It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold
View Single Post
09-13-2004, 04:49 AM
Callng out the crap
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Originally Posted by
ok, lets say magically the players agree to a cap of whatever the owners demand. just say.
ok, just say. you dont think the RFA compensation rule will be lowered ? I mean, the players wont want to negotiate that in return for the cap ? You bet they will demand consessions in RFA compensation (to not restrict movement as much as it is today) and lower UFA.
so, just like in the NBA, players leave their teams at real young ages for ZERO compemsation.
like i said many times, be careful what you wish for.
So they trade him instead.
They are struggling to sign him now and they only have one star. The cap isn't an issue for them and won't be if its introduced. The Flames are not likely to lose out under a cap for many years and may gain.
A team like Ottawa would be in cap trouble sooner than the Flames. They don't have the money to retain their core long term under the current CBA, so a cap isn't going to hurt them. I think they too would rather have costs come down that much they can retain the majority of their stars rather than have salaries continue to blow out and lose them anyway. What would Ottawa rather do, lose 2 stars and have a $60m payroll or lose 2 stars and have a $40m payroll.
If a team like NYR had Ottawa's talent they would be damaged long term because they would have the $ to retain the stars. Its NYR so m'eh.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by me2