Heat on the Hotstove

James Mirtle has a good post up about Saturday’s Hotstove segment, mostly focussing on the Calgary Flames violation of the CBA rules late last season. In passing he notes Ian Pulver’s intransigence over Brian Burke’s suggestion that teams should be able to send money along with players in trades:

Ian Pulver [was] either ignoring or not understanding the idea of theoretical discussion on how to improve the current CBA structure and steadfastly sticking to the idea that ‘the rules are the rules’ as opposed with the discussion point of ‘how to change the rules to make them better.’

Bill Houston at Truth and Rumours makes much the same point:

What’s more, the idea (which Pulver opposed) of retaining salaries in trades is a good one. True, it would mean a revision to the collective bargaining agreement, but it would loosen up the trade market.

Pulver argued against a CBA change, because he says the agreement needs time to “breathe.” Well, the agreement has been breathing or trying to since 2005, and for the most part it’s left the game gasping for air. U.S. teams are still struggling. And, thanks to the CBA, the season is less interesting, because trades don’t happen anymore.

I don’t think Pulver did himself very proud in this respect, but the point everyone from Houston to LeBrun missed is that the fact trades have dried up is one of the few results of the agreement that is good for the players. They – particularly players with families – do not like to be traded in the middle of a season. That trades are very difficult to make is not a bug – its a feature for most players.

I think what Pulver was trying to say – or should have been trying to say – is something like, “If Brian Burke wants to change one of the few things players like about this CBA, the league can bring it to the negotiating table. Is the league prepared to give up a higher percentage of revenue to get more flexibility? Is the league prepared to go to the 2014 Olympics to get this change? Or are the players just supposed to roll over because the media likes to see them move around at management’s whim?”

Both MacLean and Houston noted that Burke’s idea would require a revision to the CBA, and LeBrun noted that many small market teams were on board with the idea, but nobody considered the interests of the players. Aren’t the players a party to the agreement? Shouldn’t what is good for them count for a little bit?

Postscript: I don’t think Houston is correct when he says this CBA is gasping for air. It hasn’t done what Bettman claimed it would do, but then Bettman was lying about his objectives throughout the labour dispute. Nor do I think the less interesting season can be blamed on the lack of trades. Will more trades make for more interesting teams? I doubt it.

Update: I missed the fact that James has some guests blogging at his site these days. Kevin Forbes actually wrote the post I praised. Apologies to Kevin.