View Single Post
02-10-2005, 11:21 AM
Leaf Army
Registered User
Leaf Army's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,467
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mooseOAK
I can agree with that except for the small market part, the Leafs would still be the biggest market in the league.
Small market is an ambiguous term.

I hear people refer to the Panthers as a "small market" team all the time. But in reality Miami is a huge market.

So what's the difference?

Originally Posted by mooseOAK
If that is defined as a team that can't compete financially on an ongoing basis when the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams then that means half the teams in the league are in a bad market.
Having the low revenue (ie less successful) teams set the standard for the rest of the league is dangerous.

You say the salary structure is being set by the highest revenue teams. Well how do you think they got to be the highest revenue teams? Luck? No.

The high revenue teams got to where they are because they have great ownership, great management and they're in a market that can support hockey.

The owners should be looking at themselves in the mirror.

Originally Posted by mooseOAK
A cap will turn them into better markets, maybe even good ones.
It won't turn them into better markets. That's one of Bettman's myths.

What it will do is allow poorly managed, non-progressive teams to remain poorly managed and non-progressive.

And like I said- that's very dangerous for the future of the NHL in the United States when you consider how poor management is killing once strong markets like Chicago and Boston.

Would a cap help these owners? Sure. They'd love to cap every players salary at $100,000 a year. That would be great for them.

Leaf Army is offline