Ed Hillel said:
I'm really not sure what you are trying to do here. I was talking about a situation in which NHL players were not allowed to play in the Olympics. Obviously nobody playing now would have set up a contract to play in the Olympics, because the players are currently allowed to play in the Olympics. You are overthinking this.
I totally understand what you're saying... which I why I looked at the issue from the angle I did. I looked to see --under the assumption that NHL players couldn't participate in the NHL unless they sat out a year-- what players would have been in a position to give up contract years and money to sit out a year? As I found, and made clear, the answer is not many. With hockey getting younger, and Olympic teams taking a lot of young players, many to most of these guys simply would not have been in a position to take that risk.
Ed Hillel said:
Even if it's one guy like Ovechkin, is it really worth it for the NHL to lose that guy over the risk of someone getting hurt? That's ignoring all the other benefits of playing in the Olympics that have been referenced in this thread.
If the NHL loses (e.g.) Ovechkin, that sucks. But the league has already lost Kovalchuk and Radulov. It lost years of Jagr. It will lose players in the future --especially young Russians, I suspect-- due to money. It will go on regardless. I also believe that the majority of these guys, Ovechkin included, are dying for a Cup. That's one major incentive the NHL offers over all other leagues.
There are also other downsides. In an Olympic year, teams play more condensed schedules which can raise the issue of fatigue and probability of injury. Keeping operations running for a longer season is also more expensive. There are certainly teams who are losing money trading February games for more October games. Owners love money. If there such an obvious benefit to their pocketbooks, there would be strong support from the owners. They obviously disagree, especially in the short term. With the next Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, the positives to be had are reduced based on the distance.
Also, the majority of NHL players get an awkward hiatus in the middle of their season that is good for those unlucky enough to be hurt or fatigued, but not ideal for everyone. The NHL allowing players to play in the Olympics is probably one of the grandest examples of star treatment around.
Ed Hillel said:
What exactly does this show? I'm sure there are more players who would play in the Olympics if it was simply a matter of choice. What I'm trying to capture is the general feeling of the importance of the Olympics to NHL-caliber players. I'm not really sure what laying out the actual number accomplishes, we're talking about a percentage. You're saying you expect that way less than 10% of the overall population of NHL players would take a gold medal over a Stanley Cup. I disagree, and think it would be higher. So what? We disagree on what percentage of NHL players would rather win a Stanley Cup than a gold medal. The question has never been asked from what I have seen, and I'm surprised you are seemingly so passionate about it. I don't think my position is absurd, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. As I also mentioned, if something like this ever came up in the CBA, I don't think the NHLPA would ever allow it to happen. I think it's too important to too many players.
Why does it matter if Shawn Thornton would rather win Olympic gold than a Stanley Cup when it comes to the risk of losing NHL guys? He's never going to get that chance. He, like the majority of the NHL, are irrelevant as potential Olympic hockey players.
I think there's going to be a real fight for the 2018 Olympics, and rightfully so. I love seeing NHL players in the Olympics. It's appointment television for me. (Though to be honest I'd watch amateurs as well. The WJC is my favorite annual non-Stanley Cup tournament.) Unless the owners/NHL get something out of a deal, I can see and understand them being very reluctant to keep the status quo.