It's an insult because the owners are forcing the players to make major concessions based on their own mistakes, not the players. The biggest thing that bothers me out of this whole labor dispute is that the owners are in the drivers seat yet they blame the players for the CBA mess. The owners lockout the players and then say that the players are preventing the season because they won't accept the salary cap. In my eyes, the owners are the ones looking like the bullies in the playground but there are obviously minute details that we all don't know about the negotiations taking place. I really don't care anymore who gives in and who caves, I just really want to watch some hockey. It just pisses me off because even though I'm pro-player, I know this won't end unless the players cave. It disappoints me because of the principle under which the lockout was brought was because of the owners' irresponsible money management, yet I truly understand now that since the owners hold the key, it's the players that must make the concessions if they want to play. Not exactly called negotiating, but it's going to work.
On another note, the one thing I do agree with is the removal of arbitration. I think Adam Sandler's character said it best in Mr. Deeds when he said, "If we can't take away salary from your contract if you have a bad season, why are you entitled to get an increase in salary if you have a good one?" Guaranteed contracts also bother me. I'm a Ranger fan and I've seen marquee names be lured into NYC with large contracts yet when they arrive, they're a shell of their former selves. I would have no problem with a base-typle salary system that increases by the number of years a player is in the league, in which they are all given incentive-laden contracts based on the type of role the team wants him to play. When a player is traded from team to team, that contract has the ability to be readjusted after the season is over, but the number of years on the contract remains the same.