There is no way I, or anyone here, would accept a 24% cut, followed by another 12% 5 yrs later - granted their average wage has drastically improved.
This is false though. When did Parise ever accept a 24% cut? Never. Some players did, those who had contracts back in 2004-2005 and are still on that contract. Otherwise, over the course of 2004-2005 to today, the players didn't cut their salaries, they raised them quite a bit.
With an escrow clawback, and 5% growth, players stand to lose 12% of this year (potentially). I didn't hear them cry when the owners had to pony up for the last escrow payment (paying them more last year than what they signed for) yet now the owners tell them it's their turn to skip a bit for a year and suddenly it's terrible.
The facts are that for a player with a current 5 year contract, considering normal growth that both the NHL and PA seem to agree to, they will lose about 4% of their money. Then in 5 years, they'll be able to sign a contract with a raise of 11% over today's value (at 50-50).
So if your employer told you that over the next five years you'd have to lose 4% of your wage, but then after that you'd get 11% more than your pre-cut wage, would it be that drastic? Especially if you were making at least 50% more than the next employer would give you for the same services?
Players are too dumb to do the math themselves, but the offer with an escrow clawback, even going 50-50 the first year is only 4% cut over a five year lifespan, plus before the next negociations (which the players should want later than earlier), they'll be earning collectively at least 10% more than they do now at 57-43.
Obviously, they'd be earning even more if they could keep 57-43, but to only want to earn and earn when you're already paid quite a bit more than you would outside the NHL is a prime example of greed.
If Parise accepted the 50-50 offer, he would "lose" about $2M on his $100M contract. Is that really worth skipping a year where he'd earn $7M and crying like a baby about it??? If he really wanted to play, he'd view the $2M loss as a small part of his large contract to help the league get even more competitive and grow earnings even faster. But noooooo.... he NEEDS that $2M out of his $100M deal, otherwise he won't be able to feed his dog.
How any fan can stand up for those mathematically challenged losers is beyond me.
Edit: Plus...if the NHL actually beats the 5% growth in the next years of his contract, Parise could end up earning more than his $100M contract over its life time, even at a 50-50 share...
