Sport Today

by **ROBERT HI** » Sat, 21 Sep 1991 06:02:16

Quote:

>It is unlikely Eric Lindros will ever play in the NHL.

I'm afraid I don't agree. It's just a matter of time.

Quote:

>Now that he has chosen to forego the Nordiques, he returns to play for his
>junior team, the Oshawa Generals. If the first week of October goes by and
>he doesn't sign a pro contract, he's out for the year. Once a player goes
>back to junior, he can't be touched unless in an *extreme* emergency.

I thought that rule applied to players who were already back to
junior by the teams that drafted them. Since Lindros hasn't been sent
back to junior by Quebec (he is going back on his own), this rule
probably doesn't apply here. I think he will be able to play in the NHL
as soon as he signs a contract.

Quote:

>Lindros now plays in Oshawa for another two years while Quebec holds onto his
>rights. The Nordiques will not trade him. To do so would be to be buckling
>in to him, and I sincerely doubt the Nordiques will do this. I have a feeling
>that their stance is that if he doesn't play for them, he's not going to play,
>period.

Why would Quebec do this? Its not in their best interest and the
people running the Quebec franchise are smart enough to see this. Right
now, it is in Quebec's best interest to sign him and call his bluff
regarding his threat to go back to junior. However, if a year or so
goes by and he still hasn't signed with them, I would bet they will
trade his rights so that they get something in return. If he goes back
into the draft two years from now, the Nords get nothing. Next year
around this time, there will probably be many teams making offers to
Quebec for Lindros' rights, knowing that there will be very little
chance at getting the right to draft him the following year (they would
have to finish last overall and hope that nobody else makes a deal
with Quebec).

Quote:

>So what happens after 2 years? Lindros then goes back into the draft, only to
>be drafted by one of three teams: San Jose, Ottawa, or Tampa. Again, none
>of these would seem to be the centers of attention that Lindros wants to find
>himself in, so he would undoubtedly refuse to play for those teams.

Assuming it gets this far (ie. Quebec doesn't trade his rights), why
don't you think Lindros would be willing to play in San Jose or Tampa.
Both are large US markets (2 million plus in each and Florida has a large
number of resident Canadians and Americans from hockey areas) which
offer the potential for many endor***ts. This is the biggest reason
he doesn't want to go to Quebec. The population of Quebec City is only
something like 350,000, which makes it the smallest market in the NHL
by about a factor of two. Even Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg have
close to double the population and all of the US cities have populations
of a million or more (I know Harford isn't this big but there are
several other cities within 60-80 miles).

Quote:

>As far as Lindros challenging the draft in court, is this really plausible?
>Considering that the case might not get to court for years, and that the
>legal fees would be tremendous, Lindros would still not wind up in an NHL
>uniform, and even if a case was eventually found in his favor, he would be so
>much in the hole financially from having to pay for it that it wouldn't have
>been worth it to begin with.

I think its quite possible that the NHLPA would pick up the court tab
if Lindros challenged the draft. After all, all players would stand to
benefit if the courts ruled against the draft. I don't know about how long
the case might drag out in court. This is one thing that might inhibit a
player from challenging the draft. I would guess that a court case would
take around 3-5 years, by the time all the appeals were exhausted.

Quote:

>It might have been easy to push the OMJHL around, but Lindros is dealing with
>the NHL here. Bush league as many of us might think it to be, the owners will
>stick to their guns.

The owners sole motivation is money. It is quite likely that the
legality of the draft would not be upheld in court. The owners' lawyers
will be telling them this. At this point the owners will likely try to
strike a deal with the players in the form of a new CBA which would
grant the players more free agency options while retaining some form of
the draft (something similar to this happened with the NFL).

