View Single Post
Old
09-21-2004, 08:49 PM
  #41
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
One man's opinion and no more ridiculous than things you've said in the past.


Quote:
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.
For the second time in as many weeks you've jumped to a conclusion rather than ask a question. Let me explain.

I don't think it would kick in the minute a team goes over the limit. It would kick in if they started getting to some ungodly numbers. Say you creat a 40 million dollar limit and a team {ahem, cough, cough} clocks in at 70. That is a bit much at that point.

Say 10 million equals a third round pick, 20 million a second and 30 a first {or something along those lines}.

Otherwise we fall right back into what were talking about in the other thread and a luxury tax system than becomes a joke because you've created enflated salaries anyway and the teams are right back where they were before just with higher numbers being thrown around.

Quote:
Utterly ridiculous, IMO (and I realize that everyone is more than entitled to their opinion). These are not school children who need policing.
Now that truly is debatable and placing a lot of faith in the same people who have created this messed up situation in the first place. But I'm not gonna get nasty about and start acting like the same people we've criticized in recent weeks {though we are getting dangerously close}.

Quote:
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).
A few million dollars is a drop in the bucket for many of the teams we'd be talking about. Having said that going that direction we haven't solved anything, we've just made it so everything is more expensive. Getting a raise at work is kind of nullyfied if the area where to live just went up in price.

And again the draft pick penalty is for extreme cases. If a team is willing to spend 70 million dollars in a loose cap system than no they can't be left to their own devices unfortunatly.

Quote:
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?
And I'd have NO problem with that, but the problem you run into is rebuilding teams. It's a weeeee bit easier to penalize someone who is double the loose cap than it is to penalize a rebuilding team.

But again it goes back to how do you trust them. I don't see how we can argue on one hand that we can't trust the owners and their books and how much money they claim and then in the next breath say that we can trust them to keep the league healthy. It just doesn't add up.

Edge is offline