View Single Post
11-15-2012, 11:44 AM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 32,129
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Even if Recchi is bias, it doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong here.
He's right about the money never coming back, but his perspective needs qualification. He doubled his salary after the 1994 CBA was settled. He made over 70% of his career earnings between that CBA and the capped one.

Did he kvetch during that lockout? Of course not because he believed that he'd come back and be on the same earning trend as before, maybe not realizing that the lowered UFA age + cap was going to cause a massive shift in where the money would be spent. There was that onerous 35+ rule as well to absolutely make sure teams wouldn't throw money at the geezers (and in retrospect, I have to wonder why the league really wanted this rule).

Yes, indeed, the lockout cost him a ton. He would have been much better off under the CBA before that lockout. That doesn't mean that every aspect of what the NHL is offering is better for all players. I think their proposal would cost the best players, the ones everyone wants and pays to see, the most money. That is ass backwards.

Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. He has the benefit of perspective now, realizing a lost season is not worth these supposed principles the players are advocating. And that they will lose more as this drags on. That much is an absolute certainty.
He has the benefit of his own perspective, an aging veteran who did reach UFA status until 31, thrust into a capped league on the downside of his career. It cost him more than it cost Kovalchuk. Who else benefited from the UFA age coming down, gaining millions of dollars in pay ahead of the old schedule?

Crosby, AO, Spezza, Heatley, Zetterberg, Lecavalier, Chara, Redden, Gomez, Toews, Kane, Doughty, Keith, Seabrook, Green, Richards, Richards, Carter........ and so on.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote