View Single Post
09-09-2004, 03:02 AM
cws the drink
cws's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,647
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Scheme
Yes, that's the point - you can't equalize that ability, and how would that be possible anyway? You want team quality to be based more on scouting/development/management than the ability to shell out more money for players than other teams. It isn't perfect, but it makes it much more fair than the current system. And it would definitely reduce player salaries, which is the other goal we want.
I have to agree with this.

No system is going to be perfectly fair, it simply can't happen. Too many variables go into the mix, no agreement can account for them all. Much less to see the future of the economic market (not just in terms of the NHL either). Some team or teams along the line will be put in a bad spot because of the agreement, whatever that eventually will be. The best that can be hoped for is an agreement that makes it as fair as possible for all teams. Incorporate a fair trade-off for as many variables as you have the ability to control and with the rest, just hope it doesn't go too far astray. That sounds kinda weak, I know. But unless there's a crystal ball out there, we are a bit constrained as to knowing what will and what won't work in the future.

The concept of it being perfectly fair or perfectly equal is an illusion, but the goal should be to try and get as close to that as possible. That's part of the problem we have on these types of threads, the concept of "fair" varies pretty widely. Personally, I don't see the logic for some of those concepts and I've said as much many times before. But everyone has an opinion, and most stick to it no matter what. Nature of the beast on here.

In a cap system, every team's "glass" would be exactly the same size, which is fair (or I should say more fair than it is now). Because even if the team offered the $8 mil + 1 to the player, they'd be filling their own cap and would be most likely out of the running for other expensive players. Not like now where you can have teams like New York and Colarado go on basically "shopping sprees" and pick up multiple FAs for $6 mil here, $8 mil there, etc...
I'm not actually for or against a cap. All I'm for is what I stated above, an agreement that is as fair to all teams as much as that is possible. If that means a cap, so be it. If that means no cap but an alternate solution to what we have now, so be it. Without enough info to give an accurate assessment of what's really going on, I can't really speculate on what would work best. In a world where the best answer you can give is "It depends.", there's almost always another way around a problem such as this. The people working on this are quite intelligent, even though they aren't protrayed that way at times. With the info at their fingertips, they could create a solution close to or at that level of fairness I mentioned. Of that I have little doubt. The only question is do they even want to try.

The last week before the deadline is when 90% of the work is done in labor battles. Let's just hope this one doesn't break form.

cws is offline