Q&A with Wild player rep Nick Schultz on firing of Paul Kelly
Posted on September 1st, 2009 – 5:42 PMBy Michael Russo
Good afternoon from Chatteau de Russo, where I’m still laughing at some of Mark Parrish’s locker-room jabs at some of his “teammates” today. Here’s hoping Parrish’s career continues because the locker room’s a funnier place with him around.
Couple other Wild players were at the Octagon camp today that weren’t yesterday. They were Nick Schultz, Greg Zanon, Colton Gillies and minor-leaguer Jaime Sifers.
Martin Havlat’s been busy tweeting again. He said he was in Chicago over the weekend packing up and went to the Carrie Underwood concert with Mike Fisher. @martinhavlat added, “Back in Montreal now for last 8 days of training before heading to Minny. Can’t wait for camp to start!!”
Schultz, the Wild defenseman entering Year 2 of his six-year deal, was in Chicago on Sunday and Monday attending the NHL Players’ Association meetings. Schultz is the Wild’s player rep, so yes, he was in Sunday night and Monday morning’s 10-hour marathon of a meeting that concluded with the players firing NHLPA Executive Director Paul Kelly at 3:30 in the morning.
With Schultz’s soon-to-be-two-year-old son Jake sitting on his lap, Schultz talked to me this morning about the decision to fire Kelly, the public relations mess that’s ensued and the chances of another work stoppage when the collective bargaining agreement expires in 2011 (or 2012 if the players exercise their option to extend the CBA a year):
Q: How long has the players’ concern with Kelly been going on?
Schultz: It really all started at the PA meetings in Vegas. There were some issues in there and I think it’s been kind of going on for awhile, maybe longer than people knew. We put some checks and balances into place inside the office, they went in, kind of interviewed some people and found some stuff out and it just kind of went from there. There were some big issues in the office. We needed a change. We needed to get somebody different in there, especially with possible CBA negotiations in two years, maybe three. We thought we needed different leadership going forward and that the issues we had to get resolved meant we had to relieve him of his duties and try to look for someone new.
Q: When you say “issues in the office” and “found some stuff out,” can you be more specific because it seems that a lot of your membership doesn’t even understand what was discovered here?
Schultz: Once everything gets settled with him legally, they don’t really want us commenting on exactly the specific issues. … It’s something where I’m sure it’ll come out, but as of now, it’s something we’re keeping under wraps just until everything’s settled with him.
Q: What was that meeting like and what were the issues that caused it to go 10 hours, and kept Paul Kelly outside waiting for several hours?
Schultz: It got very heated at times. There were a lot of lawyers and players in there, and everybody had a chance to talk and give their views. It was pretty heated. There wasn’t much down time. It was a long time, but it didn’t feel like 10 hours. But it was pretty heated for the most part. I mean, it was a big decision, a big decision moving forward. But we had to make it now instead of letting it go on, especially with what’s maybe coming in a few years. We had to make the right decision.
Q: Were you up screaming away – I can’t even picture that?
Schultz: No. I’m pretty good at listening and saying something here or there. But we have some passionate guys, and if guys feel a certain way, guys say it. There are a few guys who are more vocal than others, but for the most part, guys were involved and a part of it.
Q: It seems like the players are gearing up for another fight with the league and want more of a hardliner to negotiate with Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly. What are the players’ big concerns heading into the next CBA negotiations?
Schultz: You hear people talking about lengths of contracts with these big guys getting lots of term yet probably not playing out the last four or five years of their deals. I mean, it’s smart. That’s how teams are fitting guys under their cap, so you’ve got to give them credit for that. They’ve found a loophole. I’m sure that’ll be an issue. I know for the players, escrow is a big thing. Basketball, they have a cap on their escrow where they’re only losing 10 percent of their salaries. Last year, it ended up being close to 15-18 percent of our salaries. This year with the economy and sponsorships, it might even be more. It’d be nice to have a cap on that.
Q: How much are you guys worried that the league will go after guaranteed contracts?
Schultz: Bigtime. You see that in other sports where they can just get rid of you. It’s something that would be pretty hard to give up. There are different things that both sides will have to give a little bit to get something done, maybe working on the buyout structure or things like that. It’ll take some time, but it’ll eventually get sorted out.
Q: Let me ask you point blank: The perception out there right now is that your union’s a mess. Is it?
Schultz: I think now we’re better than we were before because we have an office staff in place. Obviously, we’ve lost our Executive Director, but with [General Counsel] Ian Penny, that’s going to be an interim guy that’s been there forever. He’s taking over day-to-day operations. Everything’s going to be fine that way. We have people in all different departments. Just losing our Executive Director doesn’t put us in shambles. I think going forward, people will be excited with moving forward and hopefully all our past issues are gone.
Q: But if you include Penny, you’re about to have your fifth Executive Director since the lockout. Are the players on the same page?
Schultz: We’ve got an advisory board in place and [ombudsman] Buzz [Hargrove], we’ve put all these people in place to help us and make sure there were different checks and balances so if something wasn’t going right, we’d find it and know about it and there’s people to go to. We’ve kind of figured that out. I mean last time, I mean, Ian Penny was there, but we had players, like [former ombudsman Eric] Lindros and these guys running a lot of the stuff. Now we have actually good people in there that can help us go ahead and find a search firm and look for the right guy through recommendations, through a search firm, through different things to try to find the right guy.
Q: Are the reports that Kelly was too chummy with the Commissioner’s Office a real concern of the union?
Schultz: No, I’ve heard that through the media and things like that. Maybe there were concerns going forward with him negotiating and not really being part of the labor side of it. I guess going forward we just thought we needed a different direction in leadership, especially with things coming up in a couple years.
Q: Because it again sounds like the union’s looking to battle the NHL and with the [2004-05] lockout still fresh in everybody’s mind, fans are worried. Could there be another work stoppage in a few years?
Schultz: I don’t think the players want that. From last time, I don’t think that anyone wants a lockout. With what we went through last time, to lose a season like that, to lose any time, was not right. I think we have enough time now that we can get something in place and not have to go through that again for the players, the owners, the fans – everyone. To have another one, I don’t think that can happen.
Q: You’ve been a hockey player your whole life. To be inside these high-powered, extremely important meetings, how fascinating is it to be inside part of something like that and how much have you learned the four years since you’ve become player rep?
Schultz: My wife asked me, ‘Think someone else will want your job this year as player rep?’ I said, ‘Now that I’ve been involved in it since the lockout, I know what’s going on and with negotiations possibly coming, I want to be a part of it and make the right decisions for myself and my teammates.’ Now every team essentially has a vote and say in things. We’ve got to make sure we’re on the same page and our guys believe and go in the same direction. So it’s fun to go in there and listen to high-powered labor lawyers, these big fancy lawyers, describing everything and explaining everything to a bunch of hockey players. They’re very intelligent, so as a hockey player, you’re obviously not at that level. That’s why you have these people. But I’ve learned a ton. They’re good at informing you and keeping you in the loop. Before, with [former Executive Director] Bob [Goodenow], they kind of just did whatever. It was six guys and Bob. Now we’ve got a player from every team in there involved and making the big decisions. It’s fun to be a part of that and know what’s going on. It’s our careers. We’ve got to get more players involved and wanting to be a part of that – more than just coming in and being pissed and wondering why the escrow’s 20 percent. If we have more guys involved and know what’s going on and more guys educated, we can make better decisions.
68 Responses to "Q&A with Wild player rep Nick Schultz on firing of Paul Kelly"
Union has some real PR issues and its not just one guy two important pieces have quit because of the decision I would actually say that if a lockout occurs again people will blame the players They havent done themselves any favors here
On another note cant Bettman give up the versus experiment now direct tv is has dump VS network
Get over it Gary and go back to ESPN
Nick sounds like he’s got the head on his shoulders to do things in the game after he’s done on the ice.
I honestly don’t think the NHL can survive another work stoppage.
Let’s hope the owners realize this and work to maintain their investment.
Let’s hope the players realize this and work to maintain their livelyhood.
