View Single Post
10-25-2003, 08:13 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Originally Posted by
I don't know. I see the PA making the argument that teams can keep the payroll low, make a profit, and still be competitive under the current CBA. I saw Goodenow on the Score making the claim that the Oilers have been profitable (or close to profitable) recently and are still competitive. Do you really think it bolsters our argument that much to keep our payroll at $30M and eke out a profit, and risk missing the playoffs, and then having to do a full year of trying to sell the fans again on season tickets (which will already be a tough sell with a one year lockout)?
Or we could keep the payroll as is, make a profit, make the playoffs, make it past the first round, and then have the NHLPA point to us and say "look at the Oilers - they're the perfect example of why not to change the current CBA".
I think it may be better to go to $35M by obtaining a player/prospect for the future and a veteran that we can let go as a UFA after the year. Show the fans you are committed to winning. Barely make the playoffs and probably lose in the first round. Then go to the CBA, say "look, we had to increase our payroll to $35M to stay competitive and we still couldn't make it past the first round. We
money this year, and in order to make money we have to continue to trade away talent and alienate our fans."
I think that all of the sudden belt-tightening is great, but I wish it wasn't because it is the year before the CBA. It just gives the players all of the ammo.
Listen... a team that consistantly finishes 8th, can't keep their players, has one of the lower payrolls in the league, and eeks out a small profit once every 4 years can't be considered anything resembling a model franchise.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by dawgbone