Re: Hockey's CBA

"Ian Merrithew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

You don't describe any mechanism that would actually produce that effect.

 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.

And the other owners are not allowed to offer him less? There's no reason
why other players would receive that much. Teams aren't given rights to
players by God, it's not unfair that they might risk losing the player if
they are unwilling to pay him the market price.

> 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;

There's nothing biased against the owners with this system. The Ducks
thought Kariya wasn't worth his salary, so they let him become an UFA. They
still were allowed to sign him, correct? There's no systematic reason that
any players would be given overmarket salaries.

 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.)

I don't know very much about hockey, but I don't see where the problem is.
The Ducks decide let a player go, use the money they paid him to pay another
player who they presumably felt was a better fit for them. Kariya received
whatever Colorado thought he was worth.

One reason why superstars should cost comparatively more in other sports
than compared to baseball is that you cannot choose to give Barry Bonds more
at bats, but you can choose to give the puck/ball to one player greater than
their fair share.