http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=26897&cat=954945254360
I think this is pretty significant...anybody else?
I think this is pretty significant...anybody else?
NHL plans to disperse talent
- Thread starter Morbo
- Start date
- Status
No freakin' way. It may have come up in the meeting, but I can't believe that this was the NHL's best/only method of entering a salary cap system.PepNCheese said:http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=26897&cat=954945254360
I think this is pretty significant...anybody else?
That's garbage.
Are they trying to fix the game? Or just create more parity, which means more boring hockey?
Are they trying to fix the game? Or just create more parity, which means more boring hockey?
kenabnrmal
Registered User
I can't for the life of me see that actually happening, but if thats actually what the NHL is shooting for, its very significant.
QUOTE]Furthermore, Linden said he was insulted when told during the talks that players would have no more say in how the NHL is run than auto workers have say over how an auto company is run. [/QUOTE]
Took this from the link, now that's funny :lol
Took this from the link, now that's funny :lol
No way this could/will happen. You could see the highest teams been forced to "fit" in the CAP slowly by not allowing any Free Agent signing until they get back under the CAP, anyways...
On another note, parity in Hockey does not equal more boring hockey by any account. But I agree you cannot just switch players from teams now just to respect a new system the second it's implement.
On another note, parity in Hockey does not equal more boring hockey by any account. But I agree you cannot just switch players from teams now just to respect a new system the second it's implement.
txpd
Registered User
for those of you that were convinced that the nhl would either phase in the salary cap or grandfather existing contracts to be exempt from the cap for a period of time, there is your answer. they have no intension of doing that. never did.
417 TO MTL said:
Took this from the link, now that's funny :lol[/QUOTE]
Edit:
I realized that my venting post really had no place in this thread :lol
txpd
Registered User
HF2002 said:
how does parity create more boring hockey? i cant imagine that you are the fan of a have not team.
txpd said:
Or perhaps it was a negotiation point. For goodness sakes beyond the framework everything was and is up for negotiation including the how to implement the system question. Sure they don't want to grandfather it in but with some give and take it can easily be done. But the owners are in the drivers seat so they are going to stick to the ideal deal as much as possible.
I'm guessing the comment was made based on the question posed by Linden as to how to get certain teams under a cap. It was probably mentioned, I'm not calling Linden a liar, but it was most likely mentioned in conjunction with other ideas.
Last edited:
HF2002 said:
I think if the Teams are more even, Hockey wouldn't be boring... Games would be close, and so they would be exciting!
Yeah, I really don't buy the arguement that parity means things are boring, do people enjoy blowouts?coyotechrisz said:
kruezer said:
No kidding. I'm not saying I'd be for dispersal though it would simply amount to being just another waiver draft but parity being boring? Huh? It's boring to watch two evenly matched teams play 60 minutes of hard fought hockey (regardless of the offensive or defensive system)? I'd much rather watch that then a team that goes on to victory with a half-assed effort.
Trottier
Very Random
Must say that I am astounded that some folks here actually endorse the concept of teams having to give up their talent to lesser ones, for the benefit of "parity" (read: "my" team having a better chance of winning a hollow Cup.).
Maybe we could have this system go into effect annually? Top five teams in the regular season have to divest themselves of 10-15 players...all of whom go to the bottom feeders. Would that meet your definition of "parity"?
You are entitled to your opinion...But where is the sense of integrity? This is a professional league, not a friggin' fantasy league player swap.
Maybe we could have this system go into effect annually? Top five teams in the regular season have to divest themselves of 10-15 players...all of whom go to the bottom feeders. Would that meet your definition of "parity"?
You are entitled to your opinion...But where is the sense of integrity? This is a professional league, not a friggin' fantasy league player swap.
Last edited:
shakes
Pep City
PepNCheese said:http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/detail.asp?id=26897&cat=954945254360
I think this is pretty significant...anybody else?
You know.. I almost wish there was a cap so I can laugh smugly at all those pro-owner/cap people out there when their star players are suddenly playing for someone else, or when their team is not able to sign one of their own free agents.
Oh wait, I forgot.. it would still be the players fault for not taking less money and being loyal to the team.
shakes
Pep City
Trottier said:
They wouldn't be so happy or think it was such a good idea when it was players from their team being swapped.
FLYLine27*
BUCH
coyotechrisz said:
75% of games are close. I consider 2 goal wins to be close. Once again Bettmans hidden agenda all along to just even up the teams.
Wouldnt bother me though since the Rangers wouldnt have to give anybody up with there right on average payroll. 
Sotnos
Registered User
I think this sounds like NHLPA scare-mongering BS, anyone else?PepNCheese said:
I don't see how this would even be possible. Do you people seriously believe that this is an idea the owners would come up with? On what planet would the owners agree that they should be forced to move valuable assets? Come on
It might have been discussed (for what purpose I can't imagine), but I find it hard to believe that this was a serious proposal.
FLYLine27*
BUCH
So if this happened...the NHL would be in charge of trading players and picking teams for them. Yea...never in a million years. I would love to see Gary try this though.
FLYLine4LIFE said:
I agree with you. Mostly my point of view has matched the owners, but this is a rediculous idea. I can't see how Bettman could even get the owners to agree to this. If I was an owner I sure as hell wouldn't want the league being the ultimate judge on what my roster will look like. There is zero need for this whatsoever. If you have a cap and the GM cannot take care of his current payroll and roster to be within the required amount, then he should held accountable and ultimately should not be working in the NHL. One fail safe system is enough, and that is the cap. Other than that, any other systems will just ruin the league and the ability for a teams management to create its own success.
- Status
