View Single Post
08-23-2012, 02:29 PM
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,003
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Because I'm on the players side in this whole deal.
I personally find it hard to side with guys who make millions and in many cases don't even perform close to the level of their contract and still get paid and are currently taking in 57%(?) of the league revenue. If the players on the ice don't perform, the owner in many cases loses money yet the player still get's his salary though. Think about how much money Karmanos lost because the players couldn't come up big the last game of the season in 2 of the last 5 years. I'm not siding with either side on this, just think it's a bit much painting the players as some sort of victim in all this.

That last quote is infuriating. Do they not see the hypocrisy of signing players to 100 million dollar contracts, then claiming that the players are paid too much?
While true, I'll play a little devil's advocate here. I think it's a bit naive to think that the players and their agents don't have an equal part in this. Players and agents are as much to blame on these 100m dollar contracts as the owners themselves. Look at Evander Kane for instance. Look at guys like Kovulchuk when he pretty much forced Atlanta to trade him. Shea Weber telling Nashville to trade him or they'll lose him then going out and negotiating an offersheet, etc... etc... Players also want it both ways. They want the "market" to dictate what they should be paid, but then want the protection of a labor union (which is the opposite of market economics).

Anyhow, I really don't care who caves in this case and can see valid points from both sides (e.g...a more equitable split in revenue vs. owners dishing out these contracts). Hopefully a deal gets done, but if not, then so be it.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote