CBA Negotiations III: Why Can't We All Just...Get Along?
View Single Post
12-12-2012, 04:31 PM
Grave Before Shave
Join Date: Sep 2009
Originally Posted by
The point of the union is to get 'the best deal possible'? In the players' collective opinions, sure... but the best deal possible in a 'big picture' sense, would likely be a
deal for both sides, no?
Yes and no. It would be hard to come to any deal that wasn't fair for both sides (that's what this whole process is for). But you want the best deal possible. You can have an agreement that is fair that is not the best deal. You can also get the best deal possible and have it fair to both sides. This agreement is going to govern the entire league for years. You really can't leave anything on the table or it is gone until the next CBA comes up. Obviously you have to give up some things, but on both sides, you want the absolute best deal for yourself.
Hamrlik is one of the few guys that have been through all three of the Bettman era work stoppages. I'd guess that he has a pretty good perspective about what a lost season means to all players, not just himself. With a union of 700+ members, it's not surprising to see dissenting opinions. No deal will appease all NHLPA members and the owners.
There's gonna be dissenting opinions, but Hamrlik's opinion (a guy who likeley has 1-2 years tops) is irrelevant. He wants to play now and I get that, but by signing a deal just to get it done would impact the rest of the league for years to come, not just this season. Not to mention the precedence it sets for future negotiations.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DrinkFightFlyers