View Single Post
11-11-2012, 10:23 AM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
The players do concede something for the security of long term contracts - money. That is the trade off. That is the option there for GM's to take. If they sign an impact player for a longer contract, not only can they save a little money, but they can also save a little cap space if structured well.

That trade off can pay off or backfire. There are risks either way for a GM. But it isnt costing teams money because there is a salary cap with linkage.

Fans have often complained about losing their star players to free agency, and now we are proposing a system that prevents us form preventing that by ensuring they go to free agency more often.

Why is is too that after the NHL holding up NFL and NBA as pattern bargaining precedents they wish to follow, it is the players that have to make concessions in order to get them to revenue share like those other leagues. Is that what the NHL is actually saying, that they see revenue sharing as a silly concession to get the players to take less money?

In fact some fans are even now setting the stage for the next lockout saying if the owners have to conceded too much they will have to lockout again next time. Presumably too much revenue sharing would be one of those reasons?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote