View Single Post
12-14-2012, 11:30 AM
Ima Krejciist.
Kaoz's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,580
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
No. Not semantics. What they balked at included no provisions to make the hard cap palatable. What they ended up agreeing to together was a contract with significant give and take from both sides and the idea that everyone would work together for the betterment of the NHL.

Hardly "semantics." It's synecdoche, it's inaccurate and it's unfair.

Your argument of "positively affect the sport" is one that you've used to support the owners this whole time. How about a 35M cap? Would that positively affect the sport? Lots of money for the owners that way... A quick rollback in salaries makes it easy for every team to be profitable, provides an attractive player cost for expansion and still maintains the NHL as the highest-paying league in the sport. Would that be something you'd support?
Are you suggesting there were no provisions included by the owners to make the hard cap palatable for the players before the season ended up being cancelled? You do know that it was the league that wanted a salary cap tied to revenues right off the hop right, and that the PA didn't want one at all? This is well documented. The PA rebuked any offer that had a salary cap... period.

The only way the PA would eventually agree to a hard cap (in February at the 11th hour mind you) was if it wasn't tied to revenues and if it was a 52 million hard cap. Owners offered a 40 million hard cap as 52 million would have been nearly 75% of revenues and would have done nothing to solve the issues at the time. Eventually, after a missed year the owners got exactly what they wanted, a salary cap linked to revenues.

You can't rewrite history, the reason a CBA wasn't hashed out and the reason we lost a year of hockey was because the PA was deadset against a salary cap. They stated they would accept no proposal with one in it for the longest time regardless of what other concessions were being made.

As for you scenario outlined at the end there. I could honestly care less what cap figure they arrive at if all the teams are making money and no teams are handicapped by rising player salaries. Would a 35million cap achieve that, of course it would. Would I support the owners going after it? Not at all, because I wouldn't think the owners smart to demand such a thing. We'd lose more then one year of hockey getting players to agree to that and they owners would be easily vilified losing the PA war right off the hop. Kinda irrelevant though as no one is talking about a $35mill a year salary cap, we're talking 50% of 3.3 Billion dollars going to players.

I am curious however as to what you think getting me to say I support that scenario would prove? If there's a more direct question you have to ask shoot, I'll gladly answer. Do I think the players are compensated well enough? I sure do, the worst players in the league make millions over their careers. As long as that remains true I will always think they get paid well enough. Would I support a return to the days of Bobby Orr when players made $50,000 a year? Not a chance, they deserve more. In fact, I'd love to see those retired players that did have such contracts be better compensated through pension (supported by both the PA and league) but neither the league nor the PA seem to care much about that.

Kaoz is offline