Lockout Question 1: Replacement Players

[LALAFONTAINE]

In the US and in Alberta, labor laws aren't as socialist as they are in Quebec, Ontario and BC. IIRC, replacement players cannot be used in these locales.

If the NHL plans to use replacement players after a year, what will happen to the Habs, Queefs, Sens and Canucks? Will they temporarily play in different places? Will legislatures pass NHL specific legislation to allow replacement players? Or would those teams simply not play?

I'm just wondering what people think the NHL might do.

[bduff54]

Bettman was on the CBC last night and he made is sound like replacement players is not something they are really looking at, i hope thye don't to it would be horrible.

[LALAFONTAINE]

He's saying that because he has to. If he mentions that it is a possibility, then he would not be adhering to various US laws.

Why would it be horrible? That's why the NFL has labor peace and the best CBA.

[bduff54]

i mean the product, who would care? if it lead to a resolution that would be great but i wouldn't watc hthe product on the ice.

[bernsy74]

I thought I heard somewhere that if there was no deal by June or July 2005, the union will dissolve. If this is the case the players will no be considered replacement but the new permanant. If this is the case, I wonder how the long-term contracts will be treated in this case.

On a related note, Brian Kilrea of the Ottawa 67's had a good idea with respect to the cap. His option would see the top 7 players fall under a cap. Not a bad idea I guess. I would call that a comprimise.

[Mouldsie]

I'd like to see replacements or a great collective baragining agreement ASAP.

[Thumper]

On a related note, Brian Kilrea of the Ottawa 67's had a good idea with respect to the cap. His option would see the top 7 players fall under a cap. Not a bad idea I guess. I would call that a comprimise.

Maybe it's not a bad idea.....But it leaves plenty of room for a gray area....

First of all, why 7 players? That would mean two scoring lines and one defenseman...Or two forwards each from the top two scoring lines and your top two defensemen....What if your goalie is your best player? Most goalies would be in a teams top 7, so this means a huge percentage of all of the goalies in the league would have to deal with being capped. How is that fair to them? Their position is what limits them from making more money?

Second of all, the top 7 players according to whom? The GM? The Coach? The Owner? The Fans? The players that the League considers the top 7 on each team? Who decides who the top 7 players are?

Third of all, that idea would never fly IMHO. The top players on each team are capped, which is exactly what they don't want to be. You may as well just cap everyone, which is what the NHL is trying to do.

Why? Because....Holding players that aren't considered the best to a higher standard; ie, not capping the mediocre players, and then capping the players with more talent, almost punishes the players who have the most talent in a sense. Where is the line drawn for who is a top player and who isn't? And how much money do owners get to spend on those players who's last names are like Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Thornton, and Forsberg?

Say you have 25 million that you can spend on your top 7 players, how much are you allowed to spend on the rest of your team? Unlimited? It wouldn't solve any problems.

[LALAFONTAINE]

i mean the product, who would care? if it lead to a resolution that would be great but i wouldn't watc hthe product on the ice.

Do you watch the NFL? If replacement players are used, half of the players cross picket lines.