View Single Post
Old
08-16-2012, 07:25 PM
  #134
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,569
vCash: 500
Said it last time and I still think its true. Add some element of a luxury tax, let the rangers and TO overspend to fall short and give it to the have nots. Then get rid of all those ridiculous rules for qualifying for a take of revenue sharing. That second part would likely make a big difference all in its own.

I agree with the rules the league wants to implement to slow a players growth. Longer elc's, a little longer to ufa, these things allow the lower teams to keep their rosters intact longer.

I'm kind of always in the owners corner. The players will lose no matter what, it's a matter of how long they will go without pay. The owners can always hang in longer. The last deal got what the owners wanted but it was obviously going to have to be tweaked. How could they know how to get it right the first time? However they equate revenue isn't right, when the cap keeps going up and now half the league needs to add salary to get to the floor. The top teams make the most money and skew the numbers to show league health that isn't systemic, it's limited to only those top teams.

Fehr was a ****** in the baseball stoppage. Here he is already completely avoiding the issues, smokescreening that he has a better way of doing things while trying to pitt the owners against each other. Get the best deal for the players instead of trying to fix the league. The owners will get their 50/50 revenue split, the big markets won't do enough to change revenue sharing to actually help the little teams very much, the fa rules will split the difference. 4 year elc's, 8 or 9 years to ufa, 7 year deals. I'd bet cash that's where we'll end up when it's all said and done. Stop the dance and lets play.

The only real argument is how to define revenue, how to define who gets it in sharing, and how much each side will get.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote