brelic Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 This isn't communism! Lol. No but it's a highly refined redistribution of wealth, which is very socialist in nature. GM's use it as a tool to give players control over their future and get them signed. If GM's do that to seal deals they tie their own hands. It's no different than a player in free agency choosing his location. Doing away with NTC's isn't going to change much. Why do you say that? If I'm reading you correctly, you believe that removing the handcuffs from contracts (that the GMs put on themselves, I know ) will have no effect on the trade market?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 No but it's a highly refined redistribution of wealth, which is very socialist in nature. It's a monopolistic corporate cartel - which is hardly socialist at all. The 30 corporations within the league are agreed that in order to maintain their dominant monopoly on top quality product they need to have 30 relatively successful franchises (Edmonton notwithstanding) and that they are all more valuable in that situation than they would be in a less competitive environment. And the relative value of franchises (and their TV contracts, etc.) would seem to bear that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 No but it's a highly refined redistribution of wealth, which is very socialist in nature. Why do you say that? If I'm reading you correctly, you believe that removing the handcuffs from contracts (that the GMs put on themselves, I know ) will have no effect on the trade market??No. I'm saying it's not going to change because the GM's use it to get deals done. Why would they surrender that power and why would players want to do away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's a monopolistic corporate cartel - which is hardly socialist at all. I can see that side of the argument, as there are definite cartel elements in the NHL structure (undifferentiated product, 'contract' fixing) but the redistribution of wealth is not normally a feature of cartels. Oil cartels, for example. Cable provider cartels (oligopoly, really, but similar) where they can engage in price fixing (wink wink) but again, don't distribute wealth. Then again, maybe the redistribution of wealth is a necessary feature of an NHL 'cartel'. However it's labeled is unimportant to the larger argument, though. I was objecting to the communism reference, which is an economic construct, not a social one. And a capitalist construct for the league would not preclude limiting the freedom of the supposed market. Industries in capitalism limit the 'free market' all the time in the name of self-interest. The car industry, oil, cable, telecommunications... all of these beg for socialist-type interventions even if they won't call it that (bail outs, exclusivity to stunt free markets, price fixing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's a monopolistic corporate cartel - which is hardly socialist at all. I remember a quote that I read many moons ago. An NFL owner said (I may be paraphrasing, it was a long time ago): "We're a bunch of capitalists who once a year get together and vote socialist". And all that philosophy did was make the NFL the most successful professional sports league in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Oil cartels, for example. Cable provider cartels (oligopoly, really, but similar) where they can engage in price fixing (wink wink) but again, don't distribute wealth. Right, as opposed to a "redistribution" you do see OPEC working to ensure that their production levels affect the price for all of their members (and thus their profitability). That means that some members are willing to not produce as much product (make as much profit) as they otherwise could. I don't think the whole "highest bidder" system is "communist" in nature. If anything, it is fascist with the 30 oligarchic owners (potentially, as described) dictating where players go. I remember a quote that I read many moons ago. An NFL owner said (I may be paraphrasing, it was a long time ago):"We're a bunch of capitalists who once a year get together and vote socialist". The line between "fascism" and Soviet-style "communism" being very blurry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Right, as opposed to a "redistribution" you do see OPEC working to ensure that their production levels affect the price for all of their members (and thus their profitability). That means that some members are willing to not produce as much product (make as much profit) as they otherwise could. Which encourages (almost begs) members to cheat. The NHL owners wouldn't do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Which encourages (almost begs) members to cheat. The NHL owners wouldn't do that Did you see Sam Hinkie's comments about the Sixers making trades with other teams to make them better to be a better "partner" in the NBA? Sports owners are often so far through the looking glass they have no idea what they are seeing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Did you see Sam Hinkie's comments about the Sixers making trades with other teams to make them better to be a better "partner" in the NBA? Sports owners are often so far through the looking glass they have no idea what they are seeing... Haha! No I didn't see that. It's a rare moment of honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.