Bob Sturm is a diehard Packer fan and still cringes at the mention of 4th and 26. I am a diehard Eagles fan and am debating having "4th and 26" tattooed on my body. Bob Sturm loves to hate Philadelphia sports fans. I love to be a Philadelphia sports fan. Bob Sturm is one of the hosts of BaD Radio, the afternoon show on The Ticket. I work down the hall, in the Promotions Department. Bob Sturm calls Gabe Kapler a close, personal friend. I call Gabe Kapler 1 of the 25.

There are so many differences, but there is only one similarity that matters. Bob and I both live, eat, and breathe sports. We understand that our moods for an entire week may very well be decided by how well our football teams fare. We understand that sports are a way of life. We understand that we don't understand casual sports fans.

We also understand that there are two sides to every story, though we each secretly believe our side to be correct. This is the first in a series of sports debates between myself and the Sturminator.

NHL Lock-Out - Part One:

From: Meredith
To: Sturm
Date: January 1, 2005
Subject: Here we go....

89 days. That's how long ago the hockey season was scheduled to start. 89 long, hockeyless days.
Most of the players are plying their craft in Europe or in any number of US cities with a minor league hockey team. The rest are speaking publicly about how much they are enjoing their time off. Most of the owners have plenty of other business interests to keep their wallets fat. The majority of sports fans haven't even noticed that hockey isn't being played this year, a fact which is guaranteed to hurt the NHL's already reeling TV ratings and attendance.

So where does that leave us, the fans?

It's been 89 days without a forecheck, a penalty shot, or a game winning goal. In a disgusting battle between the haves and have-mores, we seem to be the only ones who have really lost anything.

While neither side has behaved perfectly, there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of the blame lies with the players.

Most who support the players argue that since the owners are the ones who dole out these massive contracts, they are to blame for the current state of the NHL. But any true sports fan should understand that the owners' backs were against a wall and they really were given very few other options.

Let's start at the beginning. Why does an owner sign a free agent to an exorbitant contract? Because he is afraid the free agent will sign with another team. Let's say owner A wants to remain competitive, and in order to do that, he needs to sign a top free agent goaltender in the offseason. Sure, he can make respectable offers, but odds are, another owner will pay three times as much and end up with the goaltender. Fast forward a few years. Owner A has stuck to his guns and refused to offer any huge contracts. As a result, he has failed to land a single free agent in three years and fans are irrate. They see other owners giving out big contracts, which in the sports world means they are "dedicating to winning," and they wonder why their owner isn't willing to do anything it takes to bring home a championship. Those fans grow restless and attendance begins to drop.

Owners had no choice but to offer outragous contracts. If one owner didn't, another would. There are no spoken agreements or handshake deals between owners to keep prices down in the world of professional sports. A salary cap is the only answer.

It's no secret that the NHL makes merely pennies on their TV contract compared to those of the other major sports. The NHL simply doesn't have the means to pay their athletes the same as the MLB, NBA, and NFL. The fans realize it. The owners realize it. The players...what's their excuse?

A salary cap is the answer. You need look no further than the NFL to see how effective one can be. I have a hard time understanding why the majority of the players are so opposed to one. Sure, guys like Aaron Downey would have a lot to lose. The change would significantly lower the salaries of 4th line guys and probably push some of these guys into the minors. But let's face it - isn't that where most of them belong? The NHL expanded in a failed attempt to market itself and up profits, but all they did was water down the talent and decrease the quality of the game. So it makes sense to me that the NHLPA must oppose a salary cap to protect these fringe players, but I can't help but wonder if players like Brett Hull and Mike Modano are secretly wishing the NHLPA would give in. Because surely they realize that the future of the NHL is in jeopardy if they go an entire season without playing hockey. Surely they realize that hockey isn't nearly as popular as basketball, football, baseball, or even golf or NASCAR.

Though it may be too late. The NHL was already in a tailspin before this lock-out, and I'm not sure it can ever recover. The future of the league, and the sport, is on the shoulders of the guys who play the game. The owners can't afford to give in. The players can't afford not to.
____________________________

From: Sturm
To: Meredith
Date: January 2, 2005
Subject: Re: Here we go....


Well, first, Meredith, I count it a true pleasure to debate the issues of sports with you. Like people who have "Gay-dar" I, too, know when someone else out there has my condition known as "gotta-be-right-ous". And, over the years, it is evident you have it, too. This should be fun.

Now, as to this issue of fault in the current NHL abomination, I place the majority of the blame on the people you seem to find innocent, the owners. The reasoning is simple. This is their business. They are the stewards of this game. Especially the commissioner! You mentioned their other business ventures, which made them rich in the first place. Why then, can they not apply simple business principles to hockey? Why, when money is so short, and profits are so difficult to realize, would they spend to such levels of stupidity? You know, Martin Lapointe and Bobby Holik contract deals of insanity? Why, if they know the balance sheets, and if they know the red ink oozes, would they hurry to spend?

