AM said:
Its not just the teams that buy players.
The NHL is competative, when big payroll teams buy other teams players. It makes the ***** team weaker. Making