As far as I understand, the owners want the players to take a 20% pay cut because, as they say, certain market teams aren't making any money. Only a handful of players are making the big, big bucks, the superstars if you will. Some of the grinders, the 4th liners, make good money when you compare it to the average joe plumber but they also (the goons if you will) often have a very short window of opportunity to make a good salary as injuries can end a career in a heartbeat. 20% is a lot to ask anyone to swallow, especially when you have owners like the Wild's Craig Leipold who stated in April
From Minnesota Wild, owner Craig Leipold validate need for cap circumventing long-term deals in NHL | Puck Daddy - Yahoo! Sports"We're not making money, and that's one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we're spending right now. [The Wild's] revenues are fine. We're down a little bit in attendance, but we're up in sponsorships, we're up in TV revenue. And so the revenue that we're generating is not the issue as much as our expenses. And [the Wild's] biggest expense by far is player salaries."
The article then goes on to say
The people negotiating, on both sides, are out of touch, IMO. You can't complain about it one moment and then crow about spending so much money the next. Ridiculous.Leipold's words in April and deeds in July make him a hypocrite: Crying about expenses related to player salaries, and then adding $196 million in expenses for two players. Unless, of course, he meant the Wild would fix their spending levels by inflating them for the two largest contracts in franchise history.
My question is, the last time this happened and they locked the players out, I thought they fixed all the issues. Now suddenly here we are only a few years later and the system is completely broken again? Doesn't make sense. I agree with Mr. Sweetpea, the players make too much money, but then again so do actors and musicians when you compare them to the regular worker.