CBA Thread, Daniel Bryan Edition: The lockout is (tentatively) over!
View Single Post
12-11-2012, 08:38 AM
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Originally Posted by
I side with the players, but I think it's pretty ****ing pointless to argue about a labor issue ceaselessly online. There are several reasons why I side with players, but the latest one that annoys me is the shopping spree that NHL teams went on this past offseason, particularly in the three weeks leading up to the lockout.
They handed out contracts with terms (either money or length) that made fans raise an eyebrow, and judging from reports, it's pretty damn clear that no NHL owner had any intention of agreeing to a CBA that didn't reduce the salary or length of those deals. From Puck Daddy:
If I were a player I would be pissed —
imagine you are weighing a couple of job offers and you like the city that Offer A is in but you go with Offer B because the pay just makes so much more sense ... and then your new boss tells you he's cutting your pay and you can't quit or go work elsewhere
— and if I were a competitive NHL owner or GM who lost in the UFA sweepstakes for a guy like Parise or Suter to a team that made a ludicrous contract offer it never expected to fullfill due to CBA revisions, I'd be pissed as well.
But to answer your question, perhaps it's because the Penguins ownership team — as presented by media, including the news organization that is a major sponsor of the team — is presented as being one of the more reasonable ownership groups and the one that was widely credited with being instrumental in the two days of progress last week.
I have seen this mentioned way too often. The owners are not just one entity, they're a collection of franchises, some doing better than others. In the past CBA there were non intended loopholes that allowed big market owners to throw a lot of money at players in a manner that the smaller market owners couldnt keep up with. The problem is because that was happening it became the market rate and what players expected. Therefore for all teams, even the small market teams to compete and re-sign their star franchise players they had to play by this system. The owners couldnt collude amongst themselves and keep salaries low, that would be something that the NHLPA would rightfully complain about and win. So what exactly are you upset with them about? Do you expect the big market teams who can afford it to not re-sign their star players in a manner that assures they stay with their team? Do you expect their GM to purposely tie his hands behind his back in free agency and not use all the tools at his disposal to get the player he wants? A rational person would say that they expect the owners to utilize all the tools available within the confines of the CBA to help their club win. That is the problem, the CBA allowed these clubs to set the market too high for the smaller markets to keep up in, that is the whole point of this lockout. The NHL see's the problem that you're complaining about and they're trying to fix it by structuring a new CBA which prevents it or at least does it's best to cut back on it. I am sure there will be new ways to exploit the new CBA but it certainly will be better than what exists now.
So maybe ask yourself as to why you get mad at the owners for trying to fix the problem from the last CBA but not the players who are fighting tooth and nail to perpetuate that system that is clearly broken?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Gooch