View Single Post
11-14-2012, 11:23 PM
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,718
vCash: 547
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
All you've done here is proven that neither positive or negative growth is 100% accurately predicted by historical trends.

The NHL owners are being risk-adverse, which is their prerogative. If you don't believe in that idea, that's cool. But I'd advise you to give up all your insurance then.

The historical record of my driving is that I've never been in an accident after more than ten years of driving. By your argument, shouldn't this trend be reasonably expected to continue? So I wouldn't need insurance then right?
I agree with this 100%: If you feel as though you're a talented enough driver that you can avoid all collisions you shouldn't be forced to have insurance. That's your own decision to make. However, if you are involved in a collision and you are at fault the other party should be able to sue you for all that you're worth.

The whole point of a linked cap system, and insurance in general, is that you're protecting yourself against the (maybe small/large) possibility of scenarios with negative outcomes.

In the case of that eventuality, the NHL is asking the players to SHARE the burden of lower than expected league growth. Or to reap the benefits of higher than expected growth. Theoretically this is best for both sides.

By offering de-linkage, the NHLPA is essentially insuring only itself. At the same time, it is limiting it's own earning potential. This is clearly only good for the players, and possibly worse for them - but they reduce their risk.

Which option makes more sense to you?
If you're expecting us to "share" the burden of lower than expected growth, then I'll be expecting you to give me a say in "our" business ventures (*cough* placing franchises in terrible locations *cough*).

DyerMaker66* is offline