Thread: Hockeys back!
View Single Post
Old
01-06-2013, 06:30 PM
  #47
squirrelbait
Registered User
 
squirrelbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hennessy View Post
Really not a fan of the 2 compliance buyouts per team. Lets irresponsible teams who should be punished for the risks they took get off with nary a bruise. Part of all that loophole BS was that the new CBA might make them regret what they were pulling. But, no. They get to wash their hands of it, and at no cost to the cap.
I used to agree with you about the compliance buyouts thing, and you make a valid point. But I've changed my opinion on it now. Really it helps out both the team/owners/management and the players involved. If you have one or two guys making more money than they deserve on a long contract they are potentially taking roster spots from two, three maybe more players who might otherwise be able to make the team or stay on the team, who then have to be moved on when contracts expire rather than reup with the team. So it helps players who want to stay with their team, it helps foster new talent being brought into a team, means the team can hold on to more players than they might have previously, and it's good for fans who don't like their team being hamstrung and broken up because of these big contracts.

It is bad for opposing teams. It's great seeing other teams saddled with a bad contract. It's bad also for those players who might not find NHL work afterwards, but then maybe they should have played better to earn that much money?? Harsh I know. And it's a little unfair for a team like Colorado who seem to be one of few - if any teams that player fair and treated their players with respect and didn't go out and offer such ludicris contracts to any players, knowing they would have to turn around and go to war with those players one day in the future. So I have a great deal of respect for the Avs in that regard for playing fair in a way in the lead up to the CBA negotations. They were part of a group of owners that wanted low contracts for players (under 5 years) and so they acted that way and signed players to contracts 5 years and under. They wanted a lower cap overall and knew they would be arguing that case soon, so they didn't sign anyone that would put them over the cap when it was lowered. They conducted themselves in an open manner really, in a time when other teams were signing players to contracts they didn't want their players to ever have. I'm proud of the Avs for conducting themselves the way they did and in a way it helped them because they'll be well under new caps, but in another way it's bit them in the butt a little because the don't need the compliance buyout option quite like other teams do, so the rest of the pack can catch up to them now which is a shame. Lots of hard work setting themselves up for post 2012 CBA sort of for naught.

Still, I take it all back if they eff up O'Reilly's contract negotiations!

But boy, it's nice to be able to stop reading threads on the NHL and Business forums, and move back here to read the avs talk proper again!

squirrelbait is offline   Reply With Quote