View Single Post
12-20-2012, 11:37 AM
Doing Nothing
Jarick's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 25,251
vCash: 500
That's a solid analysis.

I'd say the players gave up higher salaries for job security. The old model could not sustain all 30 franchises without revenue sharing and of course talent parity was not good.

Another point is that the high end players gave up salary so average players could make more. Elite players can't get paid over $10M because of the cap and small market teams need to spend up to the cap floor.

This last CBA was unsustainable because it punished small market teams for the success of larger markets and league revenues as a whole. There was inadequate revenue sharing and players making too large of a percent of the pie. Not to mention unlimited contracts with cheat years.

The players will again give up salary in exchange for job security so smaller markets can afford the salary floor as well as increased revenue sharing.

Beyond that, I can't see them "winning" this one, as inevitably failing markets would be relocated to Canada with massive relocation fees attached. This only delays the process.

Still, they have to realize they can't dictate their salaries and at some point they need to get on with actually playing hockey rather than worrying about their future potential earnings.

Not to mention they are going to lose what, 1/12th or 1/6th of their salary delaying a CBA signing by a month without gaining much money on the back end and only for a small percentage of players. I mean, we're pretty much there...just get on with it. Point taken.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote