View Single Post
Old
11-14-2004, 11:23 AM
  #7
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
That's been my point from the get-go...

me, I don't look at overall league losses and try to develop one solution to fix it. I think the problem is different that $224 million in losses, or $90+, whatever the number is. Sorry for the repitition, but I'll say it again. The problem is that few teams dominate the UFA market. Other teams have trouble holding onto RFAs when they become good. To me, teams are pretty maxed-out in terms of what they'd spend on player salaries. There does come a point at which you say enough's enough (i.e., the Rangers could've spent more than $80 mil., but didn't, somehow). Put in a luxury tax. It will drag salaries, and teams such as Edmonton would benefit from money in their pocket to spend or save, as well as costs for UFAs and RFAs would decrease by an amount. Next, with revenue sharing, teams such as Edmonton will benefit from the Rangers' revenue streams. Again, a redistribution. This is what the NHLPA wants, and this will get it going again, and it promotes overall healthiness of the league. I don't care if the Rangers lose $40 million. I care if Edmonton and Calgary continuously have to dump players because the Rangers and others drive up prices.

Fletch is offline