I don’t want to have to watch the Kamchatka Bears take on the Moscow Red Army at 3 in the morning.
Maybe if Bettman could hire a decent marketing team this sport wouldn’t be nearing an economic collapse.
The sport is entertaining to watch, I just don’t get it. Trim teams when the economy is bad, expand when its good. MAKE GOOD COMMERCIALS AND DON’T SIGN TV CONTRACTS WITH OLN.
Rocket Science.
Best Quote Ever:
“They’re very intelligent, so as a hockey player, you’re obviously not at that level.”
I bet he gets loads of crap in the locker room for that one!!!
If there’s another work stoppage, Team Thunder Island will look to bring in a number of players to compete in the Island Hockey League.
Michael: thank you for the full Q&A transcript. Schultz is a sharp guy.
I think Schultz is the right man for the PR for the team. He thinks things through and seems savvy in maneuvering around some of these issues.
Nick, don’t sell yourself short. You are intelligent enough, just don’t have the schooling as the lawyers.
I feel like, if the NHL goes through another lock out it would kill its chances of becoming a true powerhouse league on par with the NFL and MLBs of the world, in America.
I also feel like it might not ever get there even without another lockout.
I think it’s a regional game that instills parochial fanhood, in America. Yes, there are “success” stories like Dallas where the game has been given time to grow and has succeeded - and I don’t think that can’t happen elsewhere.
But for right now, this is not a big league sport on a TV-contract basis. That would be fine and dandy if the owners and players could agree that the best thing to do is keep costs in line and let the game ferment in the US. But that doesn’t appear to be what either side wants so we’re stuck with this small-time league (relatively speaking) acting like a big-time league - fiscally if not marketing-wise. That’s a problem.
On Mark Parrish - I don’t know. I am on record as saying this guy is done as a pro hockey player. He is continuing his pursuit which is also a surprise to me. He is having his second child now and he obviously has been in an up and down roller-coaster ride emotionally with family life.
I do think that he is worth a look from someone. An argument could be made that Parrish should have a look at by the Wild. The Wild should be desperate to do something with its forwards for pete’s sake
With regards to Mister Know it all being accurate on Parrish ? I have been right on the money. I said when a team gave him a chance last year he would start quick and fizzle. I said that when Owen Nolan was picked up by the Wild that meant Parrish was gone.
I am curious about him now if he really means that he would go to europe to play
I think Nick in New York has a great post at 10:08
I think a lockout could happen- My rational, players in my opinion have ideas but lack the worldly experience to get what they want without the lockout
The owners don’t want someone to tell them how to do their job. That is why they are owners
At the end of the day I would say the players are more at fault slightly
can someone explain the escrow thing he is talking about? it’s come up before.
my understanding is players pay into an escrow account during the year that goes back to the owners if revenues are not as projected. to me that means if they are as projected, then the money is returned. Nick says players lost 15%. I’m not following…
and contracts are contracts and should be guaranteed.
walsh tweeted people to a paid site on the versus thing. then tweeted the cliff notes version. I can’t say he is telling the whole story because he already begged people to cancel DTV and secondly, he is an agent.
basically he says DTV wanted to drop versus to a lower tier. says DTV calls versus nothing more than a paid programming and informercial channel with occasional sporting events.
DTV wanted to take versus away from 6 million of it’s existing subscribers by dropping versus to a lower tier.
versus only asked DTV to pay what other providers are paying
ok, how does one lose subs by dropping a tier? Directv is somewhat right in that versus doesn’t have much for programming. lot’s of reruns of WEC. do they even have programming during the day? well outside of le tour season?
so I don’t know who is right and who is wrong but I do know I didn’t miss versus last night. didn’t even notice it was gone. i won’t miss it during the hockey season until next spring for playoffs. so i’d say versus is not in a strong bargaining position.
The owners don’t want someone to tell them how to do their job. That is why they are owners
However, without the best players in the world, the NHL would be the KHL or AHL.
The salary cap is not going away. Giving up guaranteed contracts isn’t going to happen either. I think the players will give on buyouts and how a buyout affects the salary cap.
