For people who had suspicions that the Rangers ****** up the CBA

[nomorekids]

for the record, this is the fourth time this article has been posted in 3 days

 

[GKJ]

What about the Fedorov contract offer?

I love how that wasn't mentioned.


That was the one that really tipped the scales, because it was in the middle of the season

 

[Trottier]

If it were that simple, the league wouldn't have a problem right now. And I think we can all agree that there is a problem.

One particular set of incidents does not, on its own, cause such a large-scale problem (at least in this case). There are many other pieces of this puzzle. Maybe this is larger than some others but it still doesn't give the entire picture of the problem. You can't then reason, for one side or the other, that is the actual cause. Well, I suppose you could but it doesn't follow a chain of logic that well. But then again, what around here really has?

Too many other factors played their part. Some we know and understand, some we know but don't really understand, and others that are completely out of our realm of knowledge. It's a fairly lofty pronouncment to say that this one particular set of circumstances led to this particular outcome, and that it's true. Very lofty since we're missing or we misunderstand the information that fits into those large gaps. Now you see why I read like a fortune cookie sometimes; I have so few real specifics that all I can spout is a generalized view.

Can we step out of Philosophy class for a second, collect our thoughts and deal with concrete reality?

First, you can speak for yourself when suggesting that "we're missing or we misunderstand the information." I recall the summer of '97 very well, thank you, and never suggested here that the Kariya nor the Selanne, nor the Sakic nor any single or even multiple signings of that time period caused today's situation. So please don't assign incorrect thoughts and assumptions to this poster. What I do know with absolute certainty is that Anaheim did not have to sign Kariya to the contract which they eventually did. That's not an "assumption"; that's common sense and Business 101.

Likewise, the article suggests that the Sakic offer sheet forced the subsequent contracts to the aforementioned players.

Bunk. The only team directly affected without question was Colorado, for if they did not match the offer sheet, they would have lost a cornerstone of what was a great, and at the time young, team.

Unless "me too" is a law of conducting business, no other owner was forced to match the absurdity of the Sakic deal when signing their own players, especially when the said players were not near his value in '97. (Sakic was in his prime, captain of a recent Cup contender, etc.)

So yes, we do know something, in this case.

 

[me2]

Because it is a transparent attempt to put the blame on a few things and clear the players of all responsibility, when they are in large part responsible for the mess we are in.

The article tells you early what it attempts to do:

All three deals did irreparable damage to a CBA that should have worked better. And don't blame the players, it's not their fault.

But no, this is lie and bull****. The players ARE to blame and the CBA could NOT work.

It took two sides screw up the CBA. The owners for giving the big contracts and NHLPA/Players for egging them on. Both sides have to acknowledge the current problems. One side doesn't seem to want to do that.

-Bertuzzi's latest contract, while fans continue to be deluded into thinking Burke is such a bright guy

Bertuzzi is overpayed, but then again so is every player over $6m. His contract is 4 year $6.95m/year including a reworking of the last year of his previous contract. If you factor the raise in the reworked year into the following years it looks poorer (~1.1m/y than it appears). If Bertuzzi goes to arbitration he's going to use fellow PF Keith Tkachk contract, Weight, etc deal as leverage. Even Igilna's $7m would be used. Arbitration awarded LeClair $7m, so it would be in that range. Damage was done long before Bertuzzi contract, not that it helps.

 

[codswallop]

Can we step out of Philosophy class for a second, collect our thoughts and deal with concrete reality?

First, you can speak for yourself when suggesting that "we're missing or we misunderstand the information." I recall the summer of '97 very well, thank you, and never suggested here that the Kariya nor the Selanne, nor the Sakic nor any single or even multiple signings of that time period caused today's situation. So please don't assign incorrect thoughts and assumptions to this poster. What I do know with absolute certainty is that Anaheim did not have to sign Kariya to the contract which they eventually did. That's not an "assumption"; that's common sense and Business 101.

Likewise, the article suggests that the Sakic offer sheet forced the subsequent contracts to the aforementioned players.

Bunk. The only team directly affected without question was Colorado, for if they did not match the offer sheet, they would have lost a cornerstone of what was a great, and at the time young, team.

Unless "me too" is a law of conducting business, no other owner was forced to match the absurdity of the Sakic deal when signing their own players, especially when the said players were not near his value in '97. (Sakic was in his prime, captain of a recent Cup contender, etc.)

So yes, we do know something, in this case.

There are reasons beyond the simple $ amounts that factor into whether you sign a certain player at a certain price, or whether you don't. Other elements that play a part in your decision. We might be here all week discussing what those reasons are, which would open this discussion to yet another tangent (which we desperately don't need). I'm not one to talk in absolutes, such few exist in reality. Let's just say I'm pretty certain that the money was not the only reason. A large one to be sure, but not the only one. And unless we could crawl inside the head of the GM at that particular time, I doubt we'll know the real truth as to why he made that particular decision.

The Sakic decision didn't force anything, with that I agree. But think of it as setting a precedent. Other elite players and certainly their agents made a note of it. Players who make a true impact on their team, players who are seen as part of the face of that team and/or who the fans most associate with that team. Winning is obviously the biggest attraction, but star-power carries its own weight as well. Talk to the folks in marketing about that one. They come up for a contract and demand similar money, or they'll walk away. You might lose money if you sign them but you might lose a lot more if you don't. And the spiral grows just a bit more. (the marketing aspect is only one additional factor, but by no means the end of the story).

The league doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither do the decisions made within it. Isolating a few instances, using one particular reason, and saying "this is how it is" is what I call bunk. An executive who made such a big decision from such a flimsy premise wouldn't be around for very long.

And I was speaking of logic, not philosophy. Some term it "critical thinking", same thing though.