vespajet said:
If a salary cap is all that bad, why haven't the NFL and NBA scrapped them? All a salary cap means is that you can't go over X amount of dollars on player payroll. It doesn't mean you have to spend that cap amount, it means you can spend up to X amount of dollars.
The owners have tried in good faith to negotiate a new CBA, but the NHLPA has been very close minded and stubborn (They've presented 2 proposals in 11 months, while the owners have presented more than 6).
Lets see what happens when the next NFL CBA is due. And their have a new lower TV contract. It will be interesting. After the NFLPA has been called a bunch of cowards for their last negotiation.
Its not a contest to see who can come up with the most ideas.
Because to get a salary cap you will have to break the union. If they are weak and replaceable like the NFL players union, you can enforce a cap unheard of in the normal businessworld. But you dont have to. Even Bettman has said this. He said he doesnt need a hard cap to solve his problems.
So given that to get it, you have to lockout the players and wait who knows how long for someone to give in, or achieve the same objectives another way, which do you propose.
Besides the effects of a cap are much more pernicious than you make them out. It is not just a simple fair thing. It forces mass movement, league mediocrity, a diminishment of great competition, the marquee matchups and great teams that casual fans like to follow. It alters the team building concept.
A cap may be good in a league designed for gambling like the NFL, but even their fans are finding the artificial parity they created not as satisfying as they thought.
licentia said:
Calgary could never add players like Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Derian Hatcher, Brett Hull, Dominik Hasek, etc like Detroit and Colorado can. That's a problem that needs to be addressed
Calgary never developed a team like Detroit or Colorado that they could add those players to. No Calgary cant go out and buy a team to beat the teams that Colorado and Detroit largely developed slowly over years themselves. No team can. Many have tried, all have failed. This is a good thing.
Its a good thing they cant buy a team to compete against Colorado and Detroit. There is only one way to have a team than can beat them - you must develop one yourself - cheaply and patiently. Like everyone else - regardles of how much money they have.
If Calgary did do that, and had a 1st place team, and Detroit was missing the playoffs, I think you would find the team with the crazy rich owner would suddenly be different.
Why do you care if Calgary is competitive financially with Detroit, when they can beat them on the ice?