Re: #4 = CLASS!
posted at 8/14/2012 6:10 PM EDT
In Response to Re: #4 = CLASS!
Fletch, the owners have less power individually and when it comes to their legal responsibility toward their employees. CBAs tend to do a good job of limiting the power of the employer to play games with the employee, and in the NHL, this means that arbitration and anti-collusion language make it difficult for the owners to act unilaterally at player negotiations. No single owner has the power to restrain the system, but one or two idiots can set precedents, and there are semi-binding mechanisms in place that make those precedents the new normal - all it takes is one or two arbitration rulings based on an out of whack signing by an idiot and suddently that's the market threshold for players of that calibre. You're arguing against the sliminess of agents by comparing them to the paparazzi? I win. The Cap doesn't invalidate the Expos or Indians or Royals comparison; it's just slightly different because it replaces "budget" with "cap" - either way, Edmonton will have some hard decisions when Eberle, RNH, Hall, Yakupov and whoever else are looking for big money contracts. RFA means that if they paint themselves in a corner after paying one or two of those guys, they might be vulnerable to offer sheets on the others - and offer sheets are inherently inflationary. In fact, if you wanted to do a slime comparison with owners, a great example would be the owner who makes a bunch of RFA offer sheets knowing that they'll all be matched, but forcing the teams to take on more salary than they can handle. Instead we see restraint from ... all but a few idiots.
Posted by Bookboy007
Book, again, you seem to think I'm sticking up for agents, which I'm not. What I'm arguing against is your whistling past the graveyard of owners writing outrageous checks, and then saying it's the agents fault. I'm not even sure that who is at fault matters very much.
Agents, used-car salesman, divorce lawyers, paparazzi, and snake oil salesmen aren't going to wake up tomorrow and have a moral reconciliation. Nor should they really. Expect them to do what they do.
What's more important than who is at fault, is how to fix the problem. Changes to the CBA, new contract regulations, or giving agents morality training (TT?) all seem woefully unrealistic to solve a problem that could be solved by the owners themselves. Like steve said, they need to plan for the future too and consider the uncertainty of the cap. That's not so hard, and those who do it well will be rewarded. They need to find more effective ways of building quality rosters than throwing top dollar at the FA market. Some teams do this already, others don't. I feel like you are suggesting that everybody change the system to protect the owners who have failed at the current system. Failed, on the basis of their own free-will and bad decisions.
Minnesota has taken in incredible gamble. One that every other team basically balked at. Why can't they just thrive or crumble on the merits of that gamble? Why do we need to protect owners from those shifty agents? There are rules in place, there is a salary cap, and there are a boatload of greedy lawyers on both sides. Let the smartest, shrewdest owner win.
It would be one thing if the owners that were wildly throwing money around won the Cup every year, but that hasn't been the case at all. Of course spending to the cap helps, but I am convinced that there is already enough incentive not to throw gobs of money at FAs. Sure teams still do it, but until the teams signing the Dipietro, Bryzgalov, Leino, and Suter contracts start winning Cups, I don't see a need for changes to protect owners. Let them overspend and fail, others will win.
Until then I'll optimistically enjoy watching the Bruins, Red Wings, and others capitalize on the foolishness of others.
P.S. Expect Seguin's agent to be 'slimy'.