View Single Post
09-10-2004, 10:40 AM
Registered User
txpd's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 50,866
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Why should the players give back money that owners agreed to pay them in the first place? I think they are being rather generous to offer a 5% roll back on salaries being that it is a binding contract, if the owners were to come up to guys in the middle of the season and tell them they weren't going to pay them 5% of their paycheck, there would be hellfire and damnnation.

Maybe the owners, who for 4 years knew this day was coming, should have just said "no thank you" to the high priced players. Maybe they would have spent less money putting together a team (Minnesota, Calgary) instead of a good collection of players (Rangers, Washington)
why should players give back the money that onwers agreed to pay them? they should not...period.

why should owners not be allowed to stop paying that money? they should not...period.

the problem with your point of view, "the owners offered the money" is that you don't allow for the owners to say that was a mistake and we can't do that anymore.
the alternative is the collapse of the league because teams are just no longer viable.

Yes, maybe the owners should have said no to the high priced players. in fact many have. Boston has tried that. In a great hockey market they rank 22nd, 21st, 25th and 22nd in attendance over the last 4 years. they refuse to pay Bill Guerin $8.5m per or Jason Allison $7m per and the fans say the Bruins are unwilling to do what it takes to win and they walk away. Thanx for mentioning Calgary who struggled thru 7 straight years of missing the playoffs and like Anaheim, Carolina and Minnesota who had low budget playoff success are just as likely to miss the playoffs in the very next season again and never reap any financial reward from a good season. Your attempt to use Calgary and Minnesota as examples of what should be done by lower income markets glosses nicely over the truth. in the last 8 seasons Calgary and Minnesota have made the playoffs a grand total of twice. Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, and St Louis like most of the high dollar teams have never missed the playoffs during that period of time. The two are completely beyond compare and your attempt to do it is weak. You use the Capitals as an example of a "collection of players" rather than a team, yet while they have missed the playoffs, they never missed the playoffs in consecutive seasons, much less 7 in a row. Show me a low budget "team" that has any kind of a consistant level of success over that 7 year period.

txpd is offline