View Single Post
11-13-2012, 10:18 PM
Registered User
guyincognito's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jacketsinDC View Post
I'm not sure if the people here are hard-headed or NHL stooges, but the whole idea that the players are LOSING money by not signing a deal is obviously wrong even from the most superficial look at the situation. Yes, the players may come out of this season only with less total pay that if they had made a deal earlier, but the fight is about the next 10-15, 30 seasons. it is about 3-7% or whatever in lost player pay over 30+ seasons, not this season. giving up ground has a long term impact on pay beyond the contract... honestly isn't that ALMOST immediately obvious...? why do people keep vomiting up this same limp argument?
10-15, 30 years? They managed to have labor "peace" for 7 years, and there's no way that whatever comes up after this will have a term much longer than that.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that most of the people involved actually CARE about the future. This is about THEIR money. The PA office? Agents? Sure I could buy that. But for the individuals? LOL.

Quick question: If the future was a big deal, how come the current offers need to be made whole when the overage given for that could apply towards future years?

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote