View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 02:52 PM
  #10
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country: United States
Posts: 30,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedressor View Post
Let's be honest here, what are the players gaining if* they make a deal?

NHL offered 50-50, make whole and an 82 game season.

Wherever they go from here were be less $ based soley from a games played perspective if they are able to even make a deal.

NHLPA are costing themselves money. NHL owners don't make their living of the NHL. Each member of the NHLPA does.
Rather than re-write in my own words, I'll quote Halibut's post from another thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I think the contract details might be a bigger deal than the 50-50 split here's why.

All of these issues the league is trying to control affect the salaries of the younger players. Pushing back the age of UFA, changes in arbitration rights, even the max contract length makes it hard for teams to buy much in the way of free agency years while players are young. This combination of changes makes it much harder for young players to have any leverage in negotiations. Steven Stamkos, Drew Doughty, they dont get the deals they did if they have that many years until UFA and a max contract length that prevents them from signing into UFA.

I think the idea is that if you can keep the best players cheaper while they are young then teams can hold onto the players they draft longer, field competitive teams for less and then not have to worry so much about revenue sharing since teams wont necessarily have to spend to the cap to be competitive. Of course it does almost take us back to the pre cap days where the richer teams will be scooping up all the best talent once it becomes available, it does allow for more teams to be in that rich category since the ceiling is limited.
To players, because they each have to maximize their own earnings under any system, the contracting rights issues distorts value to an unacceptable degree.

As a group, they can only get 50%. The NHL shouldn't care how that 50% is divided. However, individual teams care very much because spending $4 MM on Stamkos is preferable to spending it on a 2nd liner they had to pick up off the UFA market.

They want the best players salaries restricted above and beyond anything that a cap system alone can deliver.

If you're a player, why would you support a system that pushes most of the money into the pockets of members whose greatest asset may be that they reached UFA status.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote