View Single Post
Old
09-30-2003, 04:23 AM
  #22
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 29,402
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thor dyck
My point is that instead of trying to hammer out concessions from the players, the owners should get their own house in order. It is like a salary cap but it is flexible and allows the big market teams to buy talent up to the point where they start losing money. After that point, punish them significantly.

This protects the small market teams because it allows them to keep "heritage" players like iginla if iggy's top end market value is 5 mill.

I have no problem with a big money team like the leafs or
Your a ranger fan right?

At the end of last season the ny press was asking sather what the ranger payroll was.He refused to say,but one writer estimated it was at about $84m.

So yeah, I can see how you'd like to see a flexible cap that allows big market teams to keep buying talent.

and if big market teams can just keep buying talent as you suggest,why would Ignila take $5m from Calagry,when he could get $10m from the rangers,leafs,wings or avs.

Your proposal has been tried out by major league baseball and we've seen how the Yankees with their great cable revenue over the yrs, has reacted to a luxury tax (is it a $160m payroll or $170m payroll this yr for the Yankees?)

CREW99AW is online now