View Single Post
Old
12-08-2004, 07:32 PM
  #17
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
What will be interesting is..

when a hardcap of $31 million is in place and a few years from now Calgary is at the cap amount because they actually can afford it, but Carolina, who seems to have cap room (this is just an example), has extra money to woo Iginla away and now the Flames lose Iginla to free agency because they do not have the cap room as a result of building a good, young team whose salaries have increased over the years. That will be funny.

And you're not picking on the Rangers - they're the ones who stand to make out the most if there is a cap. That extra money that they cannot now spend all basically goes to their convoluted accounting of their profits. Imagine, going from an $80 million payroll to $31 million payroll. This cap is needed to help the Rangers, as Bettman cites the league losses that cannot be sustained as the primary driver for a cap - and the Rangers account for approximately 20% of the entire league's losses.

Fletch is offline