me2
Go ahead foot
habitual_hab said:Perpetual parity
Lets replace it with perpetual disparity.We should seek out and destroy the draft/RFA.
habitual_hab said:Perpetual parity
Cawz said:I agree. Why should the responsible teams have to bail out the teams that spend like they are making NBA or NFL revenues.
It sounds like the league is saying, "theres more than enough food to go around, as long as the everyone eats responibly. And since history has taught us that this wont happen, we need some sort of rules to ensure this. Then we can all be fed."
Cawz said:Thats such a simple minded solution. Kill the runts of the litter so the rest of the herd can live.
me2 said:Exactly. And for the same reasons why should successful teams sufffer with worse draft picks? There should be no draft at all, let every team bid for any player/prospect they want. Dynasties are good, let the richest teams build never ending dynasties.
Digger12 said:This attitude of screwing the small guys over with nary a backwards glance just for the sake of keeping the elite awash in caviar and meth
Stich said:Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?
...
I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.
Stich said:Without a cap, the complaint from small teams is that they don't generate enough revenue to compete on the UFA market with the big market teams.
Stich said:I don't agree with that, but let's assume you're right. I'm not quite sure why that's a bad thing for the NHL. What it would mean is that every team with above average management and player development would get their share of playoff appearances. That would increase the fan bases for the teams that need to do so while not losing any significant portion of any established fan base.
In all honestly, the concern you present is simply the concern of the selfish fan. I'm not saying that you're selfish, just that it's typically an arguement presented by someone who wants their team to be contending for a Cup ever year.
its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -Stich said:Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?
I don't want to know why you think there shouldn't be a cap.
I don't want to know who you think is at fault for the higher salaries.
I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.
the owners making money do not want to share with the poor ones - they want the players to foot the billhockeytown9321 said:luxury tax.
NBA style soft cap.
100% revenue sharing by the owners.
Stich said:Under the NFL's system you get to cut that unhappy, overpaid #1 center and keep your 2nd overall pick and young defenseman.
mr gib said:its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -
hockeytown9321 said:Some NFL teams like the Lions go through continuous rebuilding. I don't see Miami being near the top this year. Nor St. Louis or Tampa. New England has already lost key players off their team due to a cap. Philly's remaining time is short. GB has rebulit pretty well, but they are nowhere near as good as they were in the mid 90's. Tennesee was forced to get rid of a player who had played his entire career for the franchise due to the cap.
I'm sure NHL contracts will go down under a cap. But I think its totally within reason to assume one team will be able to offer $1-2 million more for a star than your team can, and he's gone.
habitual_hab said:It all depends on what product you want to see on the ice. If it's a product where every team hovers around the .500 mark and no fan has the ability to identify with "franchise" players because players change teams too often, then it's for you. I, for one, prefer the "status quo".
thinkwild said:St Louis losses are CBA related?
mr gib said:its the distrust issue - if a hard cap is imposed - guys like bill wurtz - gary bettman - and the owner dick in boston - will work very hard to market the game to the max - this will increase their revenues greatly and the players share remains at the capped level -
DementedReality said:and how is this fair to small market, done everything right, OTTAWA ?
They dealt Yashin for Spezza and Chara.
Why should we shut down the league to save NYI from Milbury at the expense of OTT ?
So in your NHL, OTT cant even benefit from the "improvements", but NYI can.
I see. Sounds real fair to bring OTT down to NYI's level.
DR
mr gib said:the owners making money do not want to share with the poor ones - they want the players to foot the bill
Stich said:I fail to see how it is unfair to Ottawa that a cap would have resulted in them getting less for Yashin. That simply makes no sense at all.
DementedReality said:because to get the hard cap, they have to basically drag the league, its players and its reputation into the mud and devalue the history of the league to such a degeree thats i dont see why they need to take that risk when they havent even explored other options.
as well, parity is bad. remember, if every team has a chance to win, every team also has a chance to lose. how would you like your home team to do everything right only to see it lose to a team that is still doing everything wrong.
wouldnt you like to know if your team is smart like OTT, it can be elite ? or would you like to know that even if you do it like OTT, you wont be able to keep all players and a team like NYI can not only poach from your hard work, but also remain just as good as you.
DementedReality said:but isnt the CBA you back supposed to help teams like OTT, when in fact I just showed you how it will hurt them.
dr
Stich said:You didn't show that at all. All you showed me was that under the current system Yashin was able to demand so much money that the Senators had to let him go. Under a cap, his demands would have been a lot lower because there would be no high spending teams for the Senators to trade him to.
DementedReality said:i showed you that under today's CBA, OTT was able to trade Yashin for Spezza and Chara and under a CBA you support it would not have been possible.
who cares that Yashin is overpaid, OTT wins that deal even if Yashin was playing for 300,000.
so how does a capped NHL serve OTT ?
dr
Stich said:And I showed you that under a cap, Yashin would have never held out and Ottawa would have been able to retain their player.
Ask Calgary fans what they'd rather do right now... keep Iginla or trade him for a draft pick and a prospect.