Re: Mark Recchi Logic
posted at 11/21/2012 3:32 PM EST
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
In response to dezaruchi's comment:
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
Dez: The players are willing to lose a little money now so they won't lose alot of money later.
Me: The players in their 30s at the ends of their careers won't get this money back later.
Dez: Any chance they'd get rollback cash returned at a later date and if not, why is it any different to you? Cash is cash.
Me: Yes, money is money. Temmu Selanne was slated to earn $4.5M this season. Roll it back 20% and he's at $3.6M. Cancel the season and he's at $0M. He won't be getting that at a later date.
Dez: Selanne can easily make that amount tax free in the KHL if he chose to.
This conversation wasn't about going to play elsewhere to make money. This conversation was about not accepting the rollback today so they can earn more money later. My point was that many players won't be earning that money later because their careers will be over.
And then you say that Selanne can play in Russia if he wants.
Makes no sense at all. But that's okay, Dez. You can wave your internet arms in the air and proclaim yourself brilliant. You can make all of your personal attacks and try to shout everyone down all the while avoiding the actual topic at hand. I'm done with this. My point has been made. Players who are retiring or at the end of their careers won't benefit from this lockout.
Let the next round of insults begin. I'll give you a helping hand:
NAS, everyone hates you.
NAS, you said this and that.
NAS, blah blah blah blah blah.
The clear point made over and over again is that these players, regardless of age, aren't totally dependant on the NHL to earn money. That money you claim Selanne is losing money now that he can't get back makes no sense. As I said many times and ways, Selanne is free as we speak, to go earn elsewhere. Yourself and a few other math wizards keep throwing that "zero" number around over and over again in reference to player earnings and leverage. Let me know of even 1 player that is being forced to do without earnings as a result of this lockout and then maybe you can start applying your zero number with at least something that resembles sensibilty. Selanne will be the first one to say this isn't about him as much as it's about the 2nd and 3rd tier earners in the union. I'm not surprised the concept of doing something selfless is totally lost upon you. Let's be clear and concise about this. I'm asking what makes more sense, losing cash to sitting or losing cash to a lockout and your reply is that the NHLPA should cave because a guy like Selanne might not get to earn again? The NHLPA has 700 members and you want to worry about a guy that might retire after having earned approximately 50 million in his career? BTW, aren't you due to cry about me bringing up other posts conversations while doing the exact same thing yourself. I can't help but notice how many times you can do just that while refusing to own up to it. Typical and sad. Don't you find being right all of the time a little boring? I look forward to seeing where you try to take it this time (and to seeing pics of your medals).
Each time you consider responding with something about playing elsewhere, please refer to the words in bold above.
If you want to focus on the amount of money that Selanne has made (which is 100% not the point, but fighting against it makes sense to you), feel free to use a different player as an example. Let's use Jamal Mayers.
Use whatever guys you want as you skirt the issue. There are 700 union members. Yes, some will retire and hopefully get a proper pension (another CBA issue you conveniently toss aside). Mayers also made enough in the past 5 years that he can sit out (as he's also CHOSEN to do). Why would anyone go back to a rollback when they don't need to? I'm saying they don't need to fold in order to keep earning. You're totally caught up in who pays them the money. Shouldn't you take time for some spelling bee cracks instead? It's been almost 2 full posts since you've totally contradicted yourself. What's with that?