View Single Post
Old
10-03-2012, 12:10 AM
  #70
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,179
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by shai04 View Post
The problem is the whole system of teams negotiating with professional represented and unionized players

In a competitive league with limited available talent, market forces will dictate that owners will have to pay more than any given player is worth in terms of on-ice results.

Player Agents, and the NHLPA coerce the players into maximizing their pay based on comparable contracts around the league. What this means is that any player willing to sign for less than a comparable level of salary, would be told to reconsider on the grounds that he is harming the NHLPA membership, etc. I scored 30 goals, other 30 goal scorers get 6M, I wont take anything less than 6M. (fail to mention that this imaginary player was a winger on a line with #99 and #66 and still only scored 30 goals... context of performance really really really matters)

Most player backers will argue that the owners have put themselves into this situation of escalating costs. The reality is that the players are the root of the problem.

If the owners put into place a system which would limit pay increases, by say agreeing that 2nd contracts could not exceed X years and Y dollars, or by allowing teams to negotiate amongst themselves for the services of a player, (ie: we want to pay him this much, if you don't offer him a contract we won't offer one to this other player... or we wont draft this guy we know you covet... etc) then problem solved right?

Wrong, the NHLPA and player agents would be filling COLLUSION charges within moments of any policy amongst owners to limit the "free market" activities of players.

IN effect, the players are using agents and the NHLPA to distort and manipulate the market place, while at the same time blaming the owners for the results and preventing any sensible measure that would control escalating salaries and ultimately improve the health of the game in the majority of markets.
To a degree what you are saying is true, but players cannot sign for more than what they are offered.

The owners are responsible for the salary escalation. Maybe not all of them directly. But it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel.

If two or three teams offer the Bobby Holik's of the world 9mill, then like a pebble thrown in the pond, the waves spread out and soon guys are comparing themselves to Bobby Holik and want to know where their 9mill is.

The cap was implemented to help save the owners from themselves. Problem seems to be they had to entice the players with an unsustainable revenue percentage in order to get them to capitulate to the cap.

Now that the owners won that battle, they are setting their sights on adjusting the revenue %.

The players are just along for the ride. They can either accept what the owners are offering, or lose money until they accept what the owners are offering.

Or they could look for jobs at Safeway.

I am the Liquor is offline