View Single Post
Old
11-28-2012, 05:58 PM
  #56
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Jacobs often refused to spend the big money other clubs would on player contracts pre-2004 lockout because he thought them outlandish which contributed to the Bruins mediocrity in the 80's and 90's, and because of that many Bruins fans had issue with him (myself included). He wanted a hard cap, it was no secret. It got to the point where Bruins fans responded in kind and stopped dropping all their money on the Bruins and instead watching teams like the Sox, Celtics and Pats.

The funny part however is that during that time when he built up all that hatred he personified exactly the quality many who choose to blame the owners suggested they should have. He was frugal, and he was stubborn about it to the point where it likely cost the Bruins many competitive seasons.

How often have we seen someone comment during this lockout that if the owners didn't like how much money the players were making they never should have signed them to those high contracts in the first place. Here's Exhibit A.
Which points exactly to the reason a salary cap is needed. Revenues will drop if an owner is not putting a competitive team on the ice. In order to put a competitive team on the ice an owner must spend at or near the same amount on salaries as the competition.

Jacobs may be a jerk, but that doesn't make him wrong. That includes the sentiment that if he needs to contribute more to revenue sharing, then the NHLPA can kick in some money in the form of reduced salary in order to maintain the same level of jobs.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote