Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JWI19
Just because the system doesn't work in MLB doesn't mean it cant work in the NHL. The problem with MLB is that "cap number" is so high it only effects one team.
A 45 million dollar "cap number" would effect about half of the NHL teams. Thats a step in the right direction.
Every one is talking about cap this and cap that. But they are failing to say what the biggest problem between the markets is. And thats difference in revenue. A salary cap does nothing to increase the revenue for the small market teams. All it means is a few more owners make more money for themselves.
If a team can not afford a 29 million dollar payroll what good is a 40 million dollar cap?
|
I am mostly in agreement with you on your points here except for one correction:
But they are failing to say what the biggest problem between the markets is. And thats difference in revenue.
I don't think revenue disparity is the complete issue. I think gross profit (i.e. rev. and costs before salaries) is where there are the most discrepencies. There are many teams that are doing fairly well in the revenue department, however, they have more costs than many other teams (arena costs, taxes, etc.). This has a lot to do with the varying degrees of subsidization across the league.
Other than that though, I do agree that people shouldn't dismiss a luxury tax idea because it didn't work in MLB. First, MLB implemented such a horrible system, that it was doomed to fail. Second, the level of payroll disparity in MLB is much worse than it is in the NHL, and it is more susceptible to teams being able to purchase a championship.