View Single Post
Old
09-27-2004, 02:30 PM
  #34
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,247
vCash: 500
Yeah, I don't want to back away from the traded players part for much of the same reason that you explained, and you explained it very well so good job on that one.

Sure the traded players limits the movement a little bit, but if it's set at the right amount (even $31 million cap) as proven earlier you can still assemble a great team. It would have an effect on salaries as well I believe, lowering many in the process, which would make it easier to keep under the cap.

It'd make teams reassess their rosters before acquiring higher priced players via trade, instead of acquiring them because the poorer teams can't afford them as the Rangers and Toronto have done on occasion.

You would see a situation like Weight & EDM change, where Weight might ask for more money and price himself out of the team's market, but if no other teams are willing to pay him what he asks for, because they might be discouraged under my proposal, then Weight's demands would decrease and perhaps he would stay in Edmonton.

UFA's might re-sign with their existing teams if they have had a long enough tenure or would be considered exempt from such a cap and their salary would be more flexible to that team than if they signed somewhere else. It still gives that player a choice to sign where he wants to, but it gives his existing team a little bit of an advantage and they may have to pay more for that advantage.

If you are a fan of a team that has had to cast off high salaried players to teams with much higher payrolls, just consider the players who have been traded and if those players would have still been acquired by their new teams with such a system in place. I know there is the arguement that these types of deals often help to rebuild a roster, but it also leads to the current situation where many players were basically bought and you end up with superstar rosters in some markets and pluggers in other markets.

I'm sure in some cases the higher salaried player would have still been moved, and maybe the return would have been less, but in many cases those players would have probably stayed with their teams too.

One last major thing to consider is when you look at the numbers provided previously from last season, the teams with the most non-home-grown are the teams who are setting the market standard. These are the same guys that you consistently see signing the bigger name free agents and trading for the higher salaried players. They've created a divide, and if they want to continue that divide, fine, but they have said they do not.

If they wanted to continue that divide, I've given a proposal in the past where you set up a two-league NHL, one with a cap and one without a cap but a salary floor as high as the cap of the other league. Basically just divide the league into teams spending over/under a specific amount, and you let the teams compete with their peers. Makes little sense to me to see a team with a $25 million payroll playing against a team with a $75 million payroll, even if the poorer team wins.


Last edited by Guest: 09-27-2004 at 02:40 PM.
Guest is offline