View Single Post
11-16-2012, 10:28 PM
worraps's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by SK13 View Post
Yes, but it was difficult to see how that circumvention could have become the problem it did with a 39M cap/7.8M max salary. The NHL could have gone after guaranteed contracts or term limits (they're going after term limits now) but again, that's as contentious an issue as any and would only contribute to a longer work-stoppage.

I'm saying that if you think this lockout is about the struggling teams (from the NHL's perspective), you aren't looking hard enough. The NHLPA's proposals have been far more weighted towards buoying the struggling teams with revenue sharing. The NHL isn't in a lockout because they want Florida and Phoenix to make money, they're in a lockout because they want stricter contract rights and a 7% increase in revenue across the board.

Which, at least the latter, is the precedent set by the recent NBA and NFL agreements.

You can see it as a reaction to Bettman being "the killer", but that would be counterproductive to the argument that Bettman isn't good at his job. I suppose my perspective is the owners. I feel that, whether or not they're in touch with the fans or behind us or whatever, that ultimately an owners win improves the game of hockey and the quality of the NHL. The last lockout was worth it, and what they're asking for now benefits us all by ensuring greater sustainability and a more sane free agency.
From the NHL's perspective I think the lockout is about paying players a more fair share of revenue. They have a lot of conviction about the necessity of this because many teams are struggling.

I agree with you that it is in the best interest of the game to get the players wages down to a sustainable level. I just think the execution has been very poor for the past 20 years and the BoG should offer the PA Bettman's head on a stake as a consolation prize for this fight they are about to lose.

worraps is offline