View Single Post
Old
12-24-2004, 07:47 AM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,453
vCash: 500
The cap was a joke...

but it was meant as a starting point. You're not going to go in with a $40 million threshold and begin at a 75% tax graduating to 100% or more. You start low, which they did at $45 million and 20%. What they laid-out was a framework for negotiations. The league, I believe, would go over a $40 million cap. They know they can afford it.

But one thing that troubles me about a cap is that there will be so much player movement. Edmonton may dislike losing good players when they become 26, but that may not change much. I saw people state that they would like to see a system in which teams have a chance win a Cup at the beginning of every season, but that's very unrealistic as it doesn't happen in any sport (look at basketball and football - although the Nets are 7 games under .500 and 3.5 games out (Toronto at 8 games under .500 are 4 games out - what a friggin' joke!)). Hockey currently has the most competitive balance - it ain't changing. Sure Colorado may not be perenniel playoff contenders (which could hurt the overall popularity of the sport and see declining attendances at some of the more popular teams' arenas).

Fletch is offline