Almost Midnight
NHL Problems Mostly Self-Inflicted
By Bob Grove

Talk about your transition game. The middle of this month is poised to take fans to hockey heaven and hockey hell in the span of 24 hours.

On Sept. 14, the finals of the World Cup of Hockey will play out on the ice of Air Canada Centre in Toronto. The inaugural World Cup in 1996, won by the U.S. with a stirring rally over Team Canada, was an exercise in passion, skill, drama and just plain fun that was a worthy successor to the fall memories previously produced by the Canada Cup.

Expect nothing less this time around, especially when many of the players are no doubt thinking the two-week competition might be the first and last meaningful event of the winter.

On Sept. 15, the NHL's collective bargaining agreement with its players' association expires, in all likelihood bringing to fruition the train wreck of a work stoppage we've been dreading for years. Sure, both sides might reach a new deal at the 11th hour, but based on the fact they barely bothered to talk to each other once a month this summer, I'm not holding my breath.

The idea of saving the scheduled October start of the 2004-05 season seems to have evaporated months ago, replaced by the notion that perhaps an early January settlement will permit a late January start. That's what happened in 1995, when the NHL played a 48-game schedule and the New Jersey Devils won the Cup playing the trap, thus planting the seeds of an android coaching philosophy that have flowered into today's stagnant game.

That was a fun season, eh?

You can hardly have a discussion of the salient issues in this impending lockout without enduring a round of brisk finger-pointing. Some blame a group of owners who couldn't stop giving away their money, who supported responsible spending until they had a chance to land a coveted free agent who might put them over the top. At that point, fiscal restraint was somebody else's burden.

Others blame players for taking greed to new heights, but that ignores a basic human instinct. If you ask your boss to triple your salary and he agrees, you don't reject the offer to help protect the bottom line. You shake hands, buy yourself a new car and report to work on Monday with a smile.

The blame for the almost incomprehensible growth in NHL salaries over the last decade rests squarely with the owners. But forging a sensible CBA is about the future and not the past, so forget the rear view mirror.

The regrettable business decisions made by NHL owners as a group in the last decade, including the undercutting of the entry-level salary cap begun by the notoriously tight Boston Bruins in their pursuit of Joe Thornton, have benefited one group of people more than anyone: NHL players.

Their average salaries have climbed from $370,000 in 1992 to $1.8 million in 2004, and the number of jobs available soared with the expansion of the league from 21 to 30 teams. They have had the opportunity to earn more and to earn more for a longer period of time, and they have taken advantage of it.

Nothing wrong there.

Now it's time to give some back.

Hockey is hurting. Several markets are under duress, most teams are losing money, the game on many nights is only a shadow of what it can be and we're now left to wonder not whether but how many fans will leave the game should the NHL go into a prolonged labor hibernation.

The owners and players need each other to solve these problems, obviously, but now is the time for the rank and file to overcome the myopic 'market-based' bottom line pushed by NHLPA head Bob Goodenow and staff, whose big effort to date was a throw-away offer of an across-the-board five percent salary cut. He's been hired to look out for the interest of the players, but that interest will be served only if he reaches a settlement that preserves jobs and reasonable salaries for his clients, without a stoppage.

The players say they want salaries to be driven by the market, not artificially tied to revenues via a salary cap or some other device. But doesn't every business have the right to regulate expenses so as to preserve an acceptable level of profit?

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman entered into just such a business deal recently with NBC. After a five-year, $600 million TV deal with ABC and ESPN expired, the NHL signed an extension with ESPN that pays it only $60 million in the first year (half what it previously received) and a new agreement with NBC that includes no rights fee whatsoever and a portion of revenues only after NBC's production costs have been met.

Critics will say, and they are right, that the NHL signed this deal because it had no leverage. That's about the same amount of leverage the players might have if this impasse takes out an entire season.

Nobody's asking the NHLPA to cave. Bargain down the age for unrestricted free agency. Link growth in revenues to growth in salaries. Engage in all the tough rhetoric you like, but don't stick your head in the ice and believe things can go on like this.

PSR Senior Writer Bob Grove has been covering the Penguins since 1981 and currently serves as a regular co-host on the Penguins Radio Network.