Proposed "Redden" rule
View Single Post
10-18-2012, 01:46 PM
Join Date: Jul 2005
Originally Posted by
Bleed Ranger Blue
This entire post should be entitled "What I think a rich team like the Rangers should be able to do"
So then increase revenue sharing a bit and teach the other owners how to get creative in terms of generating income. Hire Jerry Jones to teach a class or something.
Don't expect me to feel sorry because some teams have more money than others. That's the way of the world and there's nothing wrong with it.
Your entire argument against it boils down to "The rich teams can take more risks."
Ultimately, that's not a tremendous advantage. Because if all those risks pan out for them, well, soon enough they will be over the cap, having to pay all those talented players. Then they'll have to let them go, then they can be scooped up by other teams.
In a supply and demand system where there is a cap in place, the big teams can't monopolize all the talent. It's impossible because the best players are going to go where they can get the most money, and any one team is prevented from handing out too many superstar deals.
So if a rich team is taking more risks, that means they are busting on those risks. If they were hitting on all the risks, they'd run out of cap room to keep signing risky contracts. Because they can still only afford to keep the same amount of talent, in dollars, on their roster as a poor team. So why should I feel bad for a poor team that the Rangers sign ten Bobby Holiks? It's not getting the Rangers anywhere by having bad FA signings.
It's a very minimal edge we're talking about, and one I am not concerned about in the slightest.
Your counter proposal would force a team to keep Wade Redden on the ice instead of maybe bringing up a Dylan McIlrath, simply because there's no way to get rid of Redden.
That is beyond stupid.
Let me say that again.... it is BEYOND STUPID.
The NHL needs to get the best players on the ice to create the best possible product. That is how the league will grow. The NHL can grow it's brand by introducing exciting new young players and having a fast, energetic style of hockey to market to consumers. It does not acomplish that goal by forcing the Rangers to keep Wade Redden on the ice, or the Canadiens to keep a Scott Gomez getting regular minutes. It cannot accomplish that goal of promoting the best possible on-ice product by forcing teams to employ bad players because of some punitive notion that they should have to be stuck with him.
Teams need to be able to get rid of bad players somehow. It's what is best for the sport, and the NFL's model of doing things proves it.
So I frankly don't care at all that the rich teams have a cash advantage. That's what the salary cap is there to prevent abuse of.
Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-18-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mschmidt64