Quote:

>The wise move would have been to sign with Quebec. He would have eventually
>been a star, made millions of dollars in salary AND endor***ts, and been set
>for life. The endor***ts might still be there, but he will never play in
>the NHL

One of the things that Lindros may be waiting for is the new CBA
(assuming there is one before too long). If a new CBA grants the players
more freedom in becoming free agents, then Lindros may decide to sign
a short term contract with Quebec. If he knows he can become a free
agent after two or three years, he may decide to sign with Quebec and
move on after that. Of course, the rules concerning free agent
compensation would have to be more conducive to teams signing free
agents.

Bob

by **Sherri Nicho** » Sat, 21 Sep 1991 06:14:09

Quote:

>Lindros now plays in Oshawa for another two years while Quebec holds onto his
>rights. The Nordiques will not trade him. To do so would be to be buckling
>in to him, and I sincerely doubt the Nordiques will do this. I have a feeling
>that their stance is that if he doesn't play for them, he's not going to play,
>period.

Pretty stupid stance. What does it gain them? It means they've gotten no
value from their first round pick this year.

Quote:

>As far as Lindros challenging the draft in court, is this really plausible?
>Considering that the case might not get to court for years, and that the
>legal fees would be tremendous, Lindros would still not wind up in an NHL
>uniform, and even if a case was eventually found in his favor, he would be so
>much in the hole financially from having to pay for it that it wouldn't have
>been worth it to begin with.

It doesn't necessarily have to get to court. Given that an entry draft is
a blatant violation of anti-trust laws, professional sports have scrambled
all over themselves to avoid court challenges to their drafts.

Yes, it's true that if Lindros had to see a court challenge all the way
through, it would take years and lots of money. It's also true that it's
unlikely he'd have to go that far.

Sherri Nichols

by **MAD MAX - THE ROAD WARRI** » Sat, 21 Sep 1991 03:18:00

It is unlikely Eric Lindros will ever play in the NHL.

Now that he has chosen to forego the Nordiques, he returns to play for his
junior team, the Oshawa Generals. If the first week of October goes by and
he doesn't sign a pro contract, he's out for the year. Once a player goes
back to junior, he can't be touched unless in an *extreme* emergency.

Lindros now plays in Oshawa for another two years while Quebec holds onto his
rights. The Nordiques will not trade him. To do so would be to be buckling
in to him, and I sincerely doubt the Nordiques will do this. I have a feeling
that their stance is that if he doesn't play for them, he's not going to play,
period.

So what happens after 2 years? Lindros then goes back into the draft, only to
be drafted by one of three teams: San Jose, Ottawa, or Tampa. Again, none
of these would seem to be the centers of attention that Lindros wants to find
himself in, so he would undoubtedly refuse to play for those teams.

As far as Lindros challenging the draft in court, is this really plausible?
Considering that the case might not get to court for years, and that the
legal fees would be tremendous, Lindros would still not wind up in an NHL
uniform, and even if a case was eventually found in his favor, he would be so
much in the hole financially from having to pay for it that it wouldn't have
been worth it to begin with.

It might have been easy to push the OMJHL around, but Lindros is dealing with
the NHL here. Bush league as many of us might think it to be, the owners will
stick to their guns.

The wise move would have been to sign with Quebec. He would have eventually
been a star, made millions of dollars in salary AND endor***ts, and been set
for life. The endor***ts might still be there, but he will never play in
the NHL

********************************************************************************
* Brian E. Boguhn * "If the forces of evil ever rise *
* State University of NY at Buffalo * again... *

********************************************************************************

by **MAD MAX - THE ROAD WARRI** » Sat, 21 Sep 1991 21:29:00

Quote:

>>Lindros now plays in Oshawa for another two years while Quebec holds onto his
>>rights. The Nordiques will not trade him. To do so would be to be buckling
>>in to him, and I sincerely doubt the Nordiques will do this. I have a feeling
>>that their stance is that if he doesn't play for them, he's not going to play,
>>period.

>Pretty stupid stance. What does it gain them? It means they've gotten no
>value from their first round pick this year.

True, they get nothing from their first round pick this year, but they win a
m***battle by not buckling in to an eigh*** year old kid who feels he can
dictate to the NHL what they can and cannot do. Trading his rights is flat
out stating that OK, Eric, you win, have it your way. Not only do the Nords
and the NHL look bad as a result, this sets the stage for players in upcoming
years to pull the same kind of stunt.

