Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
What? Of course hes right, you just phrased it confrontationally. They dont want star players to paid more just to screw with the rest of the players.
Star players have to get paid like star players.
Its a Union, not a Kibbutz.
Each player is required to maximize their value (pay) from their employers. Thats going to help some and hurt others.
Its up to the others to know their place, which is a hilariously Capitalist scenario, all things considered.
And we're seeing it now with the lack of insane contracts being thrown out on July 1st. Other than Alzner and Shattenkirk (who, by the way, should have a picture on his jersey of Captain Kirk looking forlornly at a toilet as he flushes it) deals.
Should players take less for a chance to win? Maybe. If you can roll it into NTC/NMC or something else that provides mutual value. But overall? No.
McDavid left some cash on the table, but in fairness, not much.
And again, I must be thinking I'm insane on this because his ELC runs another year, so either the Edmonton Brass think hes going to have a monster year next year and wanted to lock him in now or they're nuts, but if they have that feeling then why doesnt McDavid's camp? Why arent they saying:
"Hes going to have a monster year next year lets wait until next year to lock him in!"
$100M. Thats why.
|
I understand that if Star players are paid more, the bottom 95 percent will be paid more as well. I just can't imagine how a contract like McDavids can be good for players or the league without the uncertainty of the cap going forward.
If the cap stagnates, as expected, the 95 percenters will be the ones losing money out of their pocket.
The "star players should be paid like McDavid" argument only really works in a non-cap world from a union standpoint. IMO at least.