Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners
View Single Post
10-31-2012, 11:59 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Another thing I'd like to address about the article is just general stupidity.
"Thought for sure Minnesota would be in the hardline group with Wild owner Craig Leipold on the negotiating committee. But a few sources said they think he wants to play, eventually. Too much momentum to lose."
Life isn't Black or White. Life is shades of grey. Every owner WANTS to play, but wants to play with an economic system that they feel is (a) fair, and (b) brings in the most dollars for their franchise. It's not as simple as "The rich guys want to play, it's the poor guys who don't."
It's the poor guys who want to play, but want a CBA they can compete in and not have to pay out of pocket to run their franchise.
It's the rich guys who want to play, but want a CBA where they can spend on players what they can afford and not have to hand over millions to poor teams.
It's the middle guys who want to play, but want a CBA where everyone's on an even playing field because they'll never be rich, but might be poor.
And getting a CBA that works for all 30 owners AND the players is really hard.
One franchise doesn't have enough clout? They have 1/30th share in the owners decision, no different than anyone else. If someone feels they should have more clout, be mad at the guys who voted to add more owners in the owners room. All of the hate towards "new" franchise is stupid, because it's self inflicted. These teams didn't storm the NHL HQ, hold guns to the heads of traditional hockey teams and demand franchises. The old 23 wanted the new seven in the league. Blame doesn't bring solution. There's a time and a place for blame: and that is after solution. The arson investigators come in AFTER the fire is put out.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KevFu