View Single Post
10-17-2012, 01:16 PM
Registered User
t3hg00se's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to t3hg00se
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You and goose need to take your heads out of the sand. The cap did not reduce wild spending like everyone claimed it would. Far from it. Now you use that same ludicrous "logic" here. After it's already been proven to be ********. Sorry, but that argument won't fly.
So you think Holik would have gotten the same contract post lockout?

Please lmfao

Before the CBA there were contracts in place that you never would have seen after the first lockout. Now there are contracts in place that you likely won't see after this lockout.

Columbus and Dallas don't spend to the cap and were able to afford to take Redden on, and arguably could still be paying him and have him on their roster without many cap implications. The Rangers have spent to the cap, and were still able to outbid both of these teams because they had more money and could stash their problem so they could take the risk. Columbus and Dallas didn't have that kind of security, and couldn't go over the top and outbid a team that didn't have to pay any repercussions for their actions regardless of how the player performed.

This rule is fantastic.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote