NHLPA fires Paul Kelly (UPD: player review of firing completed)
View Single Post
08-31-2009, 10:29 PM
Join Date: Aug 2004
Originally Posted by
I don't mean a drastic drop in the floor, but I think a $5M downtick would be helpful.
If a team is losing roughly $5M or less and were given an opportunity to spend $5M
less, in theory they could break even... it wouldn't effect performance that much because in alot of these instances, the teams spend money because they have to spend money... that doesn't lead to the best acquisitions.
the problem is, say if 10 teams take up this option, that's a $50M shortfall... how do you make it up?
It doesn't really matter.. if the league has earned $50m more than it has paid out, it has to divide that money amongst the players at the end of the year.
As I mentioned in my post, by lowering their payrolls, teams ultimately undermine their competitiveness, which then lowers their revenues, in a nasty cycle. If they're truly interested in improving success across the board, they'd bring the cap and floor closer together, not farther apart, and share revenues more equitably.
Teams like Phoenix dig themselves into a hole which is hard to get out of. Theoretically they can use their high draft picks to field a competitive roster, but even then they only get 3 years out of those players before they get expensive
But I suppose the rich teams would still always have a leg up by hiring more expensive coaches, GMs, and scouts, as well as investing money in things like sleep therapy no matter how much the cap is adjusted.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ernie