NHLPA to Ryan Kesler: Be Quiet

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Article

Vancouver Canuck forward Ryan Kesler has been admonished by the NHL Players Association and asked to keep his lip buttoned on the matter of players — other than himself, that is — taking below-market value contracts to be part of a winning team.

The Canucks' rising star suggested last week that he and his mates should emulate the Detroit Red Wings and maybe take a little less to keep their lineup intact. NHLPA director of player affairs Glenn Healy apparently set Kesler straight in a recent phone call.

Basically, the NHLPA has told Kesler to stop talking about paycuts. There's a shocker, a union trying to get as much money as possible.

If I was Kesler, I'd politely tell them to kiss my ass.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Hockeytown0001

[Guest Shoreline]

3 very simple words are all that's necessary:

f*** the PA.

[b.shanafan14 733]

Kesler is a good s***. I think its funny that the NHLPA actually told him to shut up about encouraging the selfless less pay, more wins system of the Red Wings.

[redwingslady87 130]

looks like Ryan and his agent need to get on the same page. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can see how this article contradicts Ryan's thoughts of needing to take paycuts in order to keep their lineup together.

[Guest Shoreline]

looks like Ryan and his agent need to get on the same page. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can see how this article contradicts Ryan's thoughts of needing to take paycuts in order to keep their lineup together.

Yeah there was a recent thread discussing that, and the agent basically says Kesler didn't mean what he said. Kinda hard to misconstrue stuff like that, and I've always liked Kesler even before this incident (*peers at the list of favorite players from different teams*).

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

I was actually a bit suprised when I first read this, didn't a story come out where his agent said that there wasn't any chance of him taking a hometown discount?

Edit: NVM, redwingslady87 answered that

Edited March 26, 2009 by Hockeytown0001

[rwfan007 18]

people are suddenly realizing that in order to be a winning team, you just cant go for the most amount of money you can, otherwise the rest of the team suffers. Team loyalty and dedication to winning is what keeps the wings on the top of the pile. Other people are starting to think that this would be a decent idea and are willing to take a cut in salary.

[Guest Shoreline]

I was actually a bit suprised when I first read this, didn't a story come out where his agent said that there wasn't any chance of him taking a hometown discount?

Edit: NVM, redwingslady87 answered that

The thread is here:

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56481

[MacK_Attack 108]

Reminds me of back during the lockout when a player would speak out and say that the league needed a cap or that a cap wouldn't be a bad thing, only to suddenly change his tune a day or two later.

[Guest Shoreline]

Reminds me of back during the lockout when a player would speak out and say that the league needed a cap or that a cap wouldn't be a bad thing, only to suddenly change his tune a day or two later.

Black and blue from a good ol' browbeating.

[Datsyerberger 279]

Quite less than sober at the moment, but Kesler is a good dude. I hope he keeps up his perseverance to excel.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Article

Basically, the NHLPA has told Kesler to stop talking about paycuts. There's a shocker, a union trying to get as much money as possible.

If I was Kesler, I'd politely tell them to kiss my ass.

Hell, I wouldn't even be polite about it. I'd also remind him who that ******* union works for.

[55fan 5,133]

What am I missing here? Isn't the players' association supposed to be on the side of the players?

If a player takes less to be with a team where he's happy, isn't that what the player wants?

If a group of players take less (like the Wings) to ice a champion team, then they win, and they're happy.

If players in general take less, then there's more to keep all of the franchises up and running, which creates more jobs than if some of the lesser ones were to fold.

Plus, lower salaries --> lower expenses --> lower ticket prices --> more fans, and more money for fans to spend on stuff like jerseys, pucks, sticks, etc. --> greater income --> higher salaries in the long run whilst building the sport.

The above is oversimplified, of course, but if people are not coming to the games (and new fans are turned off) due to ticket prices, wouldn't lowering the prices get more fans into the arenas? I don't know about you, but if I'm at a game, I'm more likely to buy something than if I'm sitting in my house just watching.

Why are they concerned if a guy wants to take less money in order to be on a winning team? If it's supposed to be the players' association, shouldn't they support the players who want to be able to do what they want with their own lives and pursue their own happiness?

[Yak19 303]

Margaritaville

Edited March 26, 2009 by Yak19

[Guest Shoreline]

What am I missing here? Isn't the players' association supposed to be on the side of the players?