I think the VS deal for the NHL was a bad move, but they wanted to be the #1 attraction on the outlet they chose. At best on ESPN, they were 5th or 6th.
Now, Comcast is doing more NHL damage with their Directv fiasco.
The core problem with the NHL is their lack of leadership at the top.
And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
for the week of the 30th in primetime
there are 9 episodes of whacked out sports on versus.
monday has a rerun of indycar racing and any given sunday
tuesday has big lebowski with encore presentation at 11p eastern
WEC wreckage on twice around a rerun of WEC card Brown vs Faber from june 7th
thursday is bloodsport replay at 11
friday is outdoor night with series of half hour programs. the shows at 8p replay starting at 11p
saturday is PBR ford built tough series that is replayed at 11
the next week is basically the same but insert hoosiers and tin cup for any given sunday and big lebowski.
if you missed bloodsport on thursday, it is on again at 8 and 11 on tuesday.
looking at their scheduling, DTV has a point although they are a little more than infomercial channel. versus is really more like a regional sports channel or maybe the golf channel or tennis channel.
So….. Mark Parrish to try out ? I am warming up to him for the first time
Perhaps an opportunity to catch the Don on am1500. MT usually updates his twitter account prior to his afternoon radio show. This was posted earlier this week (no guarantees) “Russo might be out with me on Wednesday” http://twitter.com/am1500_matt
M 03 email me about tix…
“If there’s another work stoppage, Team Thunder Island will look to bring in a number of players to compete in the Island Hockey League.”
Mike Fairbourne can QB the power play with Douda roaming the blue line.
I just read ESPN’s (Burntside) take on the Kelly firing.
It sounds like Lindros is still a pain in the A$$.
Shultz says: “I mean last time, I mean, Ian Penny was there, but we had players, like [former ombudsman Eric] Lindros and these guys running a lot of the stuff. Now we have actually good people in there…”
SNAP.
I think with Hargrove involved we could be in big trouble. He does not have a good track record and NiNY, you are dead on in your anlaysis. And, a strike/lock out would kill whatever progress hockey has made. At the moment, progress is incremental and largely because of the outdoor games and the great Cup this year. But it is still a regional game and even tho we have passionate fans here in MN, even here we are in a minority and basketball will poll better on TV–just not in ticket sales.
Q: You’ve been a hockey player your whole life.
Probably only since he was 3…
Big ups and respeck for Schultz. The Wild are well represented with that class act.
Pewt: I totally lol’d at that line, too.
Parrish: Wild would have to continue to pay Parrish’s first contract cap hit and a second contract. That would be just DR-stupid.
“Mike Fairbourne can QB the power play with Douda roaming the blue line.”
Fairbourne can’t get medical clearance as a result of the plate in his head.
So Bobby Lu signs a 12 year, $64M contract. Undoubtedly heavily front-end loaded as no way he plays 12 more years–but only a $5.3M cap hit.
Yikes. For a contract like that, he’d better actually win something–and no, terrorizing the Wild doesn’t count. 
I wonder if he’d have demanded more money if Rolston was still in the western conference
I don’t know who wasn’t paying attention on the last negotiation, but allowing the long term contract loophole to sneak by violates the whole spirit of the cap. The studs find a way to get their money while the guys on the lower end of the pay scale get hosed.
Obviously it is the ‘retirement’ clause (allowing the cap to come off the books) that is the main problem. A guaranteed contract should have to work both ways.
But, again…I have no problem with these types of contracts. Spreading it out over a longer term frees up cap space in the short term and allows ‘fringe’ players to still be on a roster. Creativity where the cap is concerned is as valuable as creativity on the ice.
I wonder if he’d have demanded more money if Rolston was still in the western conference
POTD
Even though it’s obvious to everyone that there’s no way Luongo will be worth the $5.34m cap hit when he’s 42–if he isn’t retired by that time–is there any way around these “constructed for retirement” contracts? What kind of rule would be realistic?
A limitation based on age? Something like no contract can extend past a player’s 35/36/37th birthday? At that point, the any contract would have a specific year limitation? There are similar limitations put on young players, so why not for the old dudes?
