View Single Post
12-14-2004, 09:29 PM
Registered User
Kodiak's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Originally Posted by bleeding blue
I do not agree with some of the other arguments. I don't see the effect of the NHLPA making concessions if they obviously arent going going to fly with the NHL. If I'm a businessman who has been taking losses for quite some time, I'm not going to sit down and negotiate a gradual fix to the problem and I'm not going to settle for a solution that doesn't work for me. I'm going to demand that the problem be fixed now and my way or I'm not doing business. Let's say I bring a car into a dealership and they offer me $10,000 for it and I say I'll only sell it for $15,000. Then they offer $11,000 and $12,000 and I keep telling them no way. Well yea, they are making concessions but I already said it's not worth it to me unless I get $15,000 so what good are their concessions? They could offer $14,500, they aren't getting the ****ing car.
Then you aren't selling you're ****ing car. This is a lot like dedalus's parable (scroll down, it should still be around) and it doesn't work for the same reason. I understand that your point is that you can't reach an agreement if the other side isn't offering what you want, but you aren't in a partnership with the other side. You don't HAVE to reach an agreement. Not selling your car is a viable option. For the NHL, not reaching an agreement with the NHLPA (and vice versa) is NOT a viable option. The NHLPA has recognized that and tried to address the problem while not shooting themselves in the foot. The NHL just continued on its "my way or the highway" stance.

No onto league parity and mediocrity. A hard cap will not guarentee mediocrity but it will help parity, which would be a good thing. The NFL is the most successfull professional sport in NA and it has arguably the most parity. There are still the super teams like the Eagles, the Packers, the Patriots, and the Colts. And even teams like the Giants, the Lions, the Bucs, and the Browns remain successfull and popular. One year a team could be getting the 6th pick in the draft, and the next year it could be in the SuperBowl. Hope surrounds every NFL franchise, except the Saints. Is it better for the league to have interest in all of it's teams, where fans of every franchise remain interested and hopefull? Or is it better to have 3 or 4 elite teams while a large remained of the teams struggle to garner interest and have no chance of yearly success? A cap does not prevent greatness and elite teams but it does ensure that the only way of achieving that status is through terrific coaching, drafting, development, and fiscal responsibility.
I'm not going to fight hard on this point because I don't follow the NFL as closely as I used to, but my understanding of how teams are built under the current system is that a team tries to hold together a core of a few key players and shuffles the rest of the roster as need be. There's a huge amount of turnover from year to year. That's not the NHL I want. I want to be able to pull for my TEAM, not just the handful of guys that are worth something and whoever else came cheap enough to keep us under the cap. How is a team supposed to develop together if there's only room for $5 mil in terms of salary growth?

As for parity and not mediocrity, I'd argue that parity in the NFL has led to mediocrity. Can you really make the argument that any of those "super teams" you mentioned can stand up to the great teams of years past? I sure don't think so. That's where the cap would put us. No more 80s Oilers or 90s Pens. Hell, we wouldn't even see teams as talented as the Avs, Wings, Stars, and Flyers of the past 5 years.

Also, if a team can go from top 10 pick to Super Bowl in a year, that means that the reverse is true as well. In hockey, it takes a long time to develop a team. I wouldn't want to wait through rebuilding only to see my team have a 2-3 year window to win before it has to be dismantled for cap reasons. I want the Rangers to rebuild and contend for 5-10 years like the Avs and Wings and Devils.

Kodiak is offline