Hockey's CBA

I am sorry if I am rehashing the same old arguments here, but I keep 
hearing about this subject and I get frustrated and so I would like to 
vent.

First off I want to say that I come down squarely on the side of the 
players. I really don?t understand the reasoning on the other side of 
this issue. I mean, I know that the game is in trouble economically, but 
don?t we have to consider why? The people who support the owner?s 
position seem to want to skirt over the issue by saying the current CBA 
must be bad because the game is in trouble, but I think that is very 
superficial. 

As far as I know there is nothing in the current CBA that literally 
dictates what player?s salaries are. Nothing that says that any owner 
has to spend a dime more than they make. That is determined by the 
owner?s decisons. So why is this bad for the owners? Doesn?t anyone else 
think that it?s ridiculous to set the market and then get mad at the 
players for the market you set? And am I wrong in thinking that the same 
people who complain about issues of personal responsibility when the 
welfare argument is raised are arguing in favor of the owners? Don?t 
they have to take responsibility for running their own organizations so 
poorly? Aren?t we discounting the creativity involved in competing with 
teams that have more resources? I mean, it just seems ludicrous to me 
that Ottawa threatens to declare bankruptcy while their in first place 
in their conference. So they spend what, half as much as the Rangers? 
They reach first place, but how do they know that they couldn?t do the 
same for a third as much or a quarter? The Sens couldn?t have ejected 
Radek Bonk or Alfredson, given his ice time to Spezza and perhaps been 
just as good? Didn?t they lose Yashin without missing a step?

In my mind, what is happening in baseball is a beautiful thing. People 
are complaining about how many deals or prospective deals are motivated 
by economics, but to me it?s about owners finally taking responsibility 
for their team?s finances and realizing they can?t whine about players 
making too much money anymore. 

This posting was spurred in part by an editorial I heard on the radio. 
The guy basically said that hockey had better learn from football how to 
do a CBA.  He said that football is more popular because of their CBA 
and so hockey should follow suit. I would hate if that happened. He said 
that anyone can contend any given year in football. But doesn?t hockey 
have enough parity? Isn?t that half the problem with the game? I think 
there are reasons football is more popular than hockey that I won?t go 
into here because I went on long enough already. Hope I didn?t bore 
anyone to death?