View Single Post
05-10-2004, 05:35 PM
Very Random
Trottier's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,651
vCash: 500
I posted the following on another board, in response to some who were ripping Brooks' article and chanting the tiresome mantra of how a hard cap is needed to "save the NHL":


Leafs, Avs, Flyers, Wings, whoever...You wish to "inflict pain" on them (hard cap), arbitrarily, since you do not like them and their ability to win more frequently than the hometeam, by virtue of having resource$ and the capacity to spend it wisely. Crushing the wealthy, the successful. An uprising of the NHL's bourgeoisie, as it were.

Once again, playoff envy is just fine, though petty, IMO. Please just stop perpetrating the myth of a corelation between budget and on-ice success....Unless one is prepared to explain, among others:

Calgary Flames (Conference Finalists, '04)
San Jose " " "
Tampa Bay " " "
Minnesota " " '03
Pittsburgh " " '01
Anaheim (Cup Finalists '03)
Carolina ( " " '02)
Buffalo ( " " '99)

While on the other side of the coin, the following "big budget" franchises have one Stanley Cup among them in the last decade (two in the last 29 years): Flyers, NYR and Dallas (formally Minn.).

Oh, the lack of parity!


Point being, "hard cap" is synonymous with "my franchise is incapable of winning, so let's even out the playing field by putting restrictions on successful franchises, and thus tearing them down. All in the absolute baseless claim for the need of greater parity."

Brooks has it 100% correct.

Trottier is offline