hockeytown9321
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2004
- 2,358
- 0
kerrly said:No that doesn't prove why a cap is required, but I'll tell you what does. The difference between Nahsville and Detroit, is that Detroit can remain competitive buy re-signing and adding valued players year after year. Small market teams, sure can have some success, but only for a period of a year or two. Why? When a small market team has success with a low payroll, it means that the players are going to get raises, thus they won't be able to afford to keep that competitive team together for very long. If they do decide to sign their guys, fine they stay competitive for another few years, but are no longer spending like a small market team. This could translate in huge losses for teams doing this. Example: Tampa Bay Lightning. As of right now they are considered small market, and had tremendous success last year, winning the cup. But when the keys players contracts come up, St. Louis, Richards, Modin, Lecavalier, Kubina, they will no longer fall into the small market category. Teams who can't afford to do this, Tampa might not be able to either, after being very successful end up losing their players. The cap offers teams to be competitive year after year. Wouldn't it be good for the whole league, especially the fans of small market teams, knowing at the start of the year that it could be very possible to be a contender, and not always knowing that your team doesn't have a hope in hell of making the playoffs.
So instead of finding a way that all teams could resign their guys if they were successfu,l its more fair to make it so no one can?