View Single Post
Old
09-13-2004, 02:37 PM
  #47
Dolemite
The one...the only..
 
Dolemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 37,814
vCash: 50
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.
Pittsburgh's problems are WAY more than just Salary. The Team is tied into the Igloo until 2007 otherwise they would have moved or have been sold by now. That and the fan support is practically non-existent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
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?
Well, the franchise guy is now not wanting to be a part of a winning team any more if he puts his bank account ahead of the team. My rebut to this statement is look at the New England Patriots. Two NFL Championships in three years with a cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
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.
Ok I can appreciate where you're coming from. Again devils advocate here.... What about Parity? Wouldn't you agree a cap would bring more competition and parity to a league who's talent pool isn't as deep or as talented as the NBA or the NFL?

Dolemite is offline