I really don’t see something like that happening, though. :\
as long as it’s legal right now, you have to admit $5.3M per for a goalie of Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuu’s ability is an outstanding deal.
Another way to do it would be to say that if the high year exceeds the low year by X% or the average of the two highest exceed the average of the two lowest by x% then something like the average of the two highest is the cap hit or pick your number of highest years to calculate the hit. Maybe only applies if contact term exceeds 5 or 6 years. There are ways to deal with it but both parties have to be incented to do something about it. Not sure they will.
makes that $6M Backs is getting look pretty steep.
But no doubt he is getting much more than $6M in the relevant years as he is making $7.5M now.
I like that, Wood. It’s less agist, I suppose.
NiNY, I agree about contract cooking being OK right now because right now it’s legal. I feel the same way about supplements and equipment. There’s should be no harm in doing everything/anything legally possible to improve the game. It’s up to leagues to keep up with those advances and to decide what’s fair or not. Contracts should be no different.
fantasy football time…..
yeah!!!!
louongo is on my team in nhl 10, if the contract is brought on the game…..that is unless miller still has a 2 mil cap hit…can’t beat that price!
p.s. greatest league name ever:
I’ll take purple moses for 500.
[…] Russo has a very interesting Q&A with Minnesota Wild player rep. Nick Schultz on the firing of NHLPA director Paul Kelly. Very interesting […]
wood: true dat…but as long as the owner(s) is/are willing to cut the checks (and I can’t see the Couv’ suffering any major lapses in attendance, etc in the near future) then it’s a better “deal” for the overall team is all I’m saying.
That would be just DR-stupid.
MKVN is impervious to logic and pleading.
I mean, at least DR could comprehend a well-put together argument.
Bobbbbbbyyyyyyyy Loooooooooooooooooooo
YES!! 12 years of bliss in beautiful Vancouver. Why can’t he play that long, look at the fossil in Detroit.
Another way to do it would be to say that if the high year exceeds the low year…
I was a math major for three years in college, and I couldn’t follow that. Why not just use, say, a three year running average.
congrats vancan……something had to go right for you guys this year!
Example with BLue’s salary
Year Salary TYRA
10/11 10.000 8.358
11/12 6.716 7.810
12/13 6.714 6.715
13/14 6.714 6.714
14/15 6.714 6.714
15/16 6.714 6.714
16/17 6.714 6.714
17/18 6.714 5.603
18/19 3.382 3.905
19/20 1.618 2.000
20/21 1.000 1.206
21/22 1.000 1.000
Wafer: I mean, at that point, why not just make a given year’s salary the cap hit? Isn’t the idea to try to bring salaries and or total comp in line? The cap hit calculation is smoothed out by the extra years. take away the smoothing and don’t you accomplish what you want (closing the retirement clause loophole)?
SotB, yeah I’m not sure how that loophole was allowed in either since the NHL is hardly the first league to put a cap in place. I’m not sure about the NFL (I do know they don’t have guaranteed contracts), but I know the NBA has a max contract in terms of years.
I guess they figured the whole past 34 thing was going to take care of it, but what it should have been is that any contract that extends beyond a player aged 34 stays on the books. I don’t really have a problem with these contracts, just the rules that allows them.
I think the best solution for the game is to ditch guaranteed contracts. I know it’s kind of a raw deal for players, but the biggest problem with the NBA is that guys get signed to a big deal based on “contract year” performance, and then never lives up to the salary. You end up getting too many stiffs making too much money, and are complete dead weight on a roster, tying a GMs hands, untradable, loathed by fans, etc. etc. Sound at all familiar?
I know this is probably a huge line in the sand for the players so perhaps there can be some kind of contingencies for different circumstances that might make it work, but I do think a team should be able to, in essence, fire a guy for not living up to his contract, and do so with better terms than the current buy-out structure.
Just my two cents.
So I’m counting down the days till camp starts… It just happens to be trumped today by the count down till the schools in my area start. The skreetching is getting to me, and I really don’t remember using that kind of language when I was a kid… but I digress. So the cap numbers talk is making my head hurt, what else is everyone thinking?
