View Single Post
Old
10-19-2012, 12:11 AM
  #462
McOkMcgoMcoil
Registered User
 
McOkMcgoMcoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 13,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
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 common 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.

go figure

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.

rant done
Yup, I said it before, players love owners when they compete and the players collude. They don't like it when the tables are turned. I would even go further and say in any other industry the players would not get as much. Owners get cought up as fans, they don't treat it as much like a business as they should, they want to be heros as well. Win the cup for the city ect. So they hand out big money, when in another business they would pass. Players get so much out of the owners until the CBA ends, then they cry poor.

As you said, suck it up!!

McOkMcgoMcoil is offline