: Value of:
View Single Post
09-09-2012, 04:25 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Originally Posted by
but i believe that the cba was never intended to hurt a team/or player under the thomas situation. Thomas had a fairly bargained contract that was honored by both himself and the Bruins. Then he did a very unique thing and became controversially political in a way that caused huge backlash against himself in Boston.
so the entire thing is a mockery where Boston is being hurt unfairly and other teams are not being hurt even though they deserve to be.
I believe that fair is fair... and the new CBA will contain an admentment to protect teams that follow the rules and bargain fairly.
So much here, and I clipped a bunch, but:
1) I love when people who don't live in Boston try to say what is happening in Boston. There wasn't a "huge backlash" in Boston. Period.
2) Boston is not being unfairly hurt by anything. They knew the rules of 35+ contracts. They saw a guy do the same exact thing before with NJ. 35+ contract, wanted to take a year off. I don't recall you or anyone in Boston complaining about NJ getting unfairly treated. What would be unfair would be for Boston to not have to have the same cap implications as every other team in the NHL who had a guy with a 35+ contract not play.
The rule is: 35+ counts on your cap until the terms run out or he's traded. Period. Selectively enforcing a clause against every team that doesn't have a spoked B on its sweater would be wrong. Enforcing it against all teams would be right.
3) It doesn't matter what you believe is fair. What is collectively bargained is what the rule becomes. There's no reason for the league to change the rule. Not one, and unless you were calling for this amendment when Malakhov took off there's no reason to call for it now.
Last edited by spiny norman: 09-09-2012 at
. Reason: Fixed [/QUOTE]
View Public Profile
Dr Quincy's albums
Find More Posts by Dr Quincy