Hockey_Nut99 said:
I notice a lot of people who critisize the owners more than the players are fans of big teams like the Flyers or Maple Leafs. it's easier not to be frustrated when the ill effects of this CBA hasn't hit them as hard. They are used to having winning records and keeping a team together or signing big free agents.They haven't had to trade anyone b/c of salary..It goes both ways. Lot's of people who support lower end teams obviously side with the owners more
Ok, first of all, being a Flyers fan, there was a very lean period we went through where we missed the playoffs for an extended period of time. Our teams were lousy, the players we had either stank or didn't play well, and our coaching and management during those times were horrendous. When Clarke was rehired by the organization, the first thing he did was completely revamp the organization via scouting, drafting, and trades.
With regards to free agency, the only real free agent splashes we made were: Joel Otto, Shjon Podein, Craig MacTavish, Kjell Samuelsson, Chris Gratton, Ulf Samuelsson, and Luke Richardson. Even then, out of that group, I wouldn't even consider Gratton a free agent signing because rather than take the five first round picks, Tampa Bay ended up acquiring Mikael Renberg and Karl Dykhuis for him.
The real extravagant free agents we acquired were Jeremy Roenick. However, his salary slot was taken on the chart after Lindros left. Actually, Jeremy cost us $1 million a year less than what we were paying Eric, so we actually saved money.
Where we lost money was signing John Leclair to the $9 million a year contract.
Anyways, people can gripe about the fact about the Philadelphias and the Torontos, but fact of the matter is this. Both those organizations have solid fan bases along with solid revenue generation streams and television deals. People can complain all they want about them, but that is a fact. Second, why should they be penalized because they have the ability to draw more revenue than other cities? It isn't Ed Snider's fault that Atlanta can't draw. It isn't the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund's fault that Nashville can't draw. It isn't Mike Illitch's fault that teams like Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary don't have the same resources at their disposal that he does. That's life and that's business. Hey, I'm a fan of the game, but as everyone on here states, it's also a business. The last time I checked, if a business can't remain healthy and viable in a market, they usually move or shut down operations. The fact teams have lost a combined $273 million indicates one thing.....poor business management.
How a cap is going to correct this is beyond me? So what, teams won't be able to spend over a certain limit? It's called contract restructuring. Happens in football all the time. We'll see more of this and then we'll see the eventual salary cap purgatory because of this.
Let's face it. As long as there's a market, there's always going to be someone who's going to spend. People can say what they want about the salary cap being something to safeguard the owners, but it isn't a safe guard at all.
And you can bet that if there's an agreement that comes into place and there's a cap, you can almost be certain that we'll be in the same position again in six or ten years from now with the owners crying poor once again.
The truth of the matter is that no system can prevent any owner from making bad business decisions. Say what you want about a cap, but I'm willing to be we'll see owners screw it up as well and blame players for exploiting the system.