View Single Post
Old
09-07-2004, 11:11 PM
  #83
loveshack2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old School
Country: Tokelau
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
A lot of this talk just reminds me back to the homegrown cap idea I had before. I won't go into it again, but I think it's best to give the advantage to the teams who develop their players the best, not penalize them. As the above examples with OTT and CHI, a homegrown cap would allow OTT to keep those players, and it would make a team like CHI struggle to ice a team that is competitive if they rely too much on signing players. At the same time, it limits CHI from altering the market and inflating the salaries of the players they might have to overspend for.

It's my belief that the teams who develop their players and are able to make wise moves should be rewarded, and the teams who have to sign players to remain competitive should not be rewarded. Simple as that. And if you think about the teams that would rather sign players like the Rangers of the past, they have enough money they could invest in a state of the art scouting and minor league system, but do they? They are getting better I would suggest, but it's lazy team management overall in the past that makes these mistakes.
I agree to a certain extent but I dont see how signing free agents is considered to be so wrong by people. And no it's not just because Im a Leaf's fan. You have lots of avenues to improve your team available to you, and in my opinion any team that focuses too much on only one aspect is not doing a good job. I dont care if you're the best drafting team in the league, if you dont make good trades or good free agent signings you aren't going anywhere. Likewise if you focus too much on free agents.

And I dont care what anybody says, if you think having a hard salary cap will allow a team to keep all it's drafted players then you are living in a dream world. Just look at all the player movement in the NFL, that's what happens when you bring in a hard cap.

Quote:
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.
But the problem is that all it takes is one team, with more salary cap space than Calgary has, to say "I want that player" and then it's too bad so sad for Calgary. Even if Calgary offers the guy $8 million, if one team in the league has space to add $8 million + $1 and they are focused on getting that guy, then the Flames lose him.


Last edited by loveshack2: 09-07-2004 at 11:20 PM.
loveshack2 is offline