My question is this: What job does the cap ceiling serve more? Salary regulations or equal playing field? I know bettman wants both and feels that a salary cap will achieve both, and to some degree I do agree with that. But my beef is this. Bettman states that the 6.5 million dollar disagreement in the ceiling is all in actuality a 195 million dollar disagreement. I disagree with that. The "magnet" explaination didn't float with me. I still remain that owners who spent 30 million in salary last season will continue to spend 30 million in salary when the NHL restarts as long as it keeps them from losing money. If they generate more revenue, they can feel comfortable spending more. In this instance, the cap ceiling acts more towards creating a level playing field with a more evenly distributed talent pool. I have always felt that owners spend with their own judgement. During the season, they operate based on what's good for their own team and their own investment. They don't make decisions based on whats good for the entire league or teams that are financially struggling. Keep in mind, I am a Ranger fan so you know how I feel. I may come off as being bias but it's just how I interpret the entire situation.