Seachd said:
Okay, so if somehow GMs started being more careful, and salaries across the league dropped 35%, all the players would be happy?
No. The players would not be happy.
Who cares?
That's not the point.
If the NHL owners in New York and Detroit and Toronto and Colorado etc want to slit their fellow owner's throats with ridiculous contracts, that's the owners' problem.
Why should the players lose the ability to test the market place?
There are so many half-truths and lies being told by both the owners and the union.
Here's what we know. The union offered a 5 percent roll back plus some weak luxury tax and revenue sharing proposal.
So the players are giving something up here.
From what I understand, the owners are proposing a cap of $31 Million a team.
That would, in one big swoop, lop off about 33 percent of player costs.
That is bloody well ridiculous.
The owners run around like coke binging blowhards, throwing money at players left and right.
Now all of the sudden the players are supposed to just give up one third of their money?
No way in hell should they agree.
IMO, the players are bargainning in good faith.
They're giving something up.
And they'd probably give up some more if the owners were actually negotiating.
IMO, the owners MUST move from the salary cap.
They've got to work with the players proposal.
Maybe they could win an 8 percent salary rollback (nothing to sneeze at) plus a stiffer luxury tax plan that drags salaries a bit.
And, of course, there must be revenue sharing.
If the rich owners aren't willing to help the small owners, well then this league might as well go to hell.
There's no way in hell that this freakin mess the owners created is going to be solved soley on the shoulders of the players.