Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-22-2012, 01:38 AM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
I agree with LL on this one. Evident superior performance, over at least 3 seasons, should be the minimum requirement for generous contracts.
Though I believe DA is correct as well. A 22 year old who scores 40 goals should not be penalized because of his young age.
And another troubling fact: In almost all other professions, the trend is to over reward young guns,and torch anyone over 50. Ageism is a serious problem in Law, Advertising, Media, Architecture, Engineering, Insurance, and Finance. There is a dangerous trust in youth, and a disrespect and undervaluing of experience.
I'm torn on this question.
The conclusion might be that the NHL is increasingly a young, very young, man's game. Fine, if that's what the fans want. I'm not so sure...
Watching Mark Messier at 33 carry the Rags to the cup, or Nick L at age 39 laugh at stupid rookies while playing beautiful hockey, or Bo Gainey and Big bird, well into their 'dark thirties' virtually coach the team, and play superb hockey, to win the cup in 86, tells me the NHL should be careful about over rewarding the young guns.
As much as the NHL discriminates against young players with the ridiculous offer sheet compensations, it also discriminates against older players with the age 35 retirement rule.
Both are foolish. The priority should be to give comparable compensation for comparable performance.
Last edited by DAChampion: 10-22-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion