It is one season. And you can easily argue the other way, that by not having any relief for some teams for that one year, they will be forced to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible. Who wants that?
Did I mention you are worried over one season? At a number that would be exceeded by what? Did OOG say 7 teams? 7 teams would get releif, the NHL product wouldn't be diluted.
Also, a fair playing ground is more important than parity. Parity kind of sucks. As long as every team has an opportunity to field a team that can win, that is what matters most.
It's two seasons actually, as what remains of this season would also be done under an artificially inflated cap number which would see many teams able to afford payrolls many more others can't. Perhaps you mean "it's just one more season?"
I must admit, I don't understand your stance here. You're asking why I don't support a wider gap between max and min payrolls and then ask why anyone would support a system that "forced [a team] to ice an inferior product when they have to load up on AHL-level players on the lowest contracts possible." Just to be clear, I believe having a wider gap between min and max. caps achieves exactly that. When you lower the minimum salary cap there are teams who will add more minimum contracts so they can stay closer to the 44 million figure rather then being forced to spend more to reach that 49 million figure. Why would anyone want that? You tell me? Yes, it may only affect 7 teams, but we are only talking about a 30 team league and those 7 teams just happen to be an areas where the sport needs the most help.
And parity is part of a fair playing ground, is it not? You set up the financial fundamentals in such a way that will allow teams like NYR and Toronto to spend 20 million more on payroll then teams like Phoenix and Columbus and you're putting those teams at a disadvantage... no? If you don't believe in a correlation between salary and skill then I can understand the reasoning but I believe the better players get paid more (not something I would have classified as going out on a limb on honestly).
I'll ask my question again. Why do you believe I, as a fan, should care more about the players pocket book then I do the quality of the on ice product? Why do you think I should support a wider gap between max and min payroll spending? Perhaps you can change my mind.
Just for reference, my preferred choices in this case are:
1. Go to 50/50 split sooner rather then later as it allows teams to be competitive payroll wise with each other sooner (read: I care more about on ice product then I do players pocket books).
2. Failing #1, concede on 65 million in year two but keep the minimum cap closer to the 65 mill figure so that teams are forced to be a little bit more competitive payroll wise (read: I care more about on ice product then I do owners pocket books).
3. Failing #2, concede on both the 65 million upper limit and the 44 million lower limit. (I care more about having a hockey season then I do on ice product over the next two seasons).
and miss a year or more of your career, then come back as a joke sport with a pie that has shrunk by a third....
