View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 05:56 PM
  #68
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
It's true that 10% hurts more at the bottom, but a lockout hurts even worse I think so that's my reasoning. It wasn't fair to say that they gain nothing but it seems like salary inflation year-to-year does not occur as much for those types of players. They'll be protected in year 1 by the lack of a rollback, but they'll gain very little afterwards compared to the bigger names. And if it's true that any rollback protection is lost by a short lockout then they end up with nothing for their trouble.

As to the issues of it being good for rich teams to support poor ones, I think it is, but only to an extent. You're never going to feel great about subsidizing your competition, and that's certainly going to be a concern in places (Rangers vs. Isles/Devils just as an example). And as far as ownership is concerned, cutting costs accomplishes the same thing as subsidizing, with the added benefit of it helping all of the owners and not just the ones at the bottom. I think they'll have to settle for increased revenue sharing, and I think the league needs it, but there's no problem revenue sharing can solve that cutting the players' share can't, so it's easy to see which the owners are going to prefer as a group from the start.

As for having their chance to get it right last time, a couple things: I think the worst thing you can blame them for is underestimating growth, or underestimating how asymmetrical it would be. That's valid but not exactly damning, IMO. Of course that ignores the new ownership groups that never had a say last time around. And there's also the argument that maybe they wanted to go more extreme last time but didn't think they could get it done all at once, so they have to take it in steps. Get halfway there in one CBA (the cap system, the big first hurdle I guess) and finish it off (hopefully) this time.

Bottom line for me, I guess, is that I can't sympathize with the players when they're making more than 50%, unless the definition of HRR is unreasonably strict. The owners take the financial risk so I can't sit here and say the players are "entitled" to any specific amount, and hence can't feel any anger at the thought of things like rollbacks. Not that I have all that much sympathy for the owners, either, but I know they're going to win so I want them to just win quickly at this point.

EDIT: Of course the owners' risk mitigation through things like public funding is a whole different issue entirely, and maybe clouds things here but I don't know. And even then it's something where I can't really blame them for asking for anything they can, even if I think its dumb to give them as much as some places do.

brs03 is offline