View Single Post
Old
09-05-2004, 05:11 PM
  #48
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme
If every other team had the same payroll limits, they wouldn't be able to offer that much more than the original team. There would be more incentive for the player to stay with his original team.

Contrast that to now, where teams like Toronto, New York and Detroit could offer a superstar $10 million, which is really a slam-dunk incentive for players like Holik, Hasek, etc... to leave their original teams.
no, a team could be total crap and have no good players and alot of cap room.

Let me turn the question around a little bit. The biggest beef I see against teams like Detroit is that they can force the smaller payrollteams to give away their talented young players, because those smaller teams can't afford to compete, therefore the current system is unfair. Well, lets say under a cap, Detroit doesnt have the ability to keep their developing players. In both situations one team is not able to keep players they developed into stars. Why is it unfair now when Detroit does it, but fair under a cap? What's the difference?

hockeytown9321 is offline