View Single Post
11-06-2012, 03:03 AM
Theokritos's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,254
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
obviously they are not symmetrical situations, but think of it this way: you say that lindros didn't participate and wasn't a member of the PA when the previous labour agreement was negotiated. well yes. but it seems he wants the benefits of that labour agreement (the guaranteed contracts, RFA rights, salary arbitration rights, etc.) but not the downsides (decreased mobility to start his career). in the working world, when you join a union you don't get to pick and choose what applies to you because you weren't around when the labour agreement was voted on/negotiated.
If you're so good that companies are ready to let you pick and choose before you even enter the business and the union - why not? If anything the NHL or the franchises have to be blamed for allowing it, but that's just what the situation was like: even the NHL thought Lindros > NHL rules. Why blame Lindros for taking advantage of it?

Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
If not the draft, what other fair system would you use to disperse young players to NHL teams? Every player a free agent to sign with the highest bidder? I think you can see how that wouldn't work. The strong would just stay strong and the weak would eventually fold.
It would work. The NHL would look different and maybe you wouldn't like it as much, but it would work.

Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
Doesn't matter at all if he didn't want to play in the NHL.
And the NHL wanted him to play in the NHL. More than anything. So he got what he wanted. Nice for him.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote