I had trouble getting behind Hossa in a meaningful way. His cup quest was transparently mercenary after a while. Pain ? Struggle ? Sacrifice ? Whatever. He went cup-hunting. So did Ray Bourque, and even with all he went through it was only slightly more palatable. I've never felt bad for a player who got a great living out of pro sports and didn't win a championship.
But guys who got screwed by management out of better money in the old days ? Yes, they get my sympathy. And there begins the collision of some of my separate philosophies as I try to square what players are entitled to with what I want to see in today's NHL.
Hockey player's rights took a big step forward first in the WHA. Ken Linseman challenged the league's age entry policy and won the right to play at 18 instead of 20. The ruling corrected an unfair restraint of trade according to US labor law. I think the NHL had to fall in line after that, but not before a bunch of players started their pro careers in the WHA i.e. Gretzky, Gartner, Vaive, Goulet, etc...Gretzky I think was 17.
Free agency was slower to develop. Baseball player Andy Messersmith fought and won the right to leave the LA Dodgers when he played the 1975 season, his option year, without a contract. I don't have the NHL history at hand, but I think free agency was part of collective bargaining and the age for free agency has been lowered in stages with certain restrictions (group 1, 2 etc).
More important than the incremental advances in free agency though, I think the biggest deal for NHL players - and what doubled the cost of my season ticket in one year - was their decision to permit their salaries to be published. This was in the late 80s. As I recall, it led to guys holding out for more money...even refusing to report to camp in the middle of a valid contract until they got what they thought they deserved.
Fast forward a few years and player have become full partners with owners. They share revenues on merchandise, and just about everything that generates money in the sports is subject to negotiation. Great for the players. Not so good for the owners. And as a fan, I'm still trying to figure how it's good for me. It's just more expensive.
When there was still a reserve clause in the NHL, you knew players would be around unless they got traded. I liked that. Player salaries were not discussed in the media. No one knew much about player agents. And the owners made a killing. So, it was ultimately unsustainable in a free market economy. And I can't argue with that.
Strange forces have been exerted on the NHL since the initial expansion in 1967. The 'original six' clubs had to open up their farm systems so expansion teams could be stocked. But Montreal was so deep in talent that it was able to remain a power right up until the end of the 1970s. Trading Ernie Hicke to Oakland for the rights to the #1 pick in the entry draft in 1971 (Guy Lafleur) didn't hurt, but he was surrounded by an amazing cast of future hall of famers. Expansion teams through those years, apart from the Flyers, were trying to catch up to the original six teams.
And while the expansion teams were still pretty young, the new World Hockey Association raided players starting in 1972, and talent was spread around again. Some NHL teams got hit worse than others.
It wasn't until the WHA folded in 1979 and the players from the four remaining teams returned to the NHL, that there was a period of relative quiet: 21 teams...the original six long since cut down to size by a dozen years of equality in player acquisition through the NHL entry draft (WHA players had to return to the NHL teams that drafted them even if they went straight to the WHA out of junior) ...players unable to move around as free agents and unaware of what other players were making....no contract holdouts....no strikes or lockouts....and tickets that just about any fan could afford.
We're now supposed to be in another period of stability. This time, the players are getting their cut and the fans get to see the circus. It's a tour now. Loyalty, whether enforced or not, is less common. It's still there but lots of energy is spent talking about the price of it. The only time you really see loyalty is when a player offers up a hometown discount on a contact.
In the end, I'm hoping that if Vancouver ever wins a cup, it wins with players it drafted or traded for. And I'll make once exception that fans from other teams might not be able to make - if there are free agent signings, at least make them from BC (like Willie Mitchell). The Canucks watched all sorts of great players develop as juniors right under their scouts' noses for 40 years only to have other teams draft them. A BC boy here or there at this point who is a free agent will have to be okay.
