Arbitration ruining hockey
View Single Post
07-25-2006, 05:00 PM
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Western Canuckland
Originally Posted by
Well, okay, I'll give you an argument then. But it seems like you've neglected to read many of the posts in this thread which have explained why your initial post (and this article) are nothing more than alarmist pieces.
The NHL's goal was to get salaries in line with revenues. The NHL succeeded in its goal. The NHL's revenue exceeded its own expectations.
Now people are questioning whether the lockout was worth it? Why? Player salaries will
be in line with revenues now. It's not the league's responsibility to ensure every team and every General Manager acts responsibly, but that the environment is set up to ensure a financially healthy league in which every team can contribute.
And now people are making noise and complaining because Buffalo, with their 14-16 Free Agents all performing above their heads in contract seasons, are getting paid more than expected? Let me tell you: this was foreseeable. I was posting all over the place that Buffalo was in trouble in April and May. That's not to toot my own horn (OK, maybe a little), but more explaining that this situation
foreseeable and that Regier was, perhaps, not the genius he was made out to be. And that Buffalo was perhaps not the up-and-coming annual contender they were touted as becoming. And that having that many players in a contract year is just bad business.
But the bottom-line is that there is a cap on spending. And there is a cap on individual salaries. So the 'little guy'
still compete. They just need to be smart about it. Tell me: how badly was Carolina hurt this off-season? They had a good chunk of players needing renewals, too. The difference is that not many of them were arbitration-eligible, and Rutherford's managed that team in a fashion that draws out loyalty from its players.
be free to demand more than they've earned. And General Managers will
be free to accept or deny this overpayment. The fact that General Managers have occasionally chosen to accept to overpay for players like Mike York is not the league's concern. Mike York's contract will not change the fact that players salaries are in line with league revenue, and that the Buffalo Sabres, Carolina Hurricanes, and other small market franchises can now compete in this NHL.
No. Just because Briere was underpaid previously and is now being paid closer to his real value is not why the NHL got into trouble.
Once again: the NHL got into trouble by not aligning player salaries with league revenue. Now that they're aligned, the league does not have the concerns it had before.
Yes, the arbitration process should be looked at. But that's a different concern altogether. It won't ruin the NHL. It won't make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It hurts all teams equally. This is not a problem that is on par with the NHL of old. I'm tired of alarmist pieces like this article claiming it's at all similar, or saying the lockout didn't accomplish a thing, when it clearly has based on this past season.
They wont be smart about it ON OCCASION and it is those times that will be used as comparables ratcheting up the costs so that teams will have to walk away. Teams will lose players and players will move. There will be more free agency so teams will be less rewarded for drafting and developing well. With FAs not wanting to come to Montreal this will impact the Habs. If Zhogi scores 35 goals can the Habs afford him at 5 million????? He is playing where he wants after declared FA.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by toshiro