It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
View Single Post
09-06-2004, 03:34 AM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Originally Posted by
so a team that drafts and trades and develops players well will build up a stable of good players who have earned good contracts. some of them will have to be let go under a cap.
a team that has drafted, traded and developed players poorly, therefore doesnt have much in the way of salary commitments, will be able to sign those players away from the well run teams because they have more cap room because they did not draft and trade well enough to have anyone to pay.
how is that fair ? how is it fair to break up OTT so that CHI can sign the castoffs ?
This argument fails - because a poorly managed team does not equal more cap room. If anything, it would more likely have
cap room - since a poorly managed team would be more likely to overpay players or sign players that aren't worth the money.
All other things being equal, in a cap situation, emerging stars will get raises (but not crazy contracts) with their current teams, because other teams are busy giving raises to their own stars. So you won't see a lot of movement to other teams. With a cap, rich teams can't offer enough of an incentive for a player to uproot from his established home/friends/teammates for crazy money. Just look at the soccer world and Real Madrid paying millions to buy stars for a stacked team. That's the future of hockey if things aren't fixed.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Scheme