View Single Post
11-30-2012, 03:38 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,114
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Incorrect. The last CBA created a structure with the floor and range which forced lesser teams to spend while capping the payroll expenses of the big guys. That was the tradeoff. I don't buy your argument and I don't think any of the owners (big market or little) would either.

KevFu made some excellent posts about how the floor/range was going to create havenots regardless of the number of teams.

The primary issue is that some of those lesser teams were actually not doing worse before the last CBA and in fact may have been doing better because they were not mandated to carry big payrolls. But there is no doubt that the payroll expense dropped for the big guys and their profits skyrocketed. And there is no doubt that some small markets suffered relative to the previous CBA because their payroll was mandated upwards beyond fiscal prudence.

Ostensibly, the lesser teams are creating a footprint for the league which generates merchandise sales in places where there wouldn't be any and generates the interest that draws a bigger TV contract. I won't argue that the expansion initiative has been completely successful at this point, but it is far from a complete failure. Both extremes of that argument are hyperbole.
You're not losing the cap floor now.

The NHL would probably be OK with scrapping it, but the PA now would not. I'm sure they quite like having the cap rise for every team basically every year (which wasn't the intent of the cap floor by the NHL anyway).

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote