NLL Insider

AzStingFan311 · #1 10-08-2007, 07:48 PM

This subject could use a thread of it's own, if it hasn't had one yet. With the CBA in questiion this week the Conn Rule came up again. My belief is too keep players from playing in multiple leagues. Fair, maybe not, but for the good of the whole. How would Conn feel if he had a million dollar deal and lost it playing summer ball. Probably not to good. So you must ask yourself as a business owner, how would you feel signing a player to a million dollar contract, of which some would be guaranteed, and losing him to summer league play. It is for the benefit of the players to stay healthy and the owners to offer more money knowing their players are coming back. Craig Conn nearly single handedly got me to become a fan. He's not coming back but I'm still buying tickets, but who's gonna be the guy who goes to a game for the first time and not see his ability and not go back.

thrillis · #2 10-08-2007, 07:58 PM

the thing is, its not million dollar deals, nor will it be million dollar deals anytime soon. the league does not have the leverage or the dollars to keep guys out of the summer leagues.

and what about those fringe players on your practice roster? this isnt the nhl or the mlb where they can be sent to farm teams to develope, without the summer leagues, these guys dont develope and dont grow fast enough to ever make an impact with the team.

sorry, but so far i have heard no valid arguments to keep guys out of the summer leagues, everything is what ifs in regards to big money contracts. when those come along, we can revisit the issue, but until then, you guys have nothing to argue. its a part time league, with part time players.

JohnnyMogul · #3 10-08-2007, 08:51 PM

The league is facing alot of chicken and egg type issues right now... everyone hedging their bets trying to look out for #1...

Lord knows I'm glad it's not me having to deal with this issues...

Hollywood42 · #4 10-08-2007, 08:52 PM

untill these players make enough money to support themselves wthout a secondary job
i say let them play

UdaMann · #5 10-08-2007, 10:15 PM

The Conn rule is an absolute joke. Does Arizona really want their players only playing lax from Jan - May, 5 months. Possibly one game, one practise a week during the NLL season. 16 games and 16 practises a year. The calibre of play in the NLL would decline dramatically, especially with the goalies.

AzStingFan311 · #6 10-09-2007, 08:38 AM

I would like to reference NFL salaries from the 50's and 60's. Peanuts. Just ask Mike Ditka, who is currently fighting for players from that era to get financial support because they suffered life altering injuries and don't have the money to help themselves. I don't totally agree with his stance for one reason. The guys played football because they loved to play football and got paid to do it. Just because you're an athlete doesn't mean that has to be your primary source of income. If the NLL wants a Conn rule I think the players should have faith that the league knows whats its doing to make this sport grow. I do appreciate the discussion so far and encourage anyone to help sway my opinion on this issue.

Plats · #7 10-09-2007, 09:04 AM

NLL does not pay a living salary - players still have to teach school, sell restaurant equipment, fight fires etc.

The 50s and 60s NFLers did get pay a good living salary in comparison to the working public, and having a primary career was not needed. And back then the majority of team revenues were gameday ticket sales.

Today's explosive pro salaries are in large part due to the advances in telecommunications during the '70's that allowed wider market access and much larger audience numbers to attract big $ sponsors.

I sympathize with the old school guys with their long term disabilities - the lack of cash for the long haul also happened to the athletes from the old NHL and NBA, but the NLL isn't near that first transition stage to go from part-time to basic full-time living salary. And I doubt if the league will ever reach the big TV deal, huge salaries, set for life financially secure if you don't blow it on drugs, cars and dog fighting salary level....

ThunderTim · #8 10-09-2007, 09:06 AM

Sorry AzStingFan you're argument holds no water. These guys make peanuts playing in the NLL. I could see the argument being made if the owners were making a huge investment in these guys but the fact remains they aren't. If you expect that type of dedication to yourself as an employer then you have to make it worthwhile to the employee and frankly they haven't. Look at it this way. If Conn or any other player gets hurt playing for the NLL and can't do there everyday job is the team or league going to compensate them. I highly doubt that. Should Conn's regular employer not let him play lacrosse at all because he could get injured and not be able to do his job. Unless you are compensating a person at a rate where the investment is great enough to warrant limiting their outside activities then I can see it. Unfortunately the NLL is not and dare I say not in the near future either.

thrillis · #9 10-09-2007, 09:34 AM

"If the NLL wants a Conn rule I think the players should have faith that the league knows whats its doing to make this sport grow. "

unfortunately faith and dedication with hopes, not gaurantees, of a future pay out dont work today, its show them the money or stick the idea elsewhere. these players wont stop playing lacrosse in the wla/ola with hopes that 5-10 years down the line they can make a fulltime salary. hell, 5-10 years down the line alot of the current players wont be here in the nll any more

loudGizmo · #10 10-09-2007, 10:17 AM

At some point I have to believe that even the NLL owners are smart enough to see that they simply don't have the money to pay players enough not to play in other leagues. Perhaps that's just optimism on my part.

But it does lead me to wonder if this is just a bargaining tactic--the owners really want to lock the players into fixed numbers, even if a lot more TV money comes along in the middle of the contract, so they stomp their feet and scream about a Conn Rule, which they know they can never get. When the players don't see the money for that, the owners "back down" on that demand and then insist that the players back down on their demand re:a TV money influx.

Baggy B · #11 10-09-2007, 11:40 AM

No matter how you slice it there are losers all over the place.

