View Single Post
Old
08-31-2009, 02:25 PM
  #69
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
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.
Trevor Linden/Saskin got them their jobs back because of the foolish management of the PA up until that point of time. Do you not understand that if you go into the second year out, you are endangering alot of jobs, and most of those jobs are the "grunt" jobs that you feel are being lowballed? They are not going to get international jobs or even if the result of the lockout was the end of the NHL and a "reduced" hockey league, they would not have jobs either.

If they want to go down this road, they will meet the same fate.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote