Re: What Should The Players Have Done To Change Their Fates?
posted at 11/23/2012 8:03 PM EST
In response to biggskye's comment:
In response to dezaruchi's comment:
During this work stoppage we've all been hearing different opinions being thrown around regarding just about everything that's NHL related and more. Going from the cap and who's at fault to the acceptable age of free agency, it seems lots has been covered. What I'd like to hear specifically right now are suggestions as to what the NHLPA should've (or even could've) done differently to avoid being locked out to start the season. For this thread, I don't care about what you think they should do now. It's entirely about what you think they could've done. You may notice I've gone straight to could've because I don't think there was anything they could've done to avoid this. Sure, maybe guys like Kovalchuk, Parise and Suter should've told owners "that's way too much money",and signed for much less than they were offered on the open market, but that seems a bit silly doesn't it? Also, don't bother suggesting they should've just accepted the owner's opening "offer" as there is no chance that even the owners expected that insult to be accepted. Let's remind everyone that this is a LOCKOUT, not a strike.
You may think it's silly, but I think it is possible that they would be playing right now, if the players and agents hadn't been so determined to squeeze every cent they could, out of the owners.
I don't blame the owners for trying to eliminate any loopholes they know the players will try to exploit.
I do agree that a less draconian opening CBA offer by the NHL, would have reduced the level of acrimony, that currently exists.
I don't have a problem with the lockout, because I don't know what the alternative would be.The NHL would not play under the old CBA, since that would not have solved any of the issues they had with the old CBA, and would have given the NHLPA no incentive to come to the bargaining table.
Bigs, it's not up to the players and their agents to curb team's spending. None of the players I've mentioned held out for more cash. In fact, Parise was reported to have give up personal salary so that the Wild could also sign Suter. The reason I say it's silly is because you can't expect anyone to say, "no that's way too much" when people start a bidding war for their services. Honestly, should Lou Lam expect Parise to stay for less cash right after the Devils broke the bank for Kovalchuk with a clear attempt to circumvent the rules?