View Single Post
Old
09-07-2004, 03:39 PM
  #82
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme
Again, this analogy doesn't work because you're assuming a terribly run team will have a lot of cap space. Badly run teams are more likely to have less cap space because they're likely to overpay players who aren't worth it.

This is essentially a strawman argument, because you're saying a cap would prevent Calgary from keeping both superstars. But in today's system, those two superstars would be worth $8-10 mil each in the current system with no cap! Calgary couldn't afford to keep both because they are a small market team! I think this is really what the whole discussion boils down to. With no cap, you have teams out there like Detroit, New York, etc. capable of throwing $8-10 mil for one of these superstars, and this prices them out of reach for the small market team.

Given the above example, it's certainly not as bad as the way things are now. I'm sure Calgary would prefer to find a way to get rid of a couple million dollars of salary to make room to keep both stars under the new system instead of trying to shed $16-20 mil of salary (impossible really) to keep both superstars under the current system.

I think the problem with the luxury tax is that the big market teams will still have an advantage. With a cap, there is no market advantage.

Fine, not a terribly run team. Since salaries will be less under a cap, there's going to be alot more teams in the hunt for big name free agents. Any team with $4 million in cap room in that situation. And just for the record, there are plenty of badly run teams with low payrolls.

Again, my point is not that the current system is OK, for argumetns sake, I'll concede its not.. All I want is someone to tell me how my example above is fair to Calgary. If anybody does, I'll shut up. And arguments that its more unfair now, or its fair because its unfair for everyone don't hold water.

hockeytown9321 is offline