It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
View Single Post
09-05-2004, 06:16 PM
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Originally Posted by
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?
Ummm, would the answer to that be that under a cap,
team would have the same ability to keep and retain their stars? That is considerably different from the current system where
teams can keep their stars and other teams can't.
Under a cap, every team would have to operate under the same budget. At that point, it comes down to how well teams draft, how well teams develop players, and how well teams trade. In other words, a GM has to know what he is doing and make good hockey decisions, not just sign the best free agents available, or run up player salaries so other teams have to trade good players before they reach free agency.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by djhn579