Ziggy Stardust said:
Have you earned a college degree or some form of education beyond high school?
Yes, I have. How about you? What is your educational background?
Your "widgets" analogy does not apply to the free agent market system in the National Hockey League.
Sure it does. Both are free markets. The market for my "widgets" and for NHL UFA's.
Second, all of your examples hardly support your illogical claims. Those players have not reached their UFA age, and thus far their teams were not obligated to lock them up to long term contracts that would force them forego their UFA status when they reach that age. Those are players who cannot afford to hold out and have not had the longetivity of a Holik thus far in their young playing careers. They have still signed for a significant amount of money, and will continue to make more and more as they progress in their years of service in the NHL.
So what you're saying is that Holik's contract doesn't affect them.
Thank you for making my point for me.
And I don't consider Joe Thornton's contract to be a paltry sum,
I never said it was. All I said was that Holik made more then him and was an inferior player.
and UFA spendings have affected the salaries of other free agents (see John LeClair and Keith Tkachuk as examples).
No they haven't. If you want proof for that look to Jody Reed in baseball.
He was offered a three year contract for more then $7M dollars by the Dodgers when he became an unrestricted free agent. Then another second baseman by the name of Robby Thompson signed a much larger contract and Reed thought what you thought. That another UFA set the market for second basemen so he rejected the Dodgers offer.
Instead of offering him more money based on the Thompson signing, the Dodgers traded for another second baseman. Reed was then forced to accept a one year contract for less then a million dollars. He never got another million dollar contract for the rest of his career.
Because he was stupid enough to believe that unrestricted free agents have a set market, it cost him millions of dollars.
In arbitration hearings, players/agents cannot cite other UFA signings as sources of examples. Observe cases in which players were to become unrestricted, or were unrestricted free agents, and what they signed for. Are you saying the Rangers did not help inflate that market?
What are you babbling about here? You're not making a whole lot of sense. First you correctly point out that UFA's can't be used in arbitrarion. Then you're claiming the Rangers inflated some market.
What market did the Rangers inflate? The only affect the Rangers have ever had was the stupid Joe Sakic signing which they learned there lesson from and never attempted again.
What specific players have the Rangers signed that inflated any arbitration eligible players' salaries?