Roughneck said:What about the Fedorov contract offer?
cw7 said: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.
Vlad The Impaler said: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.
-Bertuzzi's latest contract, while fans continue to be deluded into thinking Burke is such a bright guy
Trottier said: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.