Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's funny, I just raised the "retroactive rule application" problem in reference to Luongo's deal hurting the Canucks, and basically everyone's reaction was "THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET!!2"
Here, where it's a non-rival getting screwed by it, it suddenly seems really unfair to many people.
|
The difference is not between a rival and a non-rival. The difference is between a team that signed a contract voluntarily, and a team that was forced to match a foolishly large and onerous contract offered by a different franchise, or else lose the player for a few draft picks. The Predators had no part in negotiating that deal; neither the ludicrous term nor the back-diving salary were their idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
People will put up with this because the stakes are lower - it's just sports, and it's just millionaires having to pay money to other millionaires. Doesn't change the fact that it's fundamentally unfair.
|
What is fundamentally unfair is that a team should be allowed to pay a player (say) $10 million a year and only have $5 million show up against the salary cap, because the salary is being averaged against hypothetical future years that the player will never play. You are complaining about the remedy as if the original cap evasion had never happened. Of course it would be unfair to penalize a team if there had been no evasion – but that is not what happened.