View Single Post
11-18-2012, 11:18 PM
Damaged Goods
Registered User
Damaged Goods's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PALE PWNR View Post
The point is the "replacement guys" lose a year and possibly their jobs as a result of it. Let's say you are Jody Shelley for instance and you are scheduled to make 1.1 million dollars this year. You get burned on that, lose your job to Tom Sestito and are out of the league due to lockout. NHL has guarenteed contracts what if he had plans for that cash somewhere down the line and now no longer gets it will never see that type of contract again. Shelley isn't the best example by any means as he has been around forever, but there are fringe guys all over the NHL that can lose big time due to it.
Everyone (stars, scrubs, owners) is losing revenue because the league is dormant. The players who lose jobs because of the lockout are marginal players to begin with -- their jobs are in jeopardy every year no matter what.

Snotbubbles' point was that the real "long haul" implications don't really matter to the players because because their careers are so short. My counter-point was that the short careers belong to the marginal players who don't really have a stake in the core issues. They aren't the ones in the cross-hairs because they are small potatoes. It's just arithmetic. Limiting the contracting rights and salaries of the top paid star players (and the skill players who are one or two rungs below them) is where the real meat is. And those players have long, relatively secure careers.

Damaged Goods is offline