Why does Bettman wanna see a limit on contract lengths?
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 11:36 AM
Veni Vidi Toga
Join Date: Jul 2003
It does seem like there is more parity lately using the stats often used for measuring that. But parity can be described in different ways.
Parity can be every team equal each year, and an almost random Cup winner each year.
Parity could also be described as a highly bell curved type standings of great disparity, but with each team equally capable of developing a great team if they build well over a multi year period. There is a parity amongst their access to greatness.
I'd suggest we've gone from the 2nd type of parity, more towads the first. And the first parity type, i would label as the mediocrity version of parity rather than the natural cycle of sports version of it.
If while teams are rebuilding, they are in last place but closer to rest of the teams, implying the best teams are not quite as great, then by the first measure of parity, parity is improved. But does the league as a whole benefit more from that than allowing the natural cycle of great and lousy teams that corresponds more closely with the natural team building cycle.
But what is the point of all Bettmans final demands on contract restrictions. If the money is already agreed upon and linked and there is a triple cap, what difference does it make whether players can go to arbitration a year earlier or not? Its just changing how money is allocated, not how much is spent. He would torpedo a whole year to help who exactly?
Originally Posted by
the supply of high end elite types does not exceed demand
please explain why that statement would be a typo?
I guess im missing something obvious then. Im figuring our team for one would love to have two more elite talents like Sakic Forsberg or Crosby Malkin like back in the days when great teams were great and remembered in lore, but it doesnt feel like there are enough to go around for all of us.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by thinkwild