View Single Post
11-19-2003, 11:54 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500

The point you keep missing is that your situation is hypothetical. It is imaginary. It has never happened. You cannot find a single example of anything similar happening.

Reality is not nearly as simple as you paint it in your make believe scenario. What often happens when the Rangers have signed that one elite free agent to bring them over the hump is he turns out to be Mark Messier or Darius Kaparitus or Sylvain Lefebrve or somebody who really doesn't make much of a difference anyway. There are few elite free agents that are really good enough to make much difference under the current NHL bargaining agreement (with 20/20 hindsight you can find them. They are the ones who get signed by teams that ALREADY have a very good core to build around). In many cases the team signing free agents is merely treading water (see for example Toronto this summer signing Ken Klee and Joe Nieuwendyk. Did it make them any better? Are they any closer to the Stanley Cup this year then they were last year without those guys?)

What does signing this free agent mean? It means that some younger player will not get ice time in the NHL. He will not develop as quickly if at all.

You manufactured an imaginary scenario *that would prove your point if it were not an imaginary scenario*. The point is you cannot win any logical argument by manufacturing imaginary scenarios that do not happen. Has your scenario ever happened under this bargaining agreement? When? Which small market team was on the verge of becoming elite except they could not afford to sign one more good free agent so they didnt.

I have an idea. Lets fundamentally change the entire NHL so that it fixes Stu's imaginary scenario and create many more REAL scenarios where the quality of hockey in the league drops.

CH is offline