Jump to content

The trouble with free agency, salary capping


Saintsfan

Recommended Posts

I realise there is no turning back on this one but free agancy is a real problem I think for some sports for several reasons

1 The lack of dynasties. You have to hate the Lakers, Yankees, etc but that is kind of the fun really! If your team isn't winning you can at least hate the team that is.

2 Lack of players loyalty- So Borque, Andreychuck, Malone, Payton etc get to be champions, but they have to sell there sole to do it! Great pity!

3 I don't actually like the idea of a league were almost literally any team can win. I want to know that a great team is gonna win, not JUST the one who gets all the luck and keeps its stars injury free.

4 Rich teams think they can win it all, when in fact they diminish the value of management and coaching- the Rangers for instance. Simply having great players isn't enough and big marquee franchises forget this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that free-agency ruined professional sports, but you missed my #1 reason:

No one knows who is on their team anymore. You have to like a franchise, rather than a group of 15, or 35, or 8 guys, whose names, hometowns, preferences, techniques, passions, and efforts you know like the back of yoru hand. My dad can tell you the batting order from the 56-66 Yankees, Phillys, and Pirates, with first names, positions, and approximate averages. They were his teams, but more important, his GUYS.

Now, I follow the Braves organization, but it is almost completely new guys every two or three years.

one reason: free agency.

Its a terrible, terrible thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a team can trade a player, but a player can't sign somewhere else when his contract is up? I'm not buying that one.

Ray Bourque and Dave Andreychuk did not "sell there sole" (or sell their souls) in order to win championships. Ray ASKED for a TRADE, and was granted that by his general manager, coach, and owner. Boston fans cheered him on, as did most of the rest of the hockey world, when he won the Cup in Colorado. When you've been loyal to your team for twenty, tweny-one years, you have more than the right to move to another organization. Ray retired immediately after winning the Cup, as will Andreychuk most likely. Neither of these guys left their team out of spite or to grab bigger money, they left because all they wanted to do was lift the most precious thing in sports ONCE before they give up on something they've ben striving for since they were five years old. These were bad examples to pick. The same goes for Paul Kariya. The man took an 80% paycut to sign with the Avalanche so that he would not have to be the lone star on a team that except for one blip on the sports map, has been wallowing in mediocrity for ten years.

Are there players who abuse the right to free agency, like Terrell Owens? Yes there are, obviously. But back in the day there were owners who abused the fact that they had a player's rights for life. The lack of free agency was the reason for the Black Sox scandal in the first place. Players were not being paid the money they deserved from their owner, and so they looked somwehere else for cash. I'd rather see good baseball or hockey or football played by enthusiastic players than see a bunch of unhappy athletes throw away the World Series.

I'd love to see a salary cap in the NHL and NBA, to help check the ridiculous contracts that players sign, but I'd never say to take away their right to free agency after a decade of playing.

What you're pretty much saying is that if you were locked into a dead-end office job for ten years with a lower salary than you think you deserve, you would not like the right to speak with a competing company that is looking to double your salary, allow you to work in a nicer locale, and give you the opportuinty to move up the corporate ladder. I don't buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a 100% problem with what Bourque did, but his situation should not be compared to Andreychuk's. Andreychuk went to a team that was a joke for many years, and he was a huge part of their building into a Cup team. Bourque just helped to solidify an already strong cup contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a 100% problem with what Bourque did, but his situation should not be compared to Andreychuk's. Andreychuk went to a team that was a joke for many years, and he was a huge part of their building into a Cup team. Bourque just helped to solidify an already strong cup contender.

I am not criticising Borque or Andreychuck really, I just think its a pity that in order to win a cup they have had to sell out. Particularly Borque, who had been with one team his whole career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a 100% problem with what Bourque did, but his situation should not be compared to Andreychuk's. Andreychuk went to a team that was a joke for many years, and he was a huge part of their building into a Cup team. Bourque just helped to solidify an already strong cup contender.

I am not criticising Borque or Andreychuck really, I just think its a pity that in order to win a cup they have had to sell out. Particularly Borque, who had been with one team his whole career.

I'll again say that I don't think Bourque sold out. It's not his fault the Bruins management was unable to build a contender (perhaps if they had a better understanding of the free agency system) while he was there.When you're Ray Bourque and you've been playing in Boston for TWENTY years with no complaints whatsoever, serving as the franchise player on a mediocre team, asking to have one opportunity to win does not constitute selling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man took an 800% paycut to sign with the Avalanche so that he would not have to be the lone star on a team that except for one blip on the sports map, has been wallowing in mediocrity for ten years.

If a 100% pay cut equals 0 pay, does 800% mean he has to pay the Avalanche $63 Million to play for them?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STL. is right don't compare Andreychuk to Borque. Anderchuck went a a team that was at the nottom of the league. As for Borque, he did sell out. He demanded a trade, to me that is the same thing as leaving as a free agent. Although I have more respect for the free-agent as he didn't outright thumb his nose at the teams the way Borque did. Borque is the most overratted defensemen, and I would have been glad if he never would have won the Cup. (This is mostly due to the fact if he didn't win, my team would have). Overall, however I don't have any respect for a player that goes to a winning team to "piggy-back" for a championship.

As for free-agency, I don't have a problem a person should have a right to pick where they work, and they have right to try to get as much money as they can. If you look how players were treated before free-agency you see why free agency is a good thing. As I have said before if it we you and I being offered that type of money, we would take it. And if we thought we could get more we would try to get more money. That's human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bourque had basically been told by the Bruins he wasn't going to be re-signed at the end of the year, anyway; I can't blame him too much for asking out at that point. I still would have rather seen him lift the cup as a member of the Bruins, mind you.

Andreychuk's situation was decidedly different, as you've both said. They were still cellar-dwellers at the point he came on board. A tough choice to make for him, certainly a no-brainer for Tampa bringing in someone of his caliber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man took an 800% paycut to sign with the Avalanche so that he would not have to be the lone star on a team that except for one blip on the sports map, has been wallowing in mediocrity for ten years.

If a 100% pay cut equals 0 pay, does 800% mean he has to pay the Avalanche $63 Million to play for them?

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Whoops...should say 80%. Problem corrected in original post. Thanks for pointing that out, RC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a few teams mentioned that Bourque may have been traded to...Philadelphia for one, I think also Detroit and Dallas. Maybe even New Jersey. Colorado came out of the blue, no one around here heard them as a possibility. It was no secret that he was going to be traded, and to a contending team, like many coveted players around the trading deadline. But he definitely was not going to get traded to a team in the division. I believe Andreycuk was part of the trade, but he left as a free agent at the end of that season. And it's not like he won the Cup his first year. Colorado was eliminated by Dallas in the Conference Finals. Bourque played with Colorado for a season and a half before hoisting the Cup.

A lot of the feelings around trading Bourque also came from above. The team knew how much Bourque had meant to the them, and he was one remaining link to the glory days of old (up to the late 70s). The team knew they weren't going to win anything or even contend for the next few seasons, especially considering what a tightwad Jeremy Jacobs is. The one time out of many the team pays or trades for a coveted free agent the team got burnt (Kevin Stevens). The Bruins have traditionally never paid the big bucks to keep productive players home. And when players bitch about the lack of a competitive team, they get traded (Adam Oates, Jason Allison et al). So they felt it was their duty (yes, duty) to allow Bourque to leave the Bruins so he can get his name on the Cup. It could have been with any number of teams mentioned, it just ended up being Colorado. Bourque has meant so much to Boston that the city had a rally the day he brought the Avalanche's Stanley Cup to Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.