hockeytown9321
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2004
- 2,358
- 0
txomisc said:also of course you know signing bonuses DO indeed count against the cap in the nfl.
Yep.
txomisc said:also of course you know signing bonuses DO indeed count against the cap in the nfl.
txomisc said:they are not able to pay more money than other teams. they can only pay more money upfront than other teams
CarlRacki said:Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos have been saying for weeks around here. The lockout, you see, is a grand scheme to insure that nearly all the good players in the league wind up in New York, Chicago and LA with a smattering of them in places like Detroit, Dallas, Philly and Toronto. It's so obvious, isnt it.
Once again, the NFL system has proven that star players don't flee their teams often when given unrestricted free agency. If Green Bay can keep Brett Favre and Ahman Green (not to mention land Reggie White), I think Atlanta, Minnesota and Ottawa will be just fine.
Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos," why don't you address the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?CarlRacki said:Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos...
ill concede that. However if a player is too stupid to realize that they would be getting the same amount of money either way but one way theyd just get it up front then good riddancehockeytown9321 said:Thus, they have an advantage.
hockeytown9321 said:And when did the NHL propose the NFL's system? Once again, you're forgetting revenue sharing. Thats where the NFL's success started.
do you dispute that there are ProNHLPA whackos?Trottier said:Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos" s , why don't you adress the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?
Surely, a non-whacko such as yourself will be able to intelligently and honestly admit that such a scenario (i.e., the forced divestiture of solid support player in order to retain star players) exists regularly today in the NFL under the hardcap nirvana you portray, no?
But let us guess: that's "inconsequential", those players are all "interchangeable".
PeterSidorkiewicz said:No one has ever talked about this but, if the NHL does in fact get an NFL modeled salary cap that could mean the end of NHL trades between teams as we know it. As you know in the NFL 99% of transactions is free agency and 1% is trades between teams which usually ONLY ends up being for draft picks. So the samething could happen to the NHL. I love trades, the NHL trading deadline is such a fun time to see what deals go down and who ends up getting who. And if an NFL system is implemented theres a good chance player for player trades will go by the wayside cause it will be done with ALL free agents instead. I think it would definitely ruin an aspect of the league, just wondering your thoughts on this.
CarlRacki said:Remove the cap, and you'd see the owners of the better-off teams using that huge advantage to sign away the poorer team's best players. Kind of like what we have in baseball right now.
txomisc said:do you dispute that there are ProNHLPA whackos?
txomisc said:ill concede that. However if a player is too stupid to realize that they would be getting the same amount of money either way but one way theyd just get it up front then good riddance
CarlRacki said:Revenue sharing is a key component to the NFL's success. But revenue sharing alone, without a cap, would not give the NFL the balance it has today.
CarlRacki said:Revenue sharing is a key component to the NFL's success. But revenue sharing alone, without a cap, would not give the NFL the balance it has today.
Even with all its revenue sharing, some NFL teams make more than others. In some cases, the disparity is as wide as $100 million a year.
Remove the cap, and you'd see the owners of the better-off teams using that huge advantage to sign away the poorer team's best players. Kind of like what we have in baseball right now.
Trottier said:Now that you have branded those of us who happen to think that your POV is flawed as "whackos" s , why don't you address the "Ottawa scenario" I outlined in my previous post?
Surely, a non-whacko such as yourself will be able to intelligently and honestly admit that such a scenario (i.e., the forced divestiture of solid support player in order to retain "star" players) exists regularly today in the NFL under the hardcap nirvana you portray, no?
But let us guess: that's "inconsequential", those players are all "interchangeable".
Trottier said:So, instead, as you know (but other's apparently don't), in exchange for a hardcap, a significantly lower UFA age will be granted.
Can't wait to read the reaction of the pro-hardcapper in Atlanta, once Kovalchuk and Heatley skip town at age 25 (in a couple of years)!
Or the hardcap demagague in Minnesota, once Gaborik flees at 25!
CarlRacki said:Now, on to the Ottawa situation. You're correct, they may lose some players. Tough. That's happening to many teams already for financial reasons (see Penguins, Pittsburgh; Oilers, Edmonton). A cap at least puts everybody under somewhat equal financial circumstances.
CarlRacki said:Now, on to the Ottawa situation. You're correct, they may lose some players. Tough. That's happening to many teams already for financial reasons (see Penguins, Pittsburgh; Oilers, Edmonton). A cap at least puts everybody under somewhat equal financial circumstances.
so now we are back to the nonguaranteed contracts issue.hockeytown9321 said:A player would be a fool not to take the upfront money. I think there's an excellent chance contracts will not be guaranteed, and even if they are, there will be very favorable buyout clauses. I can't imagine any player ot taking upfront, guaranteed money.
hockeytown9321 said:Fine, but shouldn't part of the NHL's plan then include revenue sharing?
those poor teams that can hardly afford to even pay up to the cap are going to lose those guys anywayTrottier said:OK, consensus. And simply a difference of opinion here. As a fan both of the league and an individual team, I don't consider that a fair tradeoff, so to speak. You do.
At least you now know clearly what is at the heart of one anti-hardcappers concern.
exactly revenue sharing is in effect none of the players businessCarlRacki said:That's fine with me. I've never said a word against revenue sharing.
I will say, however, that revenue sharing is a concern primarily for the owners and fans, not players. If the players are guaranteed a certain percentage of league revenues, it makes no difference for them if those revenues are shared or not. They'll get paid the same regardless.
you would have rather paid WEight 8.5m ?Bring Back Bucky said:"Edmonton Oilers trade Doug Weight to St. Louis Blues for Jochen Hecht & Marty Reasoner"???
Oh, yes, terribly. I love those kinds of deals.
i dont follow the NFL closely enough. Most overpaid stars are signed after being cut and the team dumping that star gets nothing.iagreewithidiots said:When was the last time a trade the magnitude of the Jagr trade occured in the hard capped NFL?
actually after ottawa loses it's core they're gonna stink just like minny, atlanta, and the rest of emCarlRacki said:Actually, what you outline is what many of the pro-PA conspiracy whackos have been saying for weeks around here. The lockout, you see, is a grand scheme to insure that nearly all the good players in the league wind up in New York, Chicago and LA with a smattering of them in places like Detroit, Dallas, Philly and Toronto. It's so obvious, isnt it.
Once again, the NFL system has proven that star players don't flee their teams often when given unrestricted free agency. If Green Bay can keep Brett Favre and Ahman Green (not to mention land Reggie White), I think Atlanta, Minnesota and Ottawa will be just fine.
mr gib said:actually after ottawa loses it's core they're gonna stink just like minny, atlanta, and the rest of em