Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0
View Single Post
12-10-2012, 03:26 AM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
Not a Fish
You argue well and have raised some very valid points in support of the players. Others are showing their support for the owners. I support the team and not individual players. If a player gets traded he's gone. That's it that's all. Therefore, I don't care if the players/owners get 40% vs. 60% or 50% vs. 50%.
What I care about is what's best for my team; what's best for the Montreal Canadiens.
1. I like UFA to start at 29 or even 30 years old so that we keep our prospects longer (owners are asking for free agency to start at 28 yrs of age, therefore I support the owners on this point).
2. I would like to see a clause that makes it illegal to give players a no trade clause. I like to see more trades just like in the old days.
3. Teams should be able to negotiate and execute trades anytime during the year except during the playoffs.
4. No Player should not be allowed to veto a trade, or refuse to report to another team .
5. When negotiating trades, teams should be allowed to negotiate the percentage of the player salary that will be going to the other team and will therefore become part of the other team's salary cap.
6. Teams should be allowed to send any player down and to bring any player up from the AHL without going through wavers.
7. I don't see how offering a player a 10 or 15 year contract is good for the game. Set maximum contract length to: 8 years (players under 25), 6 years ( players under 28), 4 years (players over 30).
I can understand why players would want no-trade clauses. Let's not forget that these are people with families, or at least many of them have families. When they move, it means their children have to change school and friends. If they move mid-season their wives and kids can't join them full-time until the following year.
There's a reason Mike Fischer wanted to be in Nashville -- he's married to country winger Carrie Underwood. There's a reason Jordan Staal wants to be in Carolina, he's brothers with Eric Staal and they're going to raise their families together. My understanding of what happened in JS case is that he told Pittsburgh management "I won't resign with you", and he rejected some high quality offers from them. Carolina then offered a decent package to Pittsburgh to receive JS, which was quite classy of them imo.
If the owners want to get rid of no-trade clauses, which really effects players with families, they should offer something substantial in return. Right now players are allowed to request no-trade clauses in their contracts at the expense of lower salaries, and that's a job benefit they're happy to have.
One option might be to get rid of partial no-trade clauses. That is, players can have a no-trade clause, but it is either total or non-existent. You can't have Dany Heatley situations where he dictates where he's going.
If we're talking about what's best for the Habs:
- A 48 game season.
- Cap space should be based on after-tax income.
With respect to salary and cap, that would count as cap circumvention. However, Donald Fehr has apparently convinced the owners to allow cap space to be traded up to a 5% limit, or some number like that.
Last edited by DAChampion: 12-10-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion