It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
View Single Post
09-09-2004, 05:13 PM
Join Date: Jun 2004
Originally Posted by
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
fair than the current system. And it would definitely
player salaries, which is the other goal we want.
Let me simplify this a bit so you'll understand. Imagine each team's budget represented as a glass. The way it is now, some glasses (New York, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto) are way bigger than others, so they're able to hold more liquid (salary). That isn't fair.
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
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...
Thanks for letting a simpleton like me understand.
So lets say everyone has the same size glass. One of your tream's best players is very thirsty, so he asks you for a drink. You have a faucet right next to you, but alas, your glass is full and you have promised the water in it to other players on your team first. Now your superstar has to go next door to Mr. I's house, who has plenty of room in his glass to give your player a drink.
your owner had a facuet with lots of water in it, and really wanted to give your player a drink, but couldn't. Would you be upset if this happened to your team?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by hockeytown9321