Quote:

>>As far as Lindros challenging the draft in court, is this really plausible?
>>Considering that the case might not get to court for years, and that the
>>legal fees would be tremendous, Lindros would still not wind up in an NHL
>>uniform, and even if a case was eventually found in his favor, he would be so
>>much in the hole financially from having to pay for it that it wouldn't have
>>been worth it to begin with.

>It doesn't necessarily have to get to court. Given that an entry draft is
>a blatant violation of anti-trust laws, professional sports have scrambled
>all over themselves to avoid court challenges to their drafts.

>Yes, it's true that if Lindros had to see a court challenge all the way
>through, it would take years and lots of money. It's also true that it's
>unlikely he'd have to go that far.

If a draft is so blatant, why hasn't it gone to court yet, in any of the major
sports? There must be something somewhere that keeps it out. If it is that
wrong and there is no way it could stand up to a court challenge, someone would
have challenged it by now; it would be a win scenario for them. The owners
wouldn't be able to scramble that much if the draft is that illegal. There's
something else keeping it out of the courts, possibly that it isn't as blatant
as some people think it is, and possibly that the owners of the NHL do have
the right to state how the league runs and works.

********************************************************************************
* Brian E. Boguhn * "If the forces of evil ever rise *
* State University of NY at Buffalo * again... *

********************************************************************************

by **Mike Machn** » Sat, 21 Sep 1991 19:36:03

Quote:

>True, they get nothing from their first round pick this year, but they win a
>m***battle by not buckling in to an eigh*** year old kid who feels he can
>dictate to the NHL what they can and cannot do.

It all depends on how you look at it. The opposite view says that Lindros
is trying to be allowed to do what he wants to do, and the NHL is getting
in the way of it.

Lindros is not telling the NHL what to do or not do. He's simply saying he
wants to play in a certain place(s) not including Quebec. Just because
certain rules have been in place in the NHL for years doesn't mean they
are right.
--
== Mike Machnik Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
== 508-294-2177 300 Concord Road MA30-819A ==

by **Sherri Nicho** » Sun, 22 Sep 1991 09:22:40

Quote:

>True, they get nothing from their first round pick this year, but they win a
>m***battle by not buckling in to an eigh*** year old kid who feels he can
>dictate to the NHL what they can and cannot do.

Winning games generates more money than winning m***battles.

Quote:

>out stating that OK, Eric, you win, have it your way. Not only do the Nords
>and the NHL look bad as a result, this sets the stage for players in upcoming
>years to pull the same kind of stunt.

Oh NO! Heaven forbid that a player should attempt to gain any leverage in
a system that is stacked against him.

Quote:

>If a draft is so blatant, why hasn't it gone to court yet, in any of the major
>sports? There must be something somewhere that keeps it out.

You bet there's something that keeps it out: the major sports don't let it
go to court. They settle. The NFL has done it time and time again. Since
you're dealing with entering players, and they aren't represented by a
union, it's to their benefit to accept the settlement rather than to go
through the process to establish the legal principle.

Why do you think the NFL changed its rules about drafting undergraduates?

Sherri Nichols

by **Bill Monhemi** » Wed, 25 Sep 1991 02:42:18

About the NHL draft, there is a lot of discussion about the legality of it, but
it seems like the only practical way to ensure that the poorer teams become
competitive and that there is more parity in the league. I'm probably stating
the obvious, but it seems essential, especially to the NHL, to maintain a draft
if it wants franchises like Quebec to survive. If a player doesn't want to play for a club, trade'em to another club. The Quebec club is being very foolish
by trying to wait Lindros out - they could probably get a lot of decent players
for him right now, with his market value so high after the CANADA CUP.

My main point though, is even if the draft seems unfair, the NHL should not be
forced to relinquish it. The NHL is a business and it has a right to
institute policies, ie. the draft, that will ensure the survival of all its
members. At the same time though a player should not be forced to play for
a team he does not want to and management should accomodate a player for this.

