D'ARCY MCGRATH
February 16th, 2005

“Now go to your room, and don't come out until I say so!”

Ever tried reasoning with a two or three year old?

You disagree on a course of action, you outline the two paths in which said toddler can travel, you make it crystal clear in simple language the consequences of both paths and then sit back and wait for logic to come to the surface.

And wait, and wait and well … wait.

The logic never comes.

The toddler chooses the path that results in a shut door, a stuffed animal taken away, the locking away of the Finding Nemo DVD for a month despite the fact that they could see this coming from a mile away.

Kind of reminds you of the NHL lockout these past several months, doesn't it?

Like a toddler, you can't blame the NHLPA for testing their boundaries, for assuming that the NHL (read parent) was bluffing and that the punishment wouldn't stick. Heck history is there to back up these beliefs. A decade or two of really bad parenting would leave any child the notion that mom and dad can't really mean it when they say there will be hell to pay if they listen to what they say.

Owners talk tough, act tough, and then cave. It's been the rule of past NHL labour negotiations and the blue print for the Bob Goodenow guided jaunt to success in the past dozen years.

Only problem for Bob now?

The parents (NHL) are wise to his antics, and they mean it this time. They've watched enough Doctor Phil to get a better grip on running their household, leaving Bob and his brethren with actual discipline for the first time in their young lives.

It's tough love time at NHLPA headquarters, and they just don't have a pocket map for this new path that they must travel.

Just like a household, National Hockey League owners pay the bills and if they show the gumption required they too can set the rules. If they hold their ground the toddler, or in this case the NHLPA will have to concede or pack their jammies and teddy bear and head out into the cold world on their own.

But enough about the parenting angle, the hockey dispute is colourful enough … it doesn't need a fetching metaphor to make it interesting.

From the middle of last summer until this very minute, the NHL Lockout has featured anything but the sobering look of a rather simple owner/worker model in need of economic change.

It's been conspiracies, and hidden agendas.

Greedy players that don't care about the sport they were blessed to play, and owners that have taken things so personally that they'd rather bust a union for a system they don't need then give up a dollar to players that they resent.

It's all been a giant boatload of horse manure. The really, really smelly stuff.

If rational minds were to cover this the truth of the matter is that there really doesn't have to be a villain in this, despite what cantankerous writers from the MSG Network, New York Time or Toronto Sun tell you on a daily basis.

Players, like professionals in any other industry on this shiny blue planet, or entitled to make as much money as they can. They can move their families to new cities, alter their careers, and better their lives in any way they see fit.

Similarly, men and women with heaping piles of capital are fully within their rights to actually make a return on their millions when they invest in a hockey franchise as they would if they left their money with a broker, or invested in any other business venture.

The only crimes committed in this process are the crimes of clouded judgment and perhaps the crime of underestimating the resolve of your opponent.

As a true capitalist, I have to admit that in this particular dispute I have tended to side somewhat with the NHL owner.

That's not to say that I blame the player for the mess this league is in, clearly a lack of forward thinking and discipline by many NHL owners have set the league on its path to financial ruin.

However, I do think it's the NHLPA's failure to see the warning signs that the league and its 30 chapters were serious this time, and in that they failed to strike a deal when there was something of a season to be saved – pushing to the brink on the premise of an owner collapse that clearly isn't in the cards.

Just look at the evidence that was plain to see, suggesting that the owners may just mean it this time.

• A complete evaporation of TV rights
• Two bankruptcies in a calendar year
• Payroll giants like the New York Rangers shedding salary like speedos on a nude beach in preparation for a new world order
• A $300 million war chest to get 30 teams through hard times
• A slow in the rise of salaries over the past two seasons, showing owners may finally be clueing in to the dire straights of their businesses
• The Bettman Veto that gave the commissioner the ability to thwart an early settlement push by as many as 22 of 30 owners
• And the fact that 21 of the 30 ownership groups are actually new to the sport from the last time a CBA was pounded out – therefore past history is somewhat irrelevant.