(Originally published at Kukla’s Korner, September 26, 2012)
In a recent Economist, there’s a piece about the NHL lockout. It’s called “Greed v pride.” My first thought was “yay hockey!” All publicity is good, like when someone says “I don’t care what they write about me, so long as they spell my name right.” My second thought was “who’s who in the title there?” It really isn’t clear. Neither side is hurting for money, not really, and both sides would like to tell the world that no one pushes them around. So who is greedy and who is proud?
“When muscular millionaires and brash billionaires fight, neither side will crumple easily. All are alpha males; most can forego income for a long time. So the lockout could drag on.” Greed v pride, The Economist, Sept 22 2012
Makes sense to me.
Players are going overseas in droves, apparently. They aren’t all getting for oodles of money to do so. Alex Semin, for example, chose the team closest to home. The team will pay him with change found under the couch cushions. His couch. Well, considering what he would have been paid without a lockout it seems that way.
On the one hand, I don’t see why players should sit at home. On the other hand, highlights of Thornton and Nash playing for their Swiss team leave me cold, and not an invigorating ice rink kind of cold. It’s nice for the European fans to see players they don’t get to see much of, but not for fans over here.
Do fans feel abandoned by the players going overseas? Would it be better for them to find some way to protest the lockout here? Marc-Edouard Vlasic, among others, is touring Canada in a “caravan tour.” I think that is wonderful and resourceful of those guys. I also think the NHL will try to shut it down if it gets too much attention. They’re mean that way. They said “no hockey.” They can’t be thrilled with people scurrying around the little barrier they set up.
Maybe the owners just want fans to show them some love? Maybe they feel neglected, like the jealous older sibling of a precocious favorite. Maybe if we started fans clubs for them they would stop this lockout nonsense? Would a single club for all the owners suffice? They are, after all, said to be united in this NO NHL HOCKEY FOR ANYONE thing. All 30 united as one.
The Oilers retweeted– retweeted, mind you, didn’t write or in any other way produce– a link to an article about the team possibly moving. They deleted the tweet after it caused a stir.
The League had to fine the Red Wings because Jim Devallano said nice things about Gary Bettman. Oh, it wasn’t for that? Could have fooled me the way he fell all over himself defending him in that interview. I don’t think the fine was for the cattle call either. And then there’s this:
Although Bettman professed more than a week ago that all 30 owners unanimously supported his lockout, sources tell CSNPhilly.com that more than a handful of owners are already wary of losing the entire year.-Flyers Talk, CSN Philly
Where is your gag order now, NHL? First come “sources” then come leaks and anarchy! Can’t you CONTROL these people?
Ah, what are observers to make of this? I think Swift would have applied the term “yahoo” to all parties and gone back to talking to his horse. Voltaire would have sold them alpaca farms and sent them to Paraguay.
To be candid, I can’t rely on the NHL for optimism. So I’m tending my garden and yes, sometimes talking to horses. I’m washing the ranch vehicles, as if to call the rains. It is getting chilly as it does this time of year, when NHL hockey is supposed to be ramping up. But as long as The League bohemoths are bickering about which end of the egg to break first, I’ll spend my free time arranging rocks among the flowers and not paying for sports channels from Directv.