Free Agency & General Offseason Thread Part IV: Will there be NHL hockey this year?
View Single Post
08-12-2012, 03:26 PM
Join Date: Nov 2002
Originally Posted by
Pass... Boyle isn't going to be significantly better the Gonchar and they are relatively the same age so it isn't like we are trading an aging vet for a younger dman.. we are just doing a lateral swap for a little bit of an upgrade. I also like Michalek > Clowe.
If the sens dont make this trade they are nuts, i dont see San Jose doing it. Boyle is a massive upgrade on Gonchar. Clowe and Michalek are relatively close.
Originally Posted by
I don't really understand people's general resentment towards the league in these circumstances.
One thing I keep seeing from people and the media is:
If the league wants to lower pay rolls why are they offering up giant contracts?
If a set of rules is in place at the moment then a smart GM will do everything they can within their power to make the best possible team. Obviously if you have to pay a guy 100mil for 14 years to get him to play, and you can, then you will. If you don't then some other GM will, so of course you are going to do it, but that doesn't mean it is the best thing for the game. The entire point behind the owner's push for new rules is to eliminate the ability to do this which creates a level playing field between the teams.
Another thing I don't really understand is when people get all upset because the owner's demands will "anger" the players.
The owner's proposed a plan would see:
Long-term deals eliminated; lowering the potential to handcuff a team
Longer entry-level deals; meaning if you draft well you have better kids for a longer time
Restricted free agency moved up; meaning players can't up and leave early on
All of those things mean that the "TEAM" we cheer for is going to be in a better position, so who really cares about the players?
We might buy jerseys with the name of a certain player on the back, but usually we only like them because they play for the team on the front.
Sure players are the reason that the game is exciting, but the only reason they get paid huge amounts of money to play a kid's game is because the owners have the money to do so. I'm pretty sure a lot of the owners lose money on their teams and make their actual money through other business ventures. The players are the only ones that are solely dependent on the sport itself, so I'm not sure why I should side with the weaker side of the argument when by right they have the lower position to argue from.
In these circumstances I'm fully behind the league and ownership to do whatever they feel is best to support stable and profitable teams. Of course this should be taken within reason as I'm not saying the players should play for pennies.
Well said, if the players dont recognize that 100% inflation of the cap in 8 years isnt sustainable and that they have by far the highest percentage of revenue in take then this sport is potentially doomed. Its not a fair or strong business model moving forward when its so lopsided. They are getting paid a ton of money to play a sport, not that they arent elite and that they dont work hard or perform under pressure but the way things are being done right now is dramatically in their favor and just doesnt work, they cant be so greedy.
Ottawa's unemployment reached its highest percentage its been since Dec 2011 at 6.3 and we are debatably the most stable market in North America. We're in a recession and its not getting any better if someone cant pay their mortgage do they think they are going to spend money on a hockey game? Players need to look at factors like this and get a deal done that works for everyone, this sport cant afford another work stoppage or it may never recover at such a high end operational level. Its in the players best interests to give a little here, if not it will hurt them long run. I refuse to believe they dont have information like this, something will get done.
Originally Posted by
Powdered Toast Man
Public transportation is a government service, the Ottawa Senators are a private business. I don't think anyone would side with Walmart even if they'd shut down and force you to pay .30 more for pork chops. The NHL isn't even dying, if it was I may be more inclined to compromise but if anyone is getting an extra five percent of my money I want it to be Marc Methot, not Eugene Melynk.
I think you need to look into the entire situation a little more, its not on an even kiel right now. You cant just say im supporting one millionaire more than the other its not that black and white. Its about having a healthy league where everyone makes money and all teams are competitive. Right now where the league is going is not good for the small market teams, Melnyk has only made money one of the last 4 seasons while players salaries continue to escalate does that seem like a good business model to you?
Last edited by bert: 08-12-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bert