View Single Post
Old
08-12-2012, 09:10 PM
  #63
Nabokov20
Karlsson for Chuck
 
Nabokov20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qward View Post
Salary cap is based on revenue. Not how much players are getting paid. You want to pay 2 guys 8 million a year. Fine. You have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Maybe that 4 million guy is going to leave to a team willing to pay him 5.

In every business, if costs go up, the consumer bites the bullet or the margins fail. Trust me, the financial costs of short-term contracts would just be transferred onto the fans (i.e., ticket sales, TV deals, merchandise) and since hockey has inelastic demand (in certain markets), we, the customers, would bite the bullet. Revenue goes up, salary cap goes up.

You do not like the idea of cap hit matching salary? So you are cool with Holmgren, Sathers and other GM's of large markets making offers to players that with either financial handcuff small markets or prevent them from matching all together.
Contracts that start off at 14 million and end in 1 are dirty pool and need to go.


I looked at it from a players/financial perspective. I'd much rather get paid $10m, $10m , $3m, $1m, $1m than $5m per year over 5 years. The present value of those cash flows favors the front loaded one and it ain't even close. As a player, I could care less about how GMs don't/can't resign their players before July 1st. They know the rules, right? Besides, if you build a winning franchise (within; not Toronto's mentality), the fans will come and the players will want to stay...unless all they care about is the money.

Preventing a GM from burying a contract forces him deal with his consequences. Sather buried Avery and Redden.
Lets look at the Redden situation a little closer.
in 2008 Redden signed a 6 year 39 million dollar contract with NYR figuring this is where he is going to play to the end. After 2 years Sathers over the honeymoon period and buries him the AHL because his cap hit would interfere with acquiring new players. Now Redden has a decision to make. Does he play in a sub par league collecting his money, or does he break his contract to play in the NHL again with another team. How is this fair to Wade?


I agree with the first sentence complete. That said, the owners would simply push for non-guaranteed contracts. With regards to Redden, how is $39m not fair? He clearly isn't worth his contract or else he'd be in the NHL. Yeah, it would undoubtedly suck riding the bus down in the AHL, but it's a dog eat dog world out there. Believe me, I'd sacrifice my left nut to play hockey for a living...especially $39m.
your parts are in bold.

Nabokov20 is offline