View Single Post
09-06-2004, 08:42 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by djhn579
Ummm, would the answer to that be that under a cap, every team would have the same ability to keep and retain their stars? That is considerably different from the current system where some 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.
It does not come down to how well a team drafts. The argument that its fair because every team is under the same restraints is not valid, because they're not. Teams that draft well are invariably going to be punished, while teams that don't draft well are going to have their choice of superstars.

Maybe the current system is unfair, maybe its not, that's not the argument I'm having. I'm showing you why a hard cap is not fair.

HYPOTHETICALLY: Under a $30 million cap, lets say the average salary for a superstar is $4 million. Calgary has two superstars on their team, both of whom they drafted and developed. They both become free agents the same year. Because Calgary has been well run, they also have lots of other good players signed. But because they have alot of good players, they only have $5 million in cap room, even though they have the revenue to sign both. They only have enough room to sign one of the superstars, unless they both agree to take alot less than the league average. So they sign superstar "A" for $3 million, who takes less becuase he wants to stay. But, now they only have $2 million to sign supestar "B". At the same time, Detroit has been terribly run for some time, is devoid of superstars and only has a few marginally good players. They've drafted terribly, but they have $4 million in cap room, and offer Calgary's superstar "B" the $4 million he deserves, based on league average. Superstar "B" now has to decide between loyalty and a $2 million difference. I think its safe to assume most professional atheletes would take the extra $2 million, so lets assume superstar "B" does in this case. Now I ask you, if you were a Calgary fan would you be upset over this? Would you feel this is fair? Your team did the drafting and developing, had the revenue to sign both, but were unable to while, a poorly run team his been rewarded.

Now lets say there's a luxury tax at around $40 million. Salaries will come down under this system as well. Lets take the two superstars from my example above, and say a luxury tax has lowered the average superstar salary to $5 million. Calgary has the revenue to pay each $4 million, but they both want $5. Calgary then takes the extra money they received from the teams paying a luxury tax and is able to give both what they want. Calgary has not been punished for drafing well, and they're not paying any more of their money for those players than they would have under a cap.

So, if you were a Calgary fan, which situation would you prefer? The cap, which took one of your superstars away? Or the luxury tax which allowed you to keep both without spending anything more than you would have under a cap?

hockeytown9321 is offline