I was thinking more along the lines of Jamie Lundmark types who've became cap casualties since the lockout

i lost interest in defending that attempt at trolling

Biznasty followed us!

they have? jamie lundmark would be playing in and around the NHL if he wanted to play for $105,000 a year in the AHL. i agree that the NHL has lost some fringe type players because of the re-entry waiver rules, but those rules were intended to protect players, not hurt them - the goal was to ensure that players on one-way contracts weren't being stuffed in the minors. i would like to see this rule changed since as it turns out, it means players get stuffed in the minors.

edit: oh yeah there's also the developmental league rule where teams can only dress 5 guys with 320+ pro games, that's going to artificially limit talent regardless

you have a thread for this.

Fair enough I assumed being off topic in this thread would be preferred to bumping a dead thread, but I'll post there from now on.

I don't think it's a big deal and I don't agree with your position either

name another industry where the labor is the product

hookers

My first thought was strippers

if either ever go on strike around here i'm going to start a "YOU HAVE TWO.........ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN PROBABLY, SO TAKE YOUR TIME CAUSE I SHOULDN'T CARE THIS MUCH ABOUT A STRIPPER/HOOKER STRIKE" campaign

This. I guess it IS hockey related after all(sort of)

http://blogs.montrealgazette.com/201...-the-magazine/

Triumph is a buzzkill

Geddy or anyone else that "doesn't agree with my position" please go read my last post in the You Have Two Weeks thread.

Seguin 6 years $34.5M

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405021

what a beauty

Makes more than Phil Kessel. Which obviously means he's better than him.

Well he is

Hall makes more, that means the oilers made the right pick.

I did. It is no less dumb than before. You still thinking this is viable, please read and consider the points that people like puckdaddy and me are making.

I have a question though that I will ADK in the other thread.

Didn't realize the 700 guys who currently have jobs are completely irreplaceable.

Apologies if I'm not interpreting this correctly, but who would want to watch an NHL featuring the 701st through 1400th best players in the world? They are irreplaceable.

Each one isn't, but taken in the aggregate, they are to a degree. That is to say that obviously if those 700 guys never existed, we would still have an NHL where Brandon Bochenski was a top scorer and etc. We wouldn't miss them, since they never existed. But if the NHL tried to use replacement players? Even the best replacement players in the world wouldn't compensate - NHL revenues would plummet.

I'm not saying I want to replace all of them with scabs at once. What I'm saying is there will never be a shortage of guys willing to play, and the turnover in labour is as unaffecting as it is inevitable.

How many guys standing in front of these #ThePlayers billboards at their pressers were even around in 2004? Players come and go but the brands still remain relevant.

There is a persistent shortage of labor in the NHL. If there weren't, why would the players be so well-compensated? You can't pay the league minimum and expect to get anything but a player who barely belongs in the league - a player who will contribute almost nothing to the success of the team.

If what you were saying was true, salaries would be much lower of their own accord. That's the whole reason that owners have to collectively bargain themselves from paying the players even more money than they already do.

In any other industry, this would hold true, but the sensationalism-driven inflation of pro sports salaries makes it an anomaly.

Well-compensated != accurate valuation