Originally Posted by arctic_rogue
Oh, I don't question that at all. It seems to silly to loose so much to gain so little. But, at some point they need to draw the line in the sand. Ultimately it's the owners giving out the stupidly long contracts (Suter and Parise anyone). And now the owners want to hold the players feet to fire not even a few months later. I just makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying the players aren't to blame here, just that I think they are getting too much of it right now. Bad contracts are ultimately given out by the owners and that is the single most impactor on the financial state of the NHL. Instead of pointing the finger squarely at the players, I believe both the players and owners should shoulder it. It's been mentioned here before that both sides need to work together to grow revenue and give up fighting over minor things.
Burke decided not to offer Richards one of those contracts even though his team really needed Richards. Tell me, what effect did that have? Is Richards a Leaf now? Oh, that's right, he got a front loaded contract from the Rangers instead. This is why there needs to be a rule limiting contract length. If teams decide not to sign these contracts with the old CBA then that's fine, some other team will come along and sign Richards to that ridiculous contact. It means they won't be getting any quality players out of free agency. Instead of getting Richards they will have to settle on Connolly instead.
H2H Each Cat - Yahoo - 14 teams - Cap Hit
Start: 2C 2LW 2RW 4D 2U 2G 7B
Cats: G A +- PIM SOG PPG PPA SHP GWG FW HIT W GAA SV SV% SO
Svalbard Armored Bears:
C: Getz, M Richards(LW), Turdis, Little
LW: Kovy(RW), Moulson, Kunitz, _
RW: Eriksson(LW), Clarkson, _, _
D: Pietrangelo, JJ, Streit, Spurgeon, Brodie, Nikitin
G: Lundqvist, Holtby, Harding
JV: Tarasenko, Bishop, Eakin, Killorn, Grigorgenko, Grimaldi, Collberg, Faksa, Lindholm, Irving