View Single Post
10-27-2012, 09:52 AM
marcel snapshot
Registered User
marcel snapshot's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,014
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Again, this argument completely ignores the reality of the situation and the economics of pro sports. No, the signings weren't a self acknowledgement that revenues would grow. The signings were an acknowledgement that under the previous CBA, those were the prices a GM had to give in order to better his team. If Minnesota didn't sign them to those contracts, some other team would have. This has to be engrained in your head. Regardless of who signed them, those UFA's were getting those big deals because that's what the current market dictated, a market under the old CBA rules. If teams just collectively decided not to offer large contracts because they knew a new CBA was on its way they'd be getting thrashed, possibly in court, on collusion charges. And the NHLPA knew this, and thats why 1. they chose to increase the cap in the off season and 2. high profile UFA's and RFA's negotiated their salary to be very heavy on the signing bonuses
Good post. By condemning Leopold, Jacobs, et. al. for signing those contracts I'm implicitly acknowledging that the players -- especially the top-end guys -- are getting an excessive share of HRR. That's why I'm fine with a graduated reduction to 50% and a cap on contract lengths. And the players seem to be fine with that as well. The problem is the NHL has given no indication that it's willing to accept that type of outcome.

marcel snapshot is offline