Did The Rangers Really Lose $40 Million?
View Single Post
09-20-2004, 09:50 AM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Originally Posted by
Well I think if they went with a luxury tax system or a lose cap, a nice penalty might be draft picks along with cash.
That is about as a ridiculous a thing as Bettman wanting to take the power of contract negotiation away from the individual teams and place it solely in control of the league.
Talk about trying to ensure that things go your way. Not only do teams have to pay $$$ for going over a certain amount of money, but now they have to surrerender draft picks? Sorry, Edge, but that is nothing but an attempt to force the league into doing what you want. That is an example of Bettman wanting force and ensure that not one team dares to outspend the Carolina Hurricanes and the Ottawa Senators of the world.
Utterly ridiculous, IMO (and I realize that everyone is more than entitled to their opinion). These are not school children who need policing. IF a team spends over a certain amount, a financial penalty is more than enough. And if a team wants to keep on spending, then that is their perogative, becuase the $$$ penalty will just put more cash into the pockest of the lower market teams (in turn, whose owners will just put the cash into their own pockets).
And just to add on to my thought....If we start to dock teams draft picks for going over a luxury tax, then the ONLY fair things to do are: 1) dock teams draft picks for not spending a certain reasonable (no less than $30m) amount and 2) dock teams draft picks that are not reinvesting the money that is provided to them by the luxury tax. So, if an owner chooses to line his pocket with luxury tax money, instead of putting the money back into his team, that team losses a draft pick.
After all why reward teams with high draft picks for not even making an effort?
Last edited by True Blue: 09-20-2004 at
View Public Profile
True Blue's albums
Find More Posts by True Blue