So whose side are you on when it comes to the NHL lockout, the players or the owners? I only ask, because so many other hockey bloggers seem to be lining up on one side or another, casting aspersions and moral judgements willy-nilly on either side.
But as I've said before, that's all pretty silly stuff:
But what we need to understand, no matter what the sport may be, that labor disputes in this area are normally between the haves, and the have mores. Any resemblance to traditional labor negotiations are entirely coincidental.
That's why I have to second the feeling that Ben Wright first put into pixels last week when he read the following from ESPN's John Buccigross:
I've been in the same room as NHL players and NHL owners, and I can tell you I'd rather Steve McKenna have a few million dollars than Ed Snider. Nearly every NHL player grew up in similar economic and social circumstances as you did. Nearly every NHL owner did not. While Steve Yzerman grew up playing Battleship, Stratego and Strat-O-Matic baseball, most of the NHL owners were getting their chest hairs tinted at a Four Seasons spa.
And in a way, Buccigross has a point here. Let me explain. Just a few weeks ago, an old friend of mine from back on Long Island actually ran into Michael Peca at a local Toys 'R Us. There he was in a baseball cap, with a pair of jeans and sneakers with his family and looking to buy some toys. And Peca couldn't have been friendlier to my old buddy when he approached him, even when he decided to ask some questions about the labor impasse.
Michael Peca -- nice guy, suburban Dad, hockey player. Maybe I'll invite him over next weekend to play some Yahtzee.
But here's a question for you: How many of my readers know what it's like to voluntarily take a year off from work without getting a paycheck?
Still nobody? Is there anybody in that category at all?
Yes, indeed there is, and his name is Michael Peca.
Don't forget, that when Peca was with the Sabres, he sat out a whole season rather than sign with Buffalo because they wouldn't meet his asking price. Sure, it was his right, and I don't begrudge him one penny that he's earned -- Lord knows he's given the Islanders everything he had over his three seasons with the team, and I wouldn't want anybody else to be Islanders captain.
But to say he's just like you and me is a bit of a stretch, and suggesting that aren't part of the larger problem with what's wrong with the NHL is too.
After all, last time I looked, not one, but two franchises wound up in bankruptcy last year. It should be pretty clear something is seriously wrong with the system financially (something which Buccigross concedes), and the players are going to have to give something back in order to fix it.
Now, does that make them evil when they turn tough at the negotiating table? Not by a long shot.
But if there's anybody we ought to be sympathizing with, it's the hundreds of team employees, like the 25 that will be let go in Buffalo at the end of next month, that we ought to be feeling a little sympathy for.
And as this article about the impact of the lockout in Buffalo makes clear, there are plenty of other folks who are suffering, as the money they used to make in bars, restaurants and parking lots in and around NHL arenas just isn't there anymore.
What does that mean? Less money for the mortgage, the car payment and a kid's college tuition.
Oh, and beer too. Shouldn't forget that.
I know I don't hate the players, and I don't hate Ed Snider either -- who by the way built pro hockey in Philadelphia, and couldn't have done it without risking some of his considerable fortune in order to get it done.
But what do you say to the folks at the bottom of the ladder? Why no sympathy for the only innocents in the NHL labor war?