View Single Post
12-06-2012, 02:32 PM
Registered User
mschmidt64's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Sather has handed out stupid contract after stupid contract. You get rid of one, he'll add another.
If a team has 7 million a year tied up in DiPietro for the next decade right now, well, what if he was capped at 5 years instead?

A poor GM might hand out another bad deal, but you can be sure it's not going to DiPietro again.

It's good for the other players to spread the money around instead of keeping it all in Rick DiPietro's pocket.

In a cap system where the owners can't spend beyond a certain amount, less for Rick DiPietro means more for someone else.

So once again, these long term deals are only benefitting the few players who receive them and hurting all the other players.

Again, it's the incompetence and irresponsibility of management that's responsible for these deals. You see a quicker turnaround on freeing up poorly spent money, I see a quicker turnaround on new poorly-spent money.
So? It still gets more evenly distributed among the players.

Instead of one 10 year, 70 million dollar contract (for example), at worst you've now got two 5 year, 35 million dollar contracts. It's a 2-for-1.

If teams want to waste their money and struggle as a result, we should let them.
Why should we let them? The CBA is in place not only to govern the relationships between players and owners, but also for the good of the game.

It's best for the sport not to allow these deals. You claim you see "new poorly spent money" but that is not necessarily true. Did the Rangers sign another Scott Gomez after freeing themselves from his contract? No, they invested that money much more wisely in Marian Gaborik.

It improved their team more, which improves the quality of the product they put on the ice, which improves the game.

mschmidt64 is offline