NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)
View Single Post
08-31-2009, 11:58 AM
Join Date: Aug 2004
Originally Posted by
You mean to tell me that a deal where not only is the compensation the owners have pay set at a limit, but the players have to hand over a portion of their salary to be held in an account for year, and if the businesss owners couldn't generate enough revenue they get to take that money(that they signed a contract to pay the player) back and spread it among themselves.
The star players are making as much or less than they did before(think Crosby signs for $8.7 without a cap?), and veterans who are not top stars are getting caught between the stars and young kids who come cheap. Except maybe for the cheap young kids, for whom exactly would things have been much worse for had they sat out another year?
Trevor Linden did not get a good deal for the players. He got a good deal for the owners. The only thing he did for the players was got them playing, which, in the cnotext of the deal they signed, was also a very good deal for the owners.
This was the view from a thread regarding Detroit's creativity with the cap, when I asked why was a year given up:
"it wasnt about a hard cap, it was about linkage. Cost certainty. The transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars paid to the players back to the owners. And the owners have it. They have everything they wanted. The players surrendered on bended knee, giving complete and total victory of the triple cap payroll range system to the owners along with Goodenows head on a plate of Russian Borscht from which he is now taunting them. Escrow backed cost certainty."
That is what Linden got the players. In hindsight I have to think there are several Calgary Flames wondering just what they were doing shaking his hand after that game.
If you did a poll and asked the players whether they would take that deal, or have gone through another year of lockout, what do you think they would do? They voted on the deal in 2005, and ratified it overwhelmingly.
They are getting paid more on average now than they were before the lockout. The dynamic has changed, with younger players getting a bigger piece of the pie, but those changes are the result of concessions won by the players. I'm sure the owners would be very happy to bump the age of free agency back up to 31.
Sidney Crosby could be getting much more than $8.7 right now if he wanted to. It was his choice to take a reduced contract. Not a very good poster boy for your argument.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ernie