interstorm wrote:I like reading about the tension after the Wild signed Parise and Suter. Claim you "lost" $6 million, pull a stunt like that and then walk into the room like Dangerfield in the Caddyshack clubhouse wondering why everyone is looking at you.
The players are being asked to save the onwers and GM's from themselved. They are operating like the cap is their budget, not their own personal finances. The most outrageous part is asking for the rollback (instead of finding some way to grandfather or otherwise run off existing contracts). That is like someone saying, "hey buddy...I really need some help. I'm behind on my mortgage because I bought too big a house. Can you give me some dough? Oh- also...I don't have room for my 25 year old deadbeat stepson so he's moving in to your place now. Don't worry, he doesn't eat too much. Thanks, man! I owe ya one".
That's not true at all. They can't not do rollbacks because it screws players whose deals are coming up, and would completely screw a team over like the pens with too high of percentages. What is the point of a new CBA if they have to cut deals to keep contracts that were written under completely different economic terms?
This isn't some overriding scheme, and that point is clear since teams with better economics in other leagues are cut better deals, and there is a reason for that.
The wild signed those deals to try to increase attendance and drive up playoff revenue (similar to the flyers), that's how it works in sports, better teams have a chance to make more money. They felt signing those deals would increase revenue.
And a BIG ps here, Sutter and Parise caused this issue in their own by forcing teams to write in bonuses so they would get them and protect themselves from a lockout. If it wasn't the Wild it would have been some other team, and nobody signed them to deals it would have been collusion.