View Single Post
Old
10-29-2012, 10:56 PM
  #75
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
I believe Daly has said they anticipated the large front loaded and cap circumventing deals. The question is why were those allowed in the first place is a valid one but one that is likely to do with the internal workings of the NHL owners at the time. Trying to address that potential issue may not have had the necessary support at the time. The cap did and linkage did but going further may have been going too far too fast. That support for these further changes may currently be present given there are no some real examples of this practice that (arguably) hurt the integrity of the entire system. Teams that figured they'd be doing well are not doing as well as they hoped and fear getting exploited in a way Nashville nearly was exploited.

in short I don't think it's a case the NHL didn't see some of this coming but rather they didn't have the support to go in that direction at the time.

The one thing they've said they did not anticipate is the same things most companies didn't anticipate the last handful of year...the increasing costs of doing business even with increasing revenues. They likely also didn't anticipate the CAD dollar getting so strong, so fast and throwing things out of whack.

They've seen these things now and the owners have gotten a taste of the loopholes they knew they left. The CBA is done so now is the ONLY time they have to truly address these economic issues.
The other thing they didn't anticipate (which some people did) was the effect of lowering the UFA age. The two CBAs ago, teams had far better protection with an UFA age of 31. Sure, they got their linkage but let go of something that helped the teams that needed help far more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Sure, A GM could make those decisions. And those decisions would result in that team losing all their star players to teams that can afford to pay players over $4 million. It would result in that GM's and Owner's team never making the playoffs losing fans and revenue. And unfortunately, most. Teams aren't like the Leafs that have a rabid fanbase regardless of the quality of the product on the ice. To expect owners to not engage in a bidding war, without some sort of agreement is completely unrealistic. There are teams that can afford those high salaries and it would be a disservice to that teams fans for those teams to not do whatever they can to better their team. Problem being, the teams that can afford it don't just raise prices for the rich teams, they raise them for everyone.

If the UFA age had remained at 31 and they weren't forced to pay mid and lower level guys too much, they could afford to keep their stars. Let NYR pay a 34 yo vet millions. Hooray. In the meantime, a smart GM was able to work through three contracts during the restricted years and thus keep the best players during their best years, which for forwards was well before 30.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote