View Single Post
Old
02-03-2005, 12:50 PM
  #34
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
is one of the main items that has been seriously wrong with this current system.

The players knew that this was going to change in any new contract, might as well make it seem like a major concession when in fact it was going to either be eliminated altogether or altered.

The fact that the players included this in their proposal shouldn't be taken as anything other than pre-emptively offering up something they knew full well they would have to anyway.
You cannot ignore the fact that changing the system IS a concession. Anytime you go from the status-quo to something that favors the other side, you have a consession.

"The Islanders signing Yashin and Peca to their deals all led to the Kayria's and Iginla's and Elias's of the world getting the contracts they got."

So what? Owners incompentence or not, changing the arbitration system is a major concession. When you couple that with a rollback of salaries to the level of a decade ago, you have now successfully stemmed salaries. If, after all that, any owner CHOOSES to give a player a $10m contract, whose fault is it?

"the players offer rolled back every to 10 years ago, but it doesn't level out the playing field."

You want to level the playing field? Then institute league wide revenue sharing where every team recieves an equal amount of money at the beginning of the off-season. That is the only way that the NFL has a level playing field. Your revenue sharing has to be league wide, where ALL teams (not just playoff ones) contribute and ALL teams drink from the well.

"That's not an assumption that can be guaranteed year to year which means that the distribution of the kitty cannot be guaranteed"

Again, the only way you will ever have a guarentee is if there is league-wide revenue sharing. But Bettman does not seem to want to play that game.

True Blue is offline