Thread: Brooks today
View Single Post
12-13-2004, 07:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fletch
with a real tax, there is an artificial cieling. let's be serious, this is hockey. Even the Rangers know their revenues are only going to be $X, and with a tax, they have to spend less. What the artificial cieling is is debateable, but depending on the tax, a fair amount less than what amounts were spent last season. But let's say the Leafs, or any team, are at the cap amount. They have a great team and need one more piece to the puzzle. They'd like to have that one guy, and that one guy would love to play in Toronto, thinking that he's 38 years old, from Canada (let's say Ontario(, and has never won a Cup, and Toronto has the team, but needs another piece to the puzzle, or so it's believed. And how nice would it be for that Canadian to go home and help his hometown team win the Cup for the first time since '67 (?)? Of course, with the Cap, he has to go to Carolina, for maybe even more money (but let's just say it's the same), and languish in the pits of the league in the armpit of U.S. hockey because Carolina's one of the few teams with cap room and some cash to spend.

Of course the flip is for a team to have the ability to spend a little extra here and there; to go the extra mile to bring it home (which is why the owners wouldn't want the cap).
That's a great example, and one I'd certainly support...but you might be able to build that into your cap model too...either by allowing players to defer salaries during the season or maybe even deferring the contract for the hometown hero until the next season....perhaps not quite as elegant, but maybe it might be more appealing to a team because they ultimately pay less.

Fish is offline