November 3rd, 2012, 03:19 PM #31
The NHLPA is a liability and must be traded.
And the owners are morans for letting the salaries get out of hand...again.
Bring the WHA back!
November 3rd, 2012, 03:41 PM #32
i miss the long beach ice dogs. :(
November 3rd, 2012, 06:04 PM #33
That's who I spent my last lockout with.
Originally Posted by beedee
November 3rd, 2012, 07:12 PM #34
Salaries weren't out of hand.
Originally Posted by Surge:2598020
They were within the agreed upon limits determined by the last CBA.
November 3rd, 2012, 09:28 PM #35
Eh whatever... it's still football season at least. And college bball starting next week.
November 3rd, 2012, 11:54 PM #36
college bball? Seriously? you have to be a serious degenerate to derive enjoyment from that sport
November 4th, 2012, 12:54 AM #37
Although the dollar amounts were within the limits, you can't tell me that some players didn't get waaaaaay overpaid. And I KNOW you are going to type it just to be a character, but seriously, Drury, Gomez, Brian Campbell, etc. You don't think THOSE salaries were out of hand? Just because it's "allowed" under the rules doesn't mean it's not stupid.
Originally Posted by Bogey
November 4th, 2012, 01:37 AM #38
No, I wanted to post something mean to him but I dont think he will understand.
Originally Posted by ChilledAgua
Right!? I rather watch college b-ball all day err day bay-bay!
Originally Posted by FlyBono24
November 4th, 2012, 12:48 PM #39
First of all: the fact that some players were overpaid doesn't change anything. The CAP is the limit how much teams can spend. If the CAP was lower for a certain percent, then there could be zero teams losing money, but there could STILL be overpaid players, relatively to the others. And the sole point of CAP is to make the league fair, so what's the point of saying "if you don't have the money, don't overpay and spend to the CAP and let others get the players you might need"? This argument is therefore completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted by boy1der
Second of all: none of these players were given such contracts without any base. They were all very solid players who shat the bed later. It's not like the realistic value for them was 50% of what they got. They got around a million too much, but then performed like **** (which you can't predict). It's a risk, but it would be the same story with them having 1 million less per year. They would still present a major burden to the team.
And imagine this scenario: a team with the right mix of solid (but not star) players where none of them is overpaid doesn't reach the salary floor. What now? Owner's fault again?
Last edited by Bollocks; November 4th, 2012 at 12:54 PM.
November 4th, 2012, 05:01 PM #40
Owners gave players a "stupid" amount of money and the player was supposed to say, "No, I'm only worth about 80 - 85% of that amount" I love how many people feel sorry for the owners....