Uda, in his posting above - hit the nail on the head. Implement the Conn rule and you will find a lot of out of conditioned players, waddling onto the floor for their first NLL game. What player is going to the wall to maintain peak conditioning for a couple hundred bucks a game for a 3 month season.

Besides that..........it would be great if it was just $200 or so a game.

Travelling players, give up family time, and spend the entire weekend carpet bagging back and forth from home to games......and if its all for a couple of hundred bucks..............when factored in hours spent travelling they would be earning $10 an hour. Big money huh?

The league is asking players and the developmental systems in Canada to subsidize its development. And they call this a professional league?

Phil Ex · #12 10-09-2007, 02:07 PM

Most importantly here is that it is not a million $ deal. I'm sure if it was Conn would have elected not to play.

Next, this was an injury waiting to happen. He did not get checked and fall awkwardly or someone fall on him. He was by himself when it happened, meaning that it was bound to happen if not in the WLA then for sure in the NLL. Would those owners be happier if it happened in THEIR league.

Finally, most Americans (not meant to be a slight in any way) do not understand the prestige and pride in winning a Mann Cup. It is one of the hardest trophies to win and the players want to have that on their resumes.

To limit where a player can play at this time is like shooting yourself in the foot. That is expecting a players to give up a lot and not give back too much.

Until the league flourishes and wages can be life sustainable then the owners should back off a bit.

AzStingFan311 · #13 10-09-2007, 07:28 PM

I like ThunderTim's vice versa on the employment issue, as per if I were hurt playing lacrosse I certainly couldn't perform my daily job. I actually understand many of your perspectives. I was also unaware that Conn's injury inparticular was non-traditional or self induced per say. Maybe this issue hits closer to home for me being a Conn fan and not being able to see him play this season. I do know that I love the sport of lacrosse as relatively new I am to the sport and would sacrifice a great deal to play "professionally". What I gather is everyone agrees that the players give enough and to ban summer play is just too far and not good for the NLL. Last thought, I don't believe that the salaries are livable wages, as well they probably won't be anytime soon, so what's the wait on the CBA? Are the players wanting more money or is the PLPA trying to line their pockets? Just for the record I'm not crazy about unions either.

ND14 · #14 10-10-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil Ex

Next, this was an injury waiting to happen. He did not get checked and fall awkwardly or someone fall on him. He was by himself when it happened, meaning that it was bound to happen if not in the WLA then for sure in the NLL.

Is there medical reasoning behind this? I saw the injury, but I'm curious about your reasoning here that the injury was inevitable.

Hollywood42 · #15 10-10-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND14

Is there medical reasoning behind this? I saw the injury, but I'm curious about your reasoning here that the injury was inevitable.

did anyone think that donovan mcnabb woulda torn every thing in is knee on a simple hit out of bounds last year? nope
injuries are sometimes inevitable and are part of the game

its part of the risk you take when u step on the field

loudGizmo · #16 10-10-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

did anyone think that donovan mcnabb woulda torn every thing in is knee on a simple hit out of bounds last year? nope
injuries are sometimes inevitable and are part of the game

its part of the risk you take when u step on the field

Unpredictable is not the same as inevitable.

Hollywood42 · #17 10-10-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loudGizmo

Unpredictable is not the same as inevitable.

you know what i ment though

UdaMann · #18 10-10-2007, 03:09 PM

What type of risk is Bruce Murray taking when he suits up for the Sting? Should his main employer ( Firefighter ) tell him not to play in the NLL because of the risk of injury.
Should the Arizona Sting tell him to stop working as a Firefighter as he might get injured on the job and not be able to play for them?

MooseJaw · #19 10-10-2007, 03:16 PM

Players will continue to play for the Mann Cup (Stanley cup of Lacrosse).

RockStar#666 · #20 10-10-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UdaMann

.......Should the Arizona Sting tell him to stop working as a Firefighter as he might get injured on the job and not be able to play for them?

A "wise" man posted this in another thread.

We have pro lacrosse players who firefighters, cops, machine operators, ironworkers and a shitload of other jobs that can be way more dangerous than summer "beerball".

thrillis · #21 10-10-2007, 03:41 PM

considering lacrosse has one of canadas lowest injury rates in sports. weighing in at about 2 percent per thousand participants, with the vast majority consisting of sprains and twists. a rather minimal injury rate if you ask me, heck according to pubmedcentral, only 20 percent of lacrosse injuries keep a player out for 10 days or more.

now, doesnt seem like theirs a HUGE risk to losing players due to summertime injuries.

StingLax · #22 10-10-2007, 09:15 PM

If they didn't play summer ball what excuse would I have for getting away from the Arizona heat and head up north.

Seriously as much as I will miss seeing Craig out there this year they just don't get paid enough. When they can afford to have the NLL as their only job (and I can no longer afford tickets) then the teams can start controlling the "off season".

rocksolid · #23 10-10-2007, 11:07 PM

I think this is all moot. I haven't read one thing in any of the coverage about the CBA negotiations that the league has even asked for a "Conn" rule.

AzStingFan311 · #24 10-11-2007, 08:17 AM

The Conn rule wasn't about the CBA. Bob Hamley brought it up after Conn was hurt. I was just interested to see if anyone thought it should end up in the new CBA.

Phil Ex · #25 10-13-2007, 03:14 PM

that these players do damage to their knees everytime they step on the floor. Running on concrete is bad for the knees with the jarring motion constantly on concrete.

The carpet is not better. There are more twisting knee injuries on the carpet.

Look around the league and see who is wearing knee braces or who has had surgery on their knees. The number is quite high for the veteran players.