View Single Post
Old
09-14-2004, 05:55 PM
  #62
sabresfan65
Vote for Teppo!
 
sabresfan65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
I find it hard to believe that people can't see that the worst things in the CBA are the qualifying offers and arbitration. These two aspects are what have pushed salaries to their current levels. The idea that one owner can sign a player for x dollars and make every other owner than pay more for his players or not have those players is idiotic. I understand that one players salary will always affect anothers but there is no limit currently placed on these high spending owners so they can continue to spiral the salaries out of control. By putting a cap in place, it would force every team to play by the same rules. Something that is currently not the case. If you think that the teams are playing by the same rules you are mistaken. I think that what some of the owners want is to create a system where each team has controled expenses. This will allow teams to come down to management decisions, not financial ones.

Was it a good idea for the Sabres to get rid of Dominik Hasek?

Let's look at that for a moment from a purely hockey perspective. Were they better team without him, no. From a hockey perspective it would have been better to attempt to add a couple of players (after not having to have gotten rid of Micheal Peca the year before) and try to make another run to the Stanley Cup. This was not a viable option because of the economic restraints that are in place for teams like the Sabres. Hasek wasn't happy because the Sabres weren't adding players so he forced a trade which the Sabres recieved nowhere near equal value. This was a trade which came about because of monetary reasons something some teams rarely if ever have to make.

People talk about the idea of walking away from arbitraiton rulings or not offering the qualifying offers. Where do those teams than get their players? Do you think quality players are availble on the cheap?

I think a luxary tax is viable under certain conditions.

1) Tax is 50% or more over certain values with the percentage going up as the amount over the cap goes up.
2) Entry level deals are not guarenteed and a minimum of 5 years. This will allow teams to get rid of players who haven't lived up to expectations. Any player who is not an NHL regular by the end of their entry level contract would become an UFA.
3) Player get free agency at 10 years of professional service or 30 years of age
4) RFA would give players the option of going to arbitration for a contract which would run them through UFA and be non-guarenteed, or negotiate with the team for a guarenteed contract. Any arbitration ruling can be converted to a guarenteed contract through negotiation with the current club.
5) Relax the compensation rules for RFA so that there actually is something as RFA.
6) All players who sign free agent contracts with a new team have non-guarenteed contracts. If you sign a contract with your current team it is guarenteed. Trade the possibility of big bucks for security.

Do I think this idea will fly? I don't know. But I do think that it addresses some of the problems with the current CBA.

sabresfan65 is offline