View Single Post
09-27-2004, 03:05 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,556
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, even though a team has a $75 million payroll, this does not mean that the team should spend the $75 million on players... The same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a small market is the same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a big market... This is what doesn't make much sense to me... Just because you have the money to buy a Ferrari - doesn't mean you should... For wealth accumulation - buy a nice, comfortable luxury car and the difference between the Ferrari and the nice, comfortable car - put it in an investment...

If you earn $80,000 a year - and spend $80,001... you are just as poor as if you earn $8,000,000 a year - and spend $8,000,001...

IMO, NYR advantage should be to pay for world-class scouting, facilities, coaches, etc. that helps build an elite team QUICKER, BETTER, and LONGER... NYR advantage should be no worries to keep the properly developed core together... IMO, the NYR can and should have an advantage over small market teams (IMO, it's not their fault they're richer) - but I think they should pay big $ to their peers for making shortsighted salary decisions that impact every other team in the league...
You think too similar to me on this type of stuff

It's just too bad that the league wasn't full of these spenders who are yielding no results (Rangers the past few years) and all of the smarter teams were mopping up the competition. Unfortunately, it's led to a watered down product and a lot of what you see on the ice in today's game is due to the evolution of the CBA. When you have 1/2 of the teams that can afford to pay for the good players, and the other 1/2 has to stock their rosters with what's left, it puts pressure on the weak part of the talent depth of the sport. Either spread the wealth or eliminate the weak, and I'd prefer to spread the wealth.

Guest is offline