View Single Post
09-09-2004, 07:07 PM
cws the drink
cws's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,645
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Except the only argument people are giving me is that a cap is equally fair(or unfair) for everyone.
Then they are misguided. For whatever reasons and by whatever logic. There are simply too many variables to account for; ranging from broad economical markers to very specific team operations. No agreement can eliminate each variable and make the playing field perfectly level. Too many that cross over and contradict one another, others that happen outside the range of the agreement but still affect it, and still others that even the best economic models can't predict for the future.

Even if the two sides were negotiating in good faith, they very likely couldn't come up with an agreement that is equally fair to every team. The best they could hope for is something close. The media blows the animosity between the two out of proportion (which unfortunately is their job). But still, there is at least some animosity between the two sides. And that makes it even more difficult for a "fair" agreement (or anything close to that) to be reached.

Too many people are looking at this in absolute terms, which is a terrible viewpoint to try and make your points from in this case. Simply put, it isn't that easy and those that believe it is are quite mistaken. But some are so set in their views and convinced that they're right, even proof won't change it.

Take my reply for what it's worth.

cws is offline