View Single Post
12-09-2012, 01:40 AM
charliolemieux's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
With a $16MM range, and Nashville generally needing to stay at the bottom of that range, Philly can offer more 5 - 7 yr contracts at maximum value than can Nashville. The next question the player would consider is who has a better chance at building a contender.

I guess it's a bit of an edge, but I think bigger market teams will still come out better with this one.
Giving teams like Nashville and Phoenix an edge of 2 extra years on a deal might be the only way they get to keep players beyond the ELC's.

But ya in the end the teams with money(and fan support) will come out ahead, and why shouldn't they.

Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why are we discussing any of it then? By your reasoning: "If the league feels teams should have a bigger chance of keeping their own players, it's certainly a valid position to take."

You're opining on all the reasons there's a lockout, the state of the league and the various proposals, but now your answer on requested term limits is that it's just a valid position to take because teams may want an edge in retaining their own players?

Is it even an edge? Is it healthy for the league? I'd expect you to have some opinions.

And in fact, I think greater player movement, including increasing the the timing and frequency of trades for "hockey" decisions would make for a more entertaining and better product.
MY thoughts exactly. Imagine a trade deadline day that actually had impactful trades of big names.

This is the best thing for fans, so why are people saying it sucks?

charliolemieux is offline