View Single Post
Old
09-04-2004, 08:06 PM
  #30
Licentia
Registered User
 
Licentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so your idea of fair is a team like OTT would have to let someone else go in order to keep Spezza ? they built up a good young team THE RIGHT way and you want them to be penalized so teams like NYR and CHI and BOS and FLA or whoever else runs their team like crap can pick off these guys ?

under todays system, a team like OTT can keep their team together for as long as they choose too. under a system with a hard cap, it would be impossible.

the reason the owners want a cap is because it will help the teams like TOR, NYR and PHI who have had ZERO success catch up to the teams that keep popping up out of no where (CRL, ANA, CGY, TBY, BUF, MIN etc ..) and killing any chance of making an imprint in the USA market.

you guys are sheep.

dr
Ottawa can keep the team together as long as they have an owner who is willing to continue to take losses for the team, not as long as they want.

Ottawa still may be able to keep their team together. The salary cap wouldn't have to take full effect next season. It could be a gradual process.

Even if Ottawa did have to let a player or two go, they'd just be doing what small market teams are doing now. At least all teams would have an equal chance.

Saving Ottawa's team isn't the priority. It's saving all 30 teams.

Licentia is offline