Bandgeek, this is not Twitter. You do realize that, right? I mean seriously.
I wonder what Bandgeek is doing now? Brutal.
Nick - I know what you’re saying, but I can also see the desire to front-load contracts, and I think it can be used as a motivator for players who want more money *cough* Groinerik *cough*.
I think some players and teams like the front-loaded contract. Using a running average seems like a good compromise.
Bandgeek, this is not Twitter.
Well duh. Her post was 339 characters.
Anyone read this snippet over at Puck Daddy’s Headlines?!?
Marian Gaborik is fired up about being a New York Ranger under John Tortorella, but knows it’s not just about offense: “Obviously, though, we have to take care of things defensively. But I don’t have a problem with that since I played in Minnesota for nine years
You played for Minny for 9 years Dead Horse, how many of those years were spent playing defense needs to have the math expertise of a capologist to figure out the % of the 9 years you were actually on the ice (and not in the ice bath, hot tub, or your F1 simulator) and then divide that by the amount of blocked shots you had and amount of times you WORKED on a back-check.
Based on my napkin math, I am approximating that 9 mins of your NHL career was spent playing defense.
oops. sorry!
This is what it was meant to look like:
You played for Minny for 9 years Dead Horse, how many of those years were spent playing defense needs to have the math expertise of a capologist to figure out the % of the 9 years you were actually on the ice (and not in the ice bath, hot tub, or your F1 simulator) and then divide that by the amount of blocked shots you had and amount of times you WORKED on a back-check.
Based on my napkin math, I am approximating that 9 mins of your NHL career was spent playing defense.
Dr. Nick: drop it.
Wafer that was funny.
What is up with BG anyway? Dr Nick has a point IMO
Drop what? I’m tired of hearing about her life. I’ve reached my boiling point
dude, you don’t have to care about her life, but what difference does it make to you what she types? Do you have to read it? By b!tching about it, though, you look like the loser.
Dr. Nick = Melissa = MKiA
I really wish the people in tech would only allow one screen name per IP.
Re: Bandgeek
see MKIA
I learned to skip BG’s e-mail long before I learned to skim MKIA’s.
I really wish the people in tech would only allow one screen name per IP.
I like the sentiment, but that won’t work for people who share computers (such as Mr. ATX and me).
I like the sentiment, but that won’t work for people who share computers (such as Mr. ATX and me)
…can’t take one for the team eh?
that button apparently does not want to work for me today… / / / / /
RT @russostrib: Training camp’s less than two weeks away. I’ll be on KSTP radio tonight from 6:30-7 p.m. live from the State Fair KSTP broadcast booth
GreenStar says:
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 am
can someone explain the escrow thing he is talking about? it’s come up before.
my understanding is players pay into an escrow account during the year that goes back to the owners if revenues are not as projected. to me that means if they are as projected, then the money is returned. Nick says players lost 15%. I’m not following…
and contracts are contracts and should be guaranteed.
Greenstar, you are correct about how the cap is set. It is set by the league way before the upcoming season starts. The league estimates total revenue for the coming year, and the players can only make a percentage of total revenue(off the top of my head I think it’s 56%). Players have money taken out of each check and put into an escrow account. At years end, if total league revenue hits 100% of projection, the players get 100% of their money back. My guess is due to really bad attendence at a few venues and little to no merchandise sales in these same buildings, the league didn’t hit projections. That’s just my guess. I’ve always maintained that the teams that make the most money love the fact that there are teams like the Coyotes around to lower the curve. If every team made as much as the Wild, the cap would be much higher and that would take money out of CL’s pockets.
This is the first time I have been on here today, so I dont why I am being acused of stealing ? I admited to what I did the one time. Everytime somethimg gets messed up on the blog it does not have mean I caused it
[…] excellent (and rather lengthy) interview with Schultz can be found here - for anyone interested in this subject, the entire interview is a good read -and I’m only going […]
[…] Q&A with Wild player rep Nick Schultz on firing of Paul Kelly […]
