CBA Thread, Daniel Bryan Edition: The lockout is (tentatively) over!
View Single Post
12-11-2012, 10:26 PM
Geno and Juss '13
Join Date: Sep 2006
Originally Posted by
The fact that you're referencing Puck Daddy is probably not going to score you any points around here. Those idiots are ridiculously slanted towards the union.
And if the owners hadn't signed all those big money contracts, there would be cries of collusion from the players, particularly with regards to UFA contracts like Parise and Suter. And how pissed off do you think Crosby would be if the Pens had intentionally waited until after the lockout to extend him, knowing full well they wouldn't be able to offer very favorable terms under the new CBA. If anything, the fact that all these big money contracts were signed before the expiration of the old CBA should be seen as good faith gestures made by the owners. Especially considering how the owners have been bending over backwards trying to find ways to fully honor all these pre-existing contracts.
What's funny is that a couple years ago, while talking with Tom McMillan of the Pens, I asked him some of his favored media outlets. He immediately said the Puck Daddy blog was one of his favorites, especially for its skill at quickly giving a rundown of issues with every team on a daily basis. Granted, his new background might give him a different perspective than others who are in NHL management and this was prelockout, but he still named it and TSN as his two favorite sources for hockey news.
Originally Posted by
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?
I don't have to ask myself. I know the answer: I value the sanctity of a contract. I understand that others don't and have some legitimate reasons for taking that position, but for me, your word is bond and signed contracts are sacrosanct. It's old fashioned, I know, but I don't care.
Last edited by mrzeigler: 12-11-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mrzeigler