And simultaneously putting a drag on the franchise values of the teams that are in the upper echelons.
I keep asking this question and no one wants to answer it.
These are businesses after all. Let's say you keep taking money out of the big money maker teams and putting it elsewhere. When/how does that translate into some return on the investment for the owners that give up cold hard cash today? Also note that most teams change ownership within a decade to maybe two decades at most. What's in it for the owner that bought at a higher figure based on the local market potential to then transfer money out of that market to lower valued markets? The owner of the lower valued teams gets an artificial boost and cashes out. Why should he be so lucky?
The problem with growth at the central level is that it's supposed to be shared 30 ways. Let's say the league received a billion dollar contract for 'something'. So the Leafs get $30-sh MM from central funds, as do the Coyotes.
How does this help the Coyotes wrt to player costs that are 57% of total HRR?
The issue always was and continues to be not about total league HRR or total league costs (30 team aggregate), but about local revenues. The teams with problems cannot match the real growth that keeps happening at the central and high revenue team levels.
I'll answer your question. Take a look at MLB. Chicago Cubs, L.A. Dodgers, N.Y. Mets, Philly, etc. all losing money and gathering debt. Revenue sharing run amuck and it's taking league wide attendance and interest down the toliet.
No thanks to that, give me a higher cap, not a 3 or 4 headed monster like pre-cap but a 9 or 10 headed monster (Pens, Hawks, Wings, Philly, NYR, Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, L.A., etc.) Other teams can join in if they want to spend. I agree with the ceiling, no need to see all star teams created every trade deadline, but let the best organizations be the best every year.