View Single Post
Old
12-11-2012, 04:42 PM
  #338
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Yeah. I think the owners were hardly in a position to claim the players were moving the goalposts, at least not without looking like hypocrites.



Well, I guess my point is that the league needs to pick one "hill to die on," explain to the PA why it is that way (and it had better be a much better explanation than 'because we want it' - and explaining that increasing liabilities in the form of uninsured contracts are going to mean they need a larger share of HRR to account for it would be a pretty good one IMO) and then demonstrate a willingness to move on other issues to achieve that.



I think the owners need a lot of protection from themselves. Free agency is a marketplace and like any other marketplace it should be well regulated if it's going to be stable.

It just takes one team to throw everything out of whack for most other teams - except the ones that don't need to use free agency and the ones that are willing to leave holes in their roster on principle.


If the CBA is going to ensure stability for the league over a long period it needs to define limits for what that one wackadoo owner is able to do - as once the ink is dry teams are going to find and exploit whatever they can in order to entice free agents to sign with them.

I'm not saying it isn't a big sacrifice for the players in many respects, and that's why ownership needs to step up and make some major concessions to make it happen.

Basically the players need to figure out what hill they are going to die on, and if it's different than the one the owners are intent on then each side needs to suck it up and get ready to make some sacrifices.

If they want to pull this out of the fire that is.
I think a solid revenue sharing policy or luxury tax penalty for teams that overspend should be more apt rather than trying to take it out on the players by limiting their rights. Players shouldn't be penalized for owners who can't be fiscally responsible. The onus should be on owners, and their GM's to act responsibly. Obviously there should be some rules in place (variance), but limiting term to 5 years is a bit extreme and unnecessary.

Canucker is online now