View Single Post
Old
07-14-2010, 10:15 PM
  #16
WineShark
HFBoards Sponsor
 
WineShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Napa Valley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgood View Post
The only thing that I think might be a good idea would be having a soft cap on top, with a huge luxury tax. So big market teams could spend more, they would just pay more to the small market teams. Because of the minimum cap, this would be good for the players, as the small market teams could not just pocket the money.

This would also reward the big market teams, Toronto, Montreal, (Chicago at the moment). It would still be wise to not just throw money at the talent though as hockey is a true team sport.
Big market teams get the benefit of wider fan bases, a bias with National TV broadcasts, the potential for larger arenas and revenue, advertising etc. The whole luxury tax thing didn't help the Expo's and almost killed the Twins as well. When big market teams get the flexibility to spend more, they get more options and tip the balance of competition.

The one thing you can say about the NHL is the owners really stuck together in the strike. One can only presume that they really did believe the majority of the teams would not be on financially stable ground without the addition of the cap. Fehr's comment about the cap in baseball was the same one we heard about the NHL cap; "It was all about protecting owners from each other."

At this stage with the product better than its been in years, the balance of competition stronger, no more talk of disadvantaged Canadian teams (and maybe expansion into Canada), and the cap increased what ... $14M per team since the work-stoppage ended, who is going to argue that the CBA has hurt the players, or the teams? Answer: Donald Fehr if he gets into the act.

__________________
The Best Sports Team in the Bay Area for 20 Years
WineShark is offline   Reply With Quote