View Single Post
Old
09-13-2004, 01:06 PM
  #43
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
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.
Thats the problem with a salary cap. It destroys the chances of dynasties (at least true dynasties) and it means excessive player movement. I like the idea of a minimum salary range (concession to the players) and an extremely high say a percentage like 75% of a teams profit being the salary cap for the team (or just a set figure at like 60 million). Lets be reasonable, this is more than workable for the PA. I also think that a limit on UFA contracts is a must. This allows a lower market team to actually have the chance to sign a player, if they are willing to pony up to the max. Then its not about money, but location. I doubt any of this will come into play, but its all reasonable.

- Revenue sharing is a must, and without a doubt should be in the new CBA regardless of a cap or tax.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline