When will this lockout end? (all lockout talk here)
View Single Post
10-18-2012, 11:42 PM
Join Date: Oct 2012
Originally Posted by
So often you hear the NHLPA rattle chains about collusion anytime they even suspect a rumor that two or more GM's might be talking to each other regarding prospective contracts on available free agents. Yet any number of players, agents, will openly discuss these matters freely, with nothing stopping it, and have a union that even sends players memos if they hear rumor that player A is settling for two little money given his comparables..
Its interesting that each time we see a case of a high paid player the immediate fingers point to owners being directly culpable. When in fact the owners are often in direct competion for valuable player resources of players and their agents playing respective offers off against each. "that ain't enough, Boston'll give me more!!!" With no apparent thought whatsoever of who, actually, is driving the increase in salaries.
To which the common reply is "The owners don't have to pay it" Well tell that to the Nashville owners whose star players are poised to walk out of town to anywhere thats the highest bidder. Whats the Preds owner supposed to do? Fold, tell all the fans "sorry, we lost, we now have no help in hell of a competitive team, all you fans may as well just stay home, well pack up the tent." The fact of the matter is in a lot of markets you CAN'T lose your marquee players, or the only players that make you competitive, and have anybody expect to show up. The Preds had a gun to their head, nothing less.
Finally, the notion of capped pay and shared revenues was all along meant to be an exercise in economic coexistance and creating increased awareness about how everybodies cut of pie effects everybody else. Yet not one player I've heard of has ever said, "hey, I shouldn't take that much, theres less money for other players on the team if I do and we'll be less competitive as a result". No, its me first everytime and I don't know that in the NHLPA even the notion of shared collective pie has been a starter. I don't think that thought gets the time of day. Its instead "I gotta get mine"
Even in the NBA, which one would think would be a collection of mercenary superheated egos theres
cases of STAR players willingly going to teams with less pay, or staying with teams for less pay, for the collective good, and the will to win. Not just in the bank account. Steve Nash just signed such a deal. He left at least 10M on the table doing it. 600NHL players would leap at that 10M without a second thought. Without a thought of how it would impact the team on the ice or the bottom line. In a revenue sharing capped league.
Who would want to be in partnership with these high paid brats that act like daddy took the Lamborghini away anytime the owners can put their foot down? Which they are effectively only allowed to do during CBA renegotiation. Any other time everything is geared to the players benefit.
Suck it up.
I have been a "LONGTIME LURKER" and this is post compelled me to join. Well said Replacement
I will add, I always hear about a "Partnership" from the players and the share of HRR. Well when I think about it, wouldn't player endorsements fall under HRR? I know if I was a business owner I wouldn't fathom having any player endorse my business or product if they didn't play hockey.
So I am patiently waiting for the players to give up 43% of all endorsement $$'s to the NHL to be distributed to the owners. That would feel MUCH more like a true partnership and not a such a one sided one.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Babel