If a player takes less to be with a team where he's happy, isn't that what the player wants?

If a group of players take less (like the Wings) to ice a champion team, then they win, and they're happy.

If players in general take less, then there's more to keep all of the franchises up and running, which creates more jobs than if some of the lesser ones were to fold.

Plus, lower salaries --> lower expenses --> lower ticket prices --> more fans, and more money for fans to spend on stuff like jerseys, pucks, sticks, etc. --> greater income --> higher salaries in the long run whilst building the sport.

The above is oversimplified, of course, but if people are not coming to the games (and new fans are turned off) due to ticket prices, wouldn't lowering the prices get more fans into the arenas? I don't know about you, but if I'm at a game, I'm more likely to buy something than if I'm sitting in my house just watching.

Why are they concerned if a guy wants to take less money in order to be on a winning team? If it's supposed to be the players' association, shouldn't they support the players who want to be able to do what they want with their own lives and pursue their own happiness?

The PA basically represents players in a financial sense, it would seem, without any moral aspect of it. So basically the PA's goal is to function like a corporate goal of profit. PA = want more money for players in the union. Business = want more profit (capital, revenue). They represent two extremes. Somewhere in the middle is logic. That would be where Kesler is in his statement, and your analogies.

[ComradeWasabi 109]

lower salaries --> lower expenses -->lower ticket prices

The flaw in your logic is revealed.

Seriously though, the PA does exactly what Shoreline says. They have the players' financial security at heart, and they protect it aggressively. That means that someone like Glenn Healy gets to bite all the ankles he wants.

Edited March 26, 2009 by ComradeWasabi

[Konnan511 1,736]

What am I missing here? Isn't the players' association supposed to be on the side of the players?

Yes, but the player Union's focus is to maximize player profit aka salaries. If one guy starts talking about a trend to lower salaries, then that would upset the NHLPA...which it has now

If a player takes less to be with a team where he's happy, isn't that what the player wants?

Why are they concerned if a guy wants to take less money in order to be on a winning team? If it's supposed to be the players' association, shouldn't they support the players who want to be able to do what they want with their own lives and pursue their own happiness?

The NHLPA does to an extent about player happiness, but they want to see high salaries to create more utility for the players.

If a group of players take less (like the Wings) to ice a champion team, then they win, and they're happy.

And the NHLPA I bet hates the Wings. They get guys to cap hits WELLLLLL below market value which will start to lower the contracts of other players, causing a ripple effect.

If players in general take less, then there's more to keep all of the franchises up and running, which creates more jobs than if some of the lesser ones were to fold.

Plus, lower salaries --> lower expenses --> lower ticket prices --> more fans, and more money for fans to spend on stuff like jerseys, pucks, sticks, etc. --> greater income --> higher salaries in the long run whilst building the sport.

The above is oversimplified, of course, but if people are not coming to the games (and new fans are turned off) due to ticket prices, wouldn't lowering the prices get more fans into the arenas? I don't know about you, but if I'm at a game, I'm more likely to buy something than if I'm sitting in my house just watching.

See, this is where economics comes into play. Lower salaries does lead to more jobs in that market. But what you're missing is that if you field the same team and are competitive or improve, ticket prices will increase to seek maximum profit. Owners don't care if the arena isn't sold out, they just care about making the most profit on a nightly basis. if u nearly sold out every home game the previous season then a few guys take pay cuts, more than likely ticket prices will stay the same. If the team was successful the previous year, then the prices would increase shifting the demand curve to the right while the supply curve doesn't move.

[RoninJai 5]

I'd also remind him who that ******* union works for.

If it's like most unions...their thought process is that the union seeks only to advance the will of the UNION itself, as if it was an entity unto it's own. Needs or wants of the players themselves are inconsequential, and usually a union is not against biting off it's nose to spite it's face.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

If it's like most unions...their thought process is that the union seeks only to advance the will of the UNION itself, as if it was an entity unto it's own. Needs or wants of the players themselves are inconsequential, and usually a union is not against biting off it's nose to spite it's face.

Exactly the thought of the majority of unions around the country today.

[OsGOD 3]

lmao... atta boy Ryan... never one to step away from the center of attention as a kiddy and now you are getting right into it with the big boys. You make us back home smile