i am dave
Registered User
txpd said:1. "they both made the playoffs last year..." do you really believe that there is any kind of comparison between the Red Wings and the Preditors??? Give me a break!!
First of all, breathe. Good. Feel better? Good.
How many times in the last 10 years have the Wings been Cup contenders at playoff time? 10? How many Cups have they won in the last ten years? 3? How many times have the Preditors made the playoffs? 1. How many times have they been contenders? NEVER!!! come on...did you write that with a straight face??
Nashville wasn't around 10 years ago. Nashville is a small market team. Nashville made the playoffs last year. Nashville has a damn good goaltender, and not a pretender like JSG. Making the playoffs generates revenue. None of these things are bringing a smirk to my face.
In the last ten years Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St Louis, Toronto and Philly are always in the top 7 in payroll and have missed the playoffs a grand total of once in the last 10 years and are usually legit cup contenders.
St. Louis is never a legitimate Cup contender. Sorry I had to say that. :lol
If you think that any team in the bottom 10 in payroll is EVER in the cup contender list, you are lost and they only occasionally go as far as to make the playoffs at all.
Calgary made it to Game 7 of the Cup finals, and arguably won it in Game 6. Nah, they're not a contender.
2. Yes, the $38m hard cap would help spread the marquee players more round the league rather than have 4 or 5 stacked teams and 8 or 10 no name teams. Thats just not good for the league.
Are you proving my theory that you were just hoping for a fantasy draft?? Not for nothing, but NJ won 3 cups with three "no name teams." The average hockey fan (read: no one who ever comes to hfboards) couldn't name more than three players on those teams. They were most certainly not stacked top to bottom. They won with a goaltender and a system.
3. You are spinning the numbers to your benefit and not reading them truely. you say, "you were fine with a $38M hard cap, but now are not fine with a $50M hard cap (minus one player) because you think teams won't be able to compete with a $12M payroll disparity, then you need to rethink what kind of league you're looking for.".....we its not a $12m disparity. its more like a $22m disparity.
Those 5 or 7 big spender teams with payrolls currently between $60m and $80m can afford $50 + one big contract while at least half of the league can't afford to go much over the $38m mark. so..you say $50m (minus one player) and then forget that about adding the big contract for that one player back into the financial disparity. oops
You are also spinning numbers assuming a majority of teams will max out their cap and then go wild on the franchise player. Please read my previous comments on franchise players and their market-setting-abilities.
You are assuming that even with a hard cap at $50M, where they will have to pay luxury taxes over $40M, owners will want to maximize their payroll and then top it off with the franchise player. You know, since a bunch of people keep brining up the NFL, let me point out that the two franchises in the Super Bowl have not only been extremely successful the past 5 years on the field, but have set the standard for cap management as well - both teams have maintained their franchises well under the salary cap.
Think of it this way. You are allowed (by some unimportant-to-this-scenario-entity) to spend a maximum of $1000 on payroll. As an employer, are you not going to find a way to maximize your production at the lowest cost? Exactly what success have the Rangers had in the Sather era of spending? '
Hear this now: With a luxury tax and salary cap, enter the era of sabermetrics to the NHL.