View Single Post
Old
05-25-2008, 10:25 PM
  #2
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Campbell
It’s another classic example of how the players, who were supposedly clobbered in the last round of CBA negotiations, continue to hold an inordinate amount of power. After holding a team to a commitment by signing a contract, the player then decides if and when he wants to come back.

And there is no repercussion for the player aside from not being paid while suspended. The team cannot force a player to file retirement papers or do anything to get him back in the lineup until the player is good and ready.

[..]
When it comes down to it, Niedermayer’s actions this season are no different than those of players of the past who held out on valid contracts in order to force a renegotiation. The motivation was different, but the act was the same.

Well, that isn’t allowed in the NHL anymore and it’s time the league did something about the Niedermayer-type end-around in the future.
Seems a lame attempt at trying to find a reason to abolish guaranteed contracts.

An inordinate amount of power? Give me a break. How is this even new? Niedermayer could’ve done this under the old cba too, but now that the cap system(’s unintended consequences?) benefits the team from players doing so, they want to punish guaranteed contracts? Totally missing the point perhaps?


It’s a curious angle he comes at this from, suggesting that abolishing guaranteed contracts is needed to prevent players like Niedermayer from kicking up his heels for half a year. Presumably in an ideal world, they could throw the players in jail for attempting such a thing. (as long as there was no cap compliance issues with it of course).

I thought the main angle everyone was taking on this issue when it happened, was the unfairness the Ducks got in getting around the cap by this loophole. That the true outrage was the unfair cap advantage that the team got from Niedermayers action, and without some action by the league, other teams may exploit this loophole to their advantage.

Many thought Burke may have even concocted the scheme and got Niedermayer to go along with it as a way for the team to gain an advantage over other suckers abiding by the cap.

In other words, the problem had absolutely nothing to do with players having guaranteed contracts, but GM’s use of them to exploit the cap. Meaning abolishing the guaranteed contracts would do nothing to solve this problem? Kens piece is a logic fallacy?

The non guaranteed contracts could be good for players though. Niedermayer, if he was on a team where he didn’t like the coach or the teams future, he could just quit mid-season and go play for his brothers team?

What I would want my team to do would be to outbid all other teams for free agents, offer them all 50 year contracts, whatever it takes to win the bidding war. After all, who cares, it doesn’t really count for anything.


Wouldn’t getting rid of guaranteed contracts: reduce the amount of trades, lessen trade values. and increase player movement even more? No consequences for teams making big spending mistakes? Wasn’t there a desire to punish them if they tried to buy their way to success? It is not just players that benefit from guaranteed contracts.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote