View Single Post
Old
09-17-2004, 02:56 PM
  #2
ModestoFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: And the fascination never ends...
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ModestoFan
Good thoughts from the read. I would only say this as a counterpoint. Since the owners aren't looking at a luxury tax as a solution, what would bring them to the table to discuss it?

It seems either a "soft cap" set by league revenues or a change in the market itself will bring the sides to the table. I can't see the NHLPA giving in on the anti-cap slogan, but willing to live with a soft-cap system. This also implies that FA rules are changed, same with arbitration awards, and lastly, the removal of guarantees from contracts for players.

Personally, I'm all for a market system but that limits the overall ceiling of the market by penalizing those clubs that will spend "stupid" amounts of money on players just to get that one player. (a little contradictory, but heh, is Holik or Lindros worth thier contracts...NO!)

I can't see the NHLPA changing from the anti-hard cap, but I can see the middleground being a soft cap like in Baseball. I can't see the owners going for anything that can't give the struggling teams some serious measure of security that they can both compete and become profitable if managed properly.

anyway...my hands are tired.

edit: to remove any confusion about my thoughts for a soft cap system, owners could only go over a % of the cap itself, and only for a period of time. 1-2 seasons. Consistent overage would be adjusted by a penalty of 200% of the overage paid to the league and distributed to the other teams that aren't over the soft-cap for a penalizing period of time.

This would allow teams to add payroll and make a run, knowing that they have that option but only for 2 seasons, then its back to basics, unless they wanna seriously pay through the nose to bloat the payroll.


Last edited by ModestoFan: 09-17-2004 at 03:00 PM.
ModestoFan is offline