View Single Post
Old
09-12-2004, 11:57 PM
  #21
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I can appreciate where you're coming from. Playing Devil's advocate, would you not agree that the best way to stop the problems and mess the owners have made for themselves is to put a cap on spending so they can get 'their house in order'?

By putting a cap on salaries/spending, the owners, who are in the hole, can crawl their way out while trying to market NHL with the goal of bringing new fans in, boosting TV ratings and game attendence. Once the NHL is in a place whereMLB, the NBA, etc are, THEN the players can have a better environment to dictate what they want.
Do take this from a different angle,

Would perhaps a better solution be to put a cap on the players? As JR suggested earlier.

I happen to agree with the PA when they say that they should make less money because the owners are stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense to cap the UFA's rather than cap the teams in general? This way the lower-end guys aren't affected?

The question then comes to be 'How does that solve, say, Pittsburgh's problems?'. Well, it doesn't soley. This is why I also like the idea of a luxery tax. I have no problem with the Rangers signing 8 guys to $6 million dollar contracts (say that was the cap), so long as they are paying luxery taxes back to teams like Pittsburgh for doing so.

More to the point, I think it would be a mistake to handcuff a successful team when it comes to resigning their guys with a low cap. For instance, let's say you're team wins the cup. Would you want to see the franchise player, or if not him, key players beyond him, sent off in favour of draft picks just because the franchise guy wants a pay hike to $10 million and the cap is breached?

I personally prefer the luxery tax to a cap as a fan. The idea that a cap will make Edmonton (for example) better off I think is a fallacy. Any team that gets good is going to be near that cap, that is if it's $40 million or low, you can bet on it. Winning teams will be blown up due to financial reasons. I don't think that's fair. Rather than seeing that, why not give that team an option to go over the limit if they must, but set in place a system that will support a team like Edmonton or Pittsburgh when it does happen.

Last but not least, I do not mind a very high cap in the $60 - 70 million dollar range for the sole purpose of stopping a New York Yankees situation. I don't mind the Wings at $60 million and everyone else at $30 - 40 million. I do have a problem with the Rangers at $90 million and the Wild at $17 million. I also wouldn't mind seeing a MINIMUM cap of about $25 million, too. With the luxery tax, these cheapo teams wouldn't have an excuse to go below that.

Mizral is offline