2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VIII: "The 11th Hour" Edition
View Single Post
12-06-2012, 02:39 PM
Can't Beat Him
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
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.
I'm getting too tired to keep going back and forth.
Goes to show how tough these negotiations are. You and I could go for days on just this topic. And neither of us (I'm assuming) have any financial stake in these discussions.
I do collective bargaining for a living, and damn does it get stressful. When you have a true vested interest in the negotiations it gets that much more heated.
I just hope that they get a deal done that works for all parties...and soon.
It's just pain.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by nyr2k2