2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 11:37 AM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Originally Posted by
Owners pay the going rate, so in that regard it's not technically overpaying when everyone else is being forced to pay it as well. As long as the money is there the owners will be forced to use it
because the players will demand it or go elsewhere. Any owner worth his salt would do so in order to keep his club competitive and therefore profitable. Perhaps if all owners got together and collectively said "we aren't going to spend over this much for any player", but I don't think that's realistic. There will always be one or two who spend frivolously because they want to win.
The system is inherently flawed imo. I guess that much should be obvious by the number of lockouts we've seen in the past 20 years. A salary cap was a step in the right direction, and tying the cap to revenues was a great idea at first when revenues were down. Revenues went up and up however, and while that's a good thing in the big scheme of things the fact that the salary cap has gone up and up with them isn't. There are already teams who can't afford to spend to the upper limit and those teams are constantly at a disadvantage because of that. When certain owners can start saying "hey, lets structure this deal like this so this team can't afford to pay it and we can steal their best player", that's not healthy in my opinion and doesn't make for exciting hockey. I like parity, I like a level playing field. In order to have a healthy league I think both are a necessity.
Now sure, it's easy for the players to say "this is an easy solve, the rich teams just need to give away a bunch more of that money they're making to the poor teams" while guys like Shae Weber sign offer sheets paying him 40+ mill in two years (when Forbes ranks the Predators at around 200 mill total value wise) but that doesn't seem much like a solution to me.
I doubt the top tier players would be eager to share some of their salary with the guys making league minimum as most people like to keep the money they are making.
At some point the bar needs to be set in a place where it's reasonable to expect all 30 NHL teams to be able to bring in enough revenue (without charging ludicrous sums for tickets and concessions and gouging the fans) and it needs to stay there regardless if revenues climb so that they can realistically be able to spend up to the upper limit without losing money and without having the teams that make more money toe the line for them.
1. Owners set the going rate, and they say the money isn't there. IMO that's a management mistake that players shouldn't have to pay for.
2. Top teir players did agree to share some of their salary when the salary cap was imposed and they took a roll back in salaries. Hell, 10 years ago Holik signed a deal that averaged out to be more per year than any current player other than Ovechkin!
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by JMiller