The Lockout Thread Part I
View Single Post
07-16-2012, 03:09 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Originally Posted by
We've never seen the possibility of snagging an RFA in a cap-strapped world though.
A player should not get a lesser salary because you can not manage your cap space. Teams would have to be very careful with the cap and upcoming RFA's. I don't see any issue. As a matter of fact, I like that situation a lot. Right now calling a RFA a FA is a bit of a joke. It mainly means they are a slave without a contract. There only avenue of recourse is arbitration and the owners want to extend that out 3 years and remove arbitration?
No thanks and I'm normally so far removed from union agenda it's not even funny.
There are two issues.
#1. GM's don't want to be "that guy" for fear of being poached.
#2. The players that you want to poach would take a great deal of draft picks to acquire. Who wants to become a target of poaching because they picked up a 4th line role player?
Frankly I think they need to get over the hangups. Don't match if it's going to kill their cap space by overpaying for a player (remove all single salary limitations).
I'm not sure what issue you're specifically referring to. Is it the lack of movement among RFAs, the very nature of it from a moral/ethical standpoint, or what?
With almost no chance of a player being offer sheeted, on top of extending it out to 10 years, you've created a situation in which Nashville could keep Weber even if he wanted out for a lot longer.
Players should not be slaves to a team. I understand the ELC from a development perspective. But players should control their own destiny sooner than age 27.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by blahblah