I suppose there would be a problem if no one wanted to play for a particular
team, like Quebec let's say, but then that team probably shouldn't be in the
league in the first place .....

My 2 cents worth.

Bill Monhemius

by **Gerald Olcho** » Wed, 25 Sep 1991 03:16:11

Quote:

>About the NHL draft, there is a lot of discussion about the legality of it, but
>it seems like the only practical way to ensure that the poorer teams become
>competitive and that there is more parity in the league. I'm probably stating
>the obvious, but it seems essential, especially to the NHL, to maintain a draft
>if it wants franchises like Quebec to survive. If a player doesn't want to play for a club, trade'em to another club. The Quebec club is being very foolish
>by trying to wait Lindros out - they could probably get a lot of decent players
>for him right now, with his market value so high after the CANADA CUP.

Free agency would help a last place team become competitive quickly than
the draft...and also bring about parity a lot quicker (as long as some
revenue-sharing and a salary cap came along with it).

Quote:

>forced to relinquish it. The NHL is a business and it has a right to
>institute policies, ie. the draft, that will ensure the survival of all its
>members. At the same time though a player should not be forced to play for
>a team he does not want to and management should accomodate a player for this.

Your last statement is akin to calling for free agency...a player should
not be forced to play for a team he does not want to.

Quote:

>I suppose there would be a problem if no one wanted to play for a particular
>team, like Quebec let's say, but then that team probably shouldn't be in the
>league in the first place .....

There are lots of people who would be more than willing to play for
Quebec, but Eric Lindros is not one of them, and a lot of them are
restrained from doing so because of the lack of free agency.

Gerald

by **Daryl Turn** » Thu, 26 Sep 1991 01:35:01

If you're going to include a salary cap with basically unrestricted free
agency, then you are going to have to consider three important factors:

1. Setting the cap at or near the lowest common denominator for revenue.
McNall might consider a salary cap of $50 million a 'restraint',
whereas Barry Shenkarow would simply LOVE to be able to spend that
much money on his team.
2. Make the penalties for breaching the cap severe enough to enforce them.
3. Make sure that 'personal service contracts' are INCLUDED in the salary
cap. Otherwise, you get a situation like in Toronto with the Argos, where
they can spend a maximum of $3million on operations, yet can pay the Rocket
$18 million over 4 years.

=============================================================
Daryl Turner, a lowly student at the University of Manitoba.

Fido: 1:348/704 (mail only)
I am, and always shall be, your friend. Spock, ST2:TWOK

by **Gerald Olcho** » Thu, 26 Sep 1991 09:04:42

Quote:

>If you're going to include a salary cap with basically unrestricted free
>agency, then you are going to have to consider three important factors:

>1. Setting the cap at or near the lowest common denominator for revenue.
>McNall might consider a salary cap of $50 million a 'restraint',
>whereas Barry Shenkarow would simply LOVE to be able to spend that
>much money on his team.

The cap and floor should be set in the CBA, and it also requires at
least some revenue-sharing to work effectively. The advantage to
the owners, although it means a shift in power to the players, and
for the owners to share at least some money among themselves, is that
it will allow for controlling salary costs and the escalation of
those costs, and these costs will be a function of the gross
revenue and thus will not undermine the financial viability of
the game.

Quote:

>2. Make the penalties for breaching the cap severe enough to enforce them.
>3. Make sure that 'personal service contracts' are INCLUDED in the salary
>cap. Otherwise, you get a situation like in Toronto with the Argos, where
>they can spend a maximum of $3million on operations, yet can pay the Rocket
>$18 million over 4 years.

Most definitely...the salary caps have to be real...the exception in
the NBA, I think, is that teams are allowed to break the salary cap
to resign their own players, (but a team at the salary cap cannot go
out and sign other free agents).

Gerald

Sport Today

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL

Why Lindros will never play in the NHL