Why is it fair that Goodenow or someone int he PA can step in and say something about a players contrac negotiations becasue it will hurt others who are going to get new contracts?
If the owners do this the PA cries foul. They just want it all their way and have alway shad it their way. Who cares if the NHL is wanting things their way now. It's about time. The players are controlling everything. They stop rule changes that are supposed to make the game more exciting.
I find it hilarious when the players or people say: "Well the owner shouldn't pay". The NHL as a whole needs to grow, but the teams themselves compete with one another. Saying "Don't pay is so dumb". Yes, sometimes you shouldn't pay a guy too much when you know he sucks, but free agency is a bidding frenzy. If Toronto and Detroit want Jason Allison, but Allison asks Detroit for 6 million, is Detroit just supposed to say "No"? and let him go to Toronto?
Owners have made some retarded mistakes int he past, and a lot of it has to do with competeing with one another. This is why the NHL needs some restraints. Who cares if rich teams are able to over pay guys and still make money. It ruins the economics in the NHL for a lot of other teams.
No, not 75K, but pretty damn close to it. Were talking dozens of guys going from 400K to 300K etc in one shot. That is a *massive* cut to those guys. Life changing, I'd say. Far greater impact than a guy who goes from $4 million to $3 million. That guy probably doesn't even notice it, just the statement from his broker has a different bottom line.
By "amount", we're talking percentages. They both pay the same amount means they both pay the same percentage. As I pointed out in my tax example, the rich and the poor have different tax percentages, because having one percentage for all simply isn't fair.
I explained why it's not fair, I'll try again in a new way.
A player making five million or whatever, has already participated in the salary growth machine. He's been to arbitration, free agency etc, and had his salary increased 80%, 100%, 200% etc. He deserves a large cut back because he's *benefitted* from the increase already.
A player making under a million etc, has *never* received the large percentage increase. He's still under the old basic contract, never been a free agent, never gone to arbitration, etc. So why should he get a rollback, when he was never rolled forward?
Yea it's a big cut for the guy making 300k which is exactly why the NHL proposed what they did, hoping that the lower salary guys would say this isn't so bad and the union would split. It didn't happen, but that's what the NHL wanted.
As for it being fair to cut different players different amounts I guess we just disagree on it. Your reasons are more simpathetical than anything, but when it comes to something like this it's pure numbers. The bottom line is the PA is one, that's the essence of a union. All of the players get what everyone else gets. If you cut Jagr's salary 25%, you cut Purinton's salary by the same amount.