View Single Post
Old
09-13-2004, 07:46 AM
  #43
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,365
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.
Closing teams achieves two things

1. puts players out of work.

2. With more stars and good players to go around, and teams only having the same budgets, each teams players are going to have to share their pie with other talent players. This forces player salaries down.

Contraction: lower salaries and jobs out of work.
Cap/luxury tax: lower salaries and no job losses.

Which looks more logical for the NHLPA? Contraction is double lose-lose scenario for the NLPHA/players. And they know it. Its no coincidence that salary escalation and expansion happened at the same times.


Last edited by me2: 09-13-2004 at 07:50 AM.
me2 is offline