Re: Hockey's CBA

"Paul G. Wenthold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:bqd568
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> I don't get your point.  The players don't dictate what their salaries 
> will be.  They get paid what they and management agree to.  So if they 
> decide that the want to be paid like baseball players, but the money 
> isn't there, then management won't agree to it.  How is this a problem?

That's the theory.  However, it only takes one or two spend-thrift owners 
to "raise the bar" for everybody else, especially in the middle of the 
salary range.  Combine that with a collective agreement that requires 
owners to at least match a player's previous salary in order to retain 
his rights (prior to his qualifying for unrestricted free agency at 31), 
and you wind up with a pyramid scheme.  A player who has a career year at 
24 or 25, signs a big deal with his owner or another, now has that salary 
locked-in until he hits 31, unless the team wants to risk his walking 
away as a UFA.  The next player who hits those numbers or similar says, 
"I'm as good or better than he was," and raises the bar a little more.  
And so on and so on.

This system was best demonstrated by Paul Kariya; he signed a 5-year, $50 
million contract with Anaheim, but his production numbers never seemed to 
justify that contract, especially last season when the Ducks moved toward 
a defense-oriented style.  The Ducks had to either match Kariya's salary 
to retain his rights in the offseason or he would become a UFA; they 
gambled, cut Kariya loose, and Kariya went to Colorado.  (Then the Ducks 
turned around and signed Sergei Fedorov to $40 million over 5 years.)

-- 
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org