Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Honestly, despite Burke's aneurysm, what's the problem with paying RFAs? Players get 50% of the hockey related revenue (a little bit different at the time) but the players get their half of the cake and how it's cut is based off of their 'salary'. But it's not like paying Hall 4M, 6M or 10M changed the size of the cake, it just changed how big of a piece the little guys got. And I think it's for the best. Otherwise, imagine instead of Gaudreau and Monahan making ~6.5M, them making ~4M...and Lucic making 10M.
Because the cake size is static, it didn't change how much (on average) the team's were spending, it really only made it that it was (slightly more) merit based rather than age based. And honestly, outside of the Penner and Vanek offersheets (which by design require a team to overpay) the increases were hardly that significant.
Sutter ####ed things up far far worse with the Kiprusoff contract.
|
Well, what you’re arguing for is simply universal UFAs. RFAs have restricted bargaining power, but Edmonton didn’t exercise that power. So sure, you are just rearranging the pie slices (not that Lucic ever commands that salary). But you are making more well rounded teams who can compete based on controlling players they draft and develop. On your analysis, why even have ELCs - just negotiate them all within the cap.