darkboy said:
I think your POV is very broad and idealistic.
Why thank you. After reading your post I would say that it is grounded in reality much more than what you suggested.
You think the owners had no choices before and a hard cap will solve everything.
No, owners had choices, but the owners had very different choices based on their budgets. Six or seven teams essentially were free to make decisions that the other 23 or 24 clubs were not. The players were also capable of putting many of the teams into corners because they were able to practice collusion (someone from the player side had better explain why the players are allowed to do this but the owners are not) and the threaten the owners with lawsuits should they attempt to control the industry through salary fixing. The options many teams had were few and the one they got to exercise the most was shipping their talent out of town.
I think it is proven that owners who put their trust in smart GMs could get competitive teams in the old system without spending 60 million a year.
Wow. Not spending $60 million. What a challenge. How many teams in the league last year managed to do that? All but two or three? Your number is a joke. Try a respectable number like $35-40 million. Any more than that is a crime IMO.
No need for me to rehash the evidence.
Oh yes, please do rehash the evidence. I would like someone to point out how a team was capable of sustaining any level of success without the budget crawling in the $45-50 million range. Fact of the matter is that it is impossible to keep a team together once they have attained any level of success withoutbthe budget spinning out of control.
That doesn’t mean that I support the old system… I think it is unfair that Detroit, NYR and St. Louis, among other teams, generally had the best shots at signing free agents. But I just don’t think a hard cap is necessary to solve this. I would whole heartedly support a soft cap with certain exemptions, and I have yet to read any proponent of a hard cap explain what is wrong with that.
And how would a soft cap work? How is that going to prevent the big market teams from continulally over spending and buying the small market team's best players? How? If the Rangers are willing to spend $70 million now, and the "soft cap" is at $40 million, why would they not continue to spend $70 million on salaries and taxes? The fact of the matter is that the only thing that keeps teams from exceeding the cap is to have a hard cap. MLB has shown how assinine a luxury tax system is. The NBA has shown just how easily a soft cap system can be abused. The most successful league in sports, the NFL, utilizes a hard cap. The NHL needs a hard cap to protect all teams from over spending.
I’m not saying Tampa will be screwed, but they WILL be limited, and I ask why should they be? They did nothing wrong in building their team. They build a championship team by developing talent, making savvy acquisitions, and they did in all within a budget. They have affectively blown apart this myth that exactly this sort of team and this sort of market can’t compete. They nearly lost to the Calgary Flames, no less. What more evidence do you need?
What evidence? I want to see Tampa come back and sign their "star" players and maintain their budget. Without a cap that will be impossible. The Lightning do not have the revenue streams to sustain a budget more than what they had last season. How are they going to deal with the salary demands of Richards, Lecavalier, St. Louis, etc.? With the system in place all of those players will be seeing their salaries double or triple, because they have to be paid comparable to their peers who have attained such lofty heights. Tampa will be forced to make choices under either system. With their budget expexcted to increase substantially they will be forced to move a player or two. Ain't success grand.
It will also be interesting to see how Calgary handles success as well. They already lost Conroy. They have Jarome Iginla to get under contract. What about their hopes of long term success? Or does it not matter? Fact of the matter is that two smaller market teams who BUILT their teams will be likely FORCED into making moves. At least in a capped situation all teams face the same budget crunch and will face thesame challenges. This will help teams retain their players.
A soft cap would limit teams over the threshold from signing marquee free agents and making any trades in which they would add salary. Only teams under the cap could make moves like that. This would level the playing field without limiting teams from building themselves up exactly how they should do it.
Bull. A soft cap prevents nothing. As I said earlier, if a team has been spending $70 million on salaries in the past they will not think twice about exceeding a soft cap and paying a penalty. Look to the NBA for proof. How many teams are over the soft cap? All of them? Soft caps don't work. They are nothing but another way for the players to gouge more money out of the owners and get that money into a pool where they have 100% documented proof that the revenue exists and can be spent. Soft caps play right into the players' hands and add to inflation.
Again, just explain what is the point of having a system that forces teams like Tampa and Ottawa to let talent they developed go to other teams. We all understand why the Rangers need to be limited, but a hard cap goes too far.
All teams have to play by the same rules. Plain and simple. As soon as all teams start playing by the same rules some stability will ensue. If you don't believe this feel free to look at the NHL prior to the 1994 CBA and tell me about teams being forced to dump players because of salaries. It didn't happen. Only when the players were given carte blanche to collude and extort, sending salaries on an incredible inflationary spiral, did you begin to see teams dump players because of salaries. The existing system is the one that forces teams to dump their talent that they have developed, not the one suggested by the NHL. The NHL wants to get control over the game again and start building some stability. The players want to retain the system they have because they know it will continue to send salaries skyrocketting and giving the players more and more control over the game without assuming any sort of fiscal risk. The NHL is trying to bring some sanity back to the game from a fiscal position. A cap will do just that. How about YOU prove other wise. Prove that a cap will not allow teams to retain their home grown talent and will force them to move their players.