Thread: My CBA proposal
View Single Post
09-19-2004, 12:09 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by me2
Yes and no.

RFAs are cheaper than UFAs. If rich teams are able to load up on cheaper released RFAs then it blows salaries apart for everyone. Lets say the Canucks take a stand on the Sedins that they aren't worth the 10% in qualifier becaue their points when down that year. At $1.3 they are cheaper than UFA replacement so Philly cuts Leclair and Amonte and wins the bidding war for the Sedins at $3m/y each. Next contract the Sedins now sign the $3m RFA qualifier. Bingo every young player in the league will now use the Sedins $3m RFA qualifier as leverage. That's bad on teams trying to hold salaries down, what are they supposed to do walk away from all these young players?
Im glad to see we agree that its a better choice to build a team with the cheap Sedin twins than Amonte and Leclair. Im glad we agree that the "Luxury" of signing Amonte, Reonick and Leclair to big UFA contracts is no advantage at all, and if they had their dithers that much rather swap them all for the cheaper RFA Sedin twins. Not only its it a better business decision, its a better hockey decision. Vancouver has an unfair advantage over Philly because they have good cheap young players. I just dont agree with you that its such an unfair advantage over the big spending teams that we need to make radical CBA changes.

If the Sedins arent worth a 10% raise, this is the problem with the CBA we are now adressing? Its not the $10mil players, its the $1.5mil players?

We are arguing over whether they are worth 60% of what they are worth in an open market instead of the 50% of their worth you wish to pay them at.

I can think of easier ways to address this than a cap.

thinkwild is offline