate anyway. That links to a nice summary of the theories.
According to many reports finally in agreement, Rick Nash looks less likely to join San Jose than ever before. Of course that agreement makes me suspicious that the opposite could be true, because I can be contrary and so can Doug Wilson. If the rumors are true about who Howson is asking for, from the Sharks and others, Nash will probably stay in Columbus until Howson backs off his unacceptable demands. Once he does that, the race to land that whale of a contract can get going again.
When the fodder for that rumor dried up, the Boyle trade rumors started to simmer, beginning with what turned out to be a completely false rumor about a failed trade of Boyle to the Rangers. Before it was silenced, that false rumor that something almost happened but didn’t had grown into “the Sharks are shopping Dan Boyle!” It was all ridiculous since some time after all that was supposed to have taken place (June), Boyle said he hadn’t been asked for a list of teams (July 6). The whole scenario defied logic.
I couldn’t even find a second trade rumor to justify the word “shopping.” It was very imprecise and disturbing, not only because I think it would be a lot to put on Burns to ask him to become the Go To Guy on a team suddenly missing Boyle. Whatever one thought of Boyle’s performance last season, the Sharks would most definitely miss Dan Boyle. I hope he isn’t going anywhere and I wish people would chose their words more precisely.
I don’t see any point in identifying the party or parties who, to my mind, misused the word “shopping.” It’s more my problem than theirs.
Shane Doan is visiting teams in the East between CBA negotiation meetings. He’s in Philly now. I don’t think that is a strong indication that he wants to go there or to New York, which he visited last week. He’s there, he’s a UFA, he has options. His hesitation to sign with a new team might mean he hasn’t gotten the offer he wants, or—and I think this is more likely—he is still holding out hope that he can reasonably re-sign with Phoenix. I think that’s very loyal of him. If he is determined to sign a contract four or more years in length, I don’t think he is likely to land in San Jose. Then again, Burish got four years. If the price was right, it could happen.
Be the first to comment.
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Most Recent Blog Posts
About Petshark: Talking Stick
Native of Northern California. Hockey fan since 1998... sort of... there's a hiatus in there that I still can't explain.
I want to know about anything and everything related to the sport and the spectacle. I watch, I react, I write it down.
My interest in the Sharks was initially a matter of geographic convenience and regional loyalty because that seemed to be how it worked. I had no prior interest (at all-- AT ALL) in professional sports of any kind. When I met hockey, it might have set off a chain reaction of general sports fandom. It hasn't, I don't think it will. At all.
Since then, that interest developed into full blown (mostly sort of usually almost completely) exclusive loyalty to the Sharks.
I started blogging a couple years ago on wordpress. I still occasionally put things there that I don't think fit here because they are not about the Sharks. Wherever my words wander, here on Kuklas Korner, they will (usually) hang on to a teal thread.
I can be found in cyberspace on Twitter @petshark47, or emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org