Proposed "Redden" rule
View Single Post
10-17-2012, 01:25 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
When you have big market teams allowed to spend without limits you get La Liga and the BPL. Big money teams buy the players, win titles, get all the fans, and continue to have the most money. The same 2-4 teams winning every year isn't any good at all.
I definitely agree with your point overall (especially regarding La Liga and the BPL).
But at the same time the NHL has had a different Cup winner each year post-lockout. 12 different teams in the finals (max would be 14). The 7 years previous to that had 10 unique teams in the finals and 5 unique winners.
In my opinion, parity is at a pretty good place right now. I think some tweaks definitely need to be made - especially around contract length and structure (no more than 7-8 years, no insane bonus structures, no fake years, etc.). And increased revenue sharing is a necessity to allow teams to keep the lights on and retain their young players.
However, I do think being one of the few teams really helping to drive revenue growth should mean something. A scenario where the Rangers lose a great young player to another team due to cap issues, when the Rangers' increased revenue sharing dollars are paying that players' new contract, is not a just one from my view.
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
Last edited by HatTrick Swayze: 10-17-2012 at
View Public Profile
HatTrick Swayze's albums
Find More Posts by HatTrick Swayze