View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 01:58 PM
  #15
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Rather than re-write in my own words, I'll quote Halibut's post from another thread:




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.
The exact same logic you use here can be used in the PAs case. With the players share of revenue set at 50% the players as a whole should not care about contracting rights. For every player hurt financially by the NHL's proposal another is helped financially to the same degree.

So where is the voice of the faction of nhl players who would benefit from the League's proposal?

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote