View Single Post
11-14-2012, 02:14 AM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,811
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by rockinghorse View Post
Fugu has very clearly explained in #1 and #2 the risks the players are expected to accept.

They are expected to depend on the good will and accept less in their good years with the hope that in their decline they will be overpaid to make up for being underpaid before. Unfortunately some are not healthy and are eliminated without getting to UFA, 4-5 years average length of service is not getting you to UFA,

Depending on good will is clearly high risk. Would you accept that risk?
That so-called "average career length" statistic is greatly flawed. The majority of player money is going towards players where this is not the case.

27 is also the prime for a hockey player, so technically, they reach UFA status when they hit their prime. Not in their old weak years.

You all act like players don't get paid in their RFA years. That is simply not the case. And since owners are buying potential, which is rarely realized, they often end up paying even more than they should.

Reducing ELC length would increase salaries at the beginning of careers, not decrease.

Also, the league is not imposing a lower individual salary cap. They are merely adding restrictions on the contracts to disable circumvention of the cap, and to make sure their contracts are insurable.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote