Some numbers, couple thoughts

Feel free to disagree with any of this but be prepared to present a decent case instead of left-wing commie-pinko rhetoric.

Some numbers

60K to 40K = 1.8 million to 1.3 million

This is Ted Saskin math. Nevermind that the decreases don’t equal, he and the NHLPA would have us believe that the situations are equivalent. Uh, someone dropping from 60 to 40K may not be able to stay in their home, or save for their kid’s education. That is a little different than the player’s reality at a measley (or “miniscule” according to Ken Klee) 1.3 million.

24% is

how much salaries will increase again in 2 years and we are back at square one. The players won’t guarantee this roll back (which equates to salaries taking 56% of revenues). The owners WILL guarantee their cap which is 54% or revenues.

40% is

The amount of players who are NOT under contract beyond July 2005.

3 is

The numbers of time the average salary has risen by 24% or more within a 3 month period, during this CBA.

The above 3 points describe exactly how *serious* the player’s proposal was and exactly why it should have been rejected as nothing more than a good start.

10 to 20% is

The amount the owners increased their cap offer buy, including a minimum above what some teams spend now.

0 is

The likelihood of the owner’s increase of their original cap proposal disappearing in two years.

Quotes from people siding with the NHLPA:

“We don’t have a dance partner”

“The owner’s haven’t budged one iota”

“The owners just want to break the union”.

Compare the two scenarios above and you tell me… who is not budging or negotiating?

Thoughts:

1)“It is the owners fault, they should fix it”

-Rookie BOGUS bonuses designed to cir*****vent the rookie salary cap

-Rookie holdouts

-Salary arbitration… guaranteed raises between 25% to 85%

-Players under existing contract holding out

-Players always going to the highest bidder. Bob Goodenow pressuring agents to get the most they can squeeze out of a contract… best of all,

-if the owners, en masse, refuse to pay… COLLUSION!

The fact is that these things ALL cause salary inflation. They simply continue to set the bar higher and they are out of the owner’s control. There are precious few examples of where a player has been signed for something out of line with the market (Holik, Lapointe etc.).

Now, whose fault is this again?

2) “We want a free market economy”

Yeah, of course you do… as long as anti-trust legislation is on your side, there is no legal recourse against you holding out or refusing to sign with the team that drafted you and arbitration will guarantee to inflate your salaries with almost zero chance of working the same way in reverse for the owners.

No other sport big league in North American has a free market economy and the one that has a salary tax is an absolute joke.


  • ructation