View Single Post
09-14-2004, 11:45 PM
Registered User
Edge's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,516
vCash: 500
Who gets contracted and who does not is not determined by a team's on-ice success. The Rangers are not the club that is crying poverty. They are not the ones who are going backrupt. They are not the ones who cannot spend more than $25m on their team. They are not the ones who cannot, at any given month, send a check to their players.
They are the ones who lost money, have recieved the lowest ratings over the past several years and as a whole for their existence have not been overly successful.

They are one of the one's who have thrown the salary system out of whack. You don't think there's gonna be a huge comotion if the league tries to take someone else out? Sorry, but I've worked too long around these people to know that it wouldn't be brought up and cause even more of a black eye to the sport than you can even manage.

From a financial standpoint, a Rangers fan can get into a contraction debate with anyone. Financialy, the Rangers are not hurting the league. In fact, they help it. They contribute to the overall financial system. They also serve as a shining example of how NOT to run a franchise.
When they are goood they contribute which has equaled approx 10 out of the last 40 years at this point. While I believe the league is better when the Rangers are successful {in my debates with NYIsles} as a whole the league is still losing money. They get awesome crowds around the league, but I don't think you really grasp how much they've thrown the salary system out of whack in the past 10 years.

If the standard for contraction was on-ice success, there are periods of time when virtually all of the original 6 teams should have been contracted. It's like the ludicrous ESPN article that claimed that it is the Yankees that should be contracted.
Problem is it isn't just on ice success but I'm too tired to repeat myself again.

As for a hard salary cap and what it can do.........You cannot have a hard cap if you have guaranteed contracts. The NFL is the ONLY sport with a hard cap and they have non-guaranteed contracts. This way they can get out from under a bad contract with only the signing bonus counting against the cap in that current year. You cannot have a hardcap and not allow teams any way of getting out from under bad conracts.
What you'd probably see is something along the lines of a buyout option at a reasonable cost. I mean let's use some common sense here, the owners aren't going to be pushing for a salary cap with no way to move within it.

Edge is offline