Well, for one thing, not everyone is in the red ink. Many teams turn profits, because of franchises in cultivated hockey bases. Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, New York, St. Louis, Montreal and a few select others do quite well. Gary Bettman wants those cities to stop spending immediately. Last Year, Detroit Owner Mike Ilitch spent $75 million last year because he wanted to. He wanted to win, he had the profits, and he thought he would buy some hockey players to win the Cup. Under Bettman's idiocy, He will ask Ilitch to place the $40 million over the $35 million salary cap into his wallet and stop spending for his fans. He has the money. His fans have supported his product. He wishes to reward those fans, but Bettman wants the Red Wings to spend no more than the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, whose fans don't give a rip about hockey. Heck, they may not have fans. But, I guess that makes sense. What the Red Wings, Rangers, Maple Leafs, and Flyers do is spend their profits. Sadly, the Blackhawks and Bruins generally keep their profits, and that is why their fan base hates them.

Now, clearly, Meredith, you are wondering whether I will even admit some franchises are losing big money. Yes, they are. Many teams are. Let's list some of them: Florida, Anaheim, Tampa Bay, Atlanta…Oh wait, those are teams that Gary Bettman and his cronies thought they would invent in the 90's in an effort to reap the benefit of expansion fees. So, they opened some franchises in a markets that made no sense, and now they wonder why they do not prosper financially! Then, they authorized the moving of franchises to other hockey hot beds like Raleigh and Phoenix, and what do you know? Half the league does not show profits! Of course, it should be noted that there do exist some franchises who cannot compete with the big boys, despite playing in big hockey areas, as Edmonton and Calgary demonstrate, but I could show you Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago as traditional football powers who's fiscal cheapness has resulted in a combined 1 Super Bowl appearance over the years. Yes, even with the perfect financial set up in the NFL, certain franchises cannot overcome poor ownership.

But through it all, allow me to tell you what annoys me most about your opening rant. Your justification of owner spending stupidity because of screaming fans and pressure from their peers. First off, fans don't make decisions for a reason. As a whole, it is a nation of idiots, and all they understand is winning. Show them a winner, they will love you. Show them expensive players that don't win, and they won't love you. (See Texas Rangers 2003 versus 2004). As for peer pressure from other franchises to get "the player" of the off-season, they should merely look in the mirror for the source of blame. If you go to the store, see a big screen TV and buy it, despite not being able to afford it that is on you. It is not the store's fault. It is not your friend's fault. Only you know your financial situation. If your friend has a big screen TV, it might be that your friend can afford it, and you cannot. The same logic applies to the NHL owners. If any sport has demonstrated that you cannot buy championships, it is hockey. People complain about competitive balance, and try to compare this sport to baseball which has the same teams in the playoffs each year. Are they watching this sport? In the last 5 years, the final 4 teams in each playoff (20 total spots), has consisted of 15 different teams! Even more amazing, in the last 3 years (12 spots), the final 4 teams have been 12 different teams! It sure doesn't appear that there are New York Yankees in hockey. And despite the fact you cannot buy Cups, the owners cannot control themselves. And you are telling me this is the players fault?

Look, there is no doubt there are a million things wrong with hockey right now. But this "fool's gold" idea that a salary cap cures all that is sick in this sport is comical. In fact, the real problems in this sport are as follows: 1) too many teams (controlled by Bettman) 2) on-ice rules that have been antiquated (controlled by Bettman) 3) season is too long (controlled by Bettman) and 4) sport has not worked on television. A salary cap certainly helps the owners, but if I am a player, why should I agree to the idea that Detroit (to name one example) should pay $40 million less to the product in 2005, and keep the change? Get your tails back on the ice, and stop spending money you don't have. Spend within your means, like families all across the world can manage, and you will not lose money.

____________________________

From: Meredith
To: Sturm
Date: January 6, 2005
Subject: Re: Here we go....

Hang on a second here. I thought we were debating who was more to blame between the players or the owners! You point out that the following things are wrong with the NHL:
1) too many teams (controlled by Bettman)
2) on-ice rules that have been antiquated (controlled by Bettman)
3) season is too long (controlled by Bettman)
4) the sport has not worked on television

Bob, you will not catch me arguing ANY of these points. We are in agreement as far as Gary Bettman goes. He is a businessman first and a businessman last and in the middle, he doesn't know a thing about hockey. But unfortunately, it is too late. I don't see contraction in the immediate future, which is the one solution that would seemingly solve a large chunk of the NHL's problems. But, as it stands, someone has to give in to get this game back on the ice. I didn't hear any solutions from you...

You spent a while pointing out that not every NHL team is in the red. I agree, but you can't deny that the sport, as a whole, is hurting. Their TV contract is worthless and even in the biggest hockey cities, seats are empty because the regular fans (read: not the corporations) have been priced out of the arenas. Something has got to change, whether or not most of the teams are making money.

Now, to the real heart of the debate:

You say that what bugs you most about my argument is the assumption that fan pressure means anything to the owners. I'll agree that overall, fans are a nation of idiots who just want a winning team, no matter the means of getting it. Living in Dallas has certainly taught me that. But the majority of sports fans are also simple minded, and they believe that spending money leads to winning. Sure, there are cities like NY, whose fans' heads are exploding left and right because of their team's lopsided "money spent/team performance" ratio. But if we're stereotyping, the majority of hockey fans would rather see their team spend lots of money to get big name players as opposed to saving their pennies and hoping to produce the next Ottawa Senators.

And let me just say - I can't believe you hold the Players' Association and that snake Bob Goodenow completely without blame in this whole debacle. Say it ain't so.