View Single Post
08-28-2004, 02:28 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DementedReality
many players are taking paycuts and have in the past. they dont want a cap, but will agree to contracts that are less than todays market value. what choice do they have ? if an owner only offers than 1m and they used to make 2m, they either take the pay cut or find someone else to pay them the 2m.

a) if someone is willing to pay them the 2m, then why should they agree to a system that limits that.

b) if no one is willing to pay them 2m, then they will have to take a paycut, right ?

pretty simple and no cap is needed.

Who has been taking paycuts aside from marginal players or players who are getting old and have maxed out their value like Brett Hull? Most of the avg players have been getting marginal increases in a sport where they make more on avg than football players and many of the team are above Bettman's 31 million dollar number already just trying to keep most of last year's teams. The same owners who claim to lose money yet keep spending created this market simply do not want to be the first one to sign a huge name to a big contract and get all the negative attention at this time.

If there is no hard cap, as soon as it's settled they will be spending as
freely as ever, which is what all the big market names available are counting on as well as the NHLPA.

And nothing will have changed. Status quo.

NYIsles1* is offline