2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VI: The "What Comes Before Square One?" Edition
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by
I am so tired of this argument.
"Teams should just show restaint and not sign bad contracts."
No. Just, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of course teams should try not to sign bad contracts. But in a competitive system where the best players get the biggest and longest deals, the system itself perpetuates the handing out of bigger and longer contracts in order to attract the star players. If an owner isn't trying to compete for a Stanley Cup by handing out these deals, he's failing the fans as an owner.
The system itself promotes people having to gamble to give out these deals. If they don't, they aren't getting the best players.
So every time someone says "The owners should just not give out these bad deals," that is just a complete lack of awareness of what is going to happen every time you have a free agent system that is based on the highest bidder.
The owners cannot "not give out bad deals." If they all sit there and agree not to give out those long deals, it's collusion. It's illegal. If any number of them try to compete with each other (even if it's just a handful of the owners), the inevitable outcome will be risky, bad contracts as the competition pushes the scope of the deals to the edge of whatever is allowed under the rules. Those owners who aren't competing by bidding up the contracts are failing their fanbases even worse.
The CBA is THE TIME that owners try to get these things under control. And it is the only logical, moral, or practical time for them to do so.
It's ridiculous to blame the owners for requesting contract limits because "they could just not sign long contracts."
i'm sick and tired of every single one of your rambling 'i love the owners' post so that makes even LOL
but seriously 50% is 50%, how you split up that 50% whether its forced by rules or subject to the teams descretion it doesn't change the fact that 50% is still 50%. that doesn't even remotely hint at 'owners should control themselves'. you are already controling the owners by capping the players at 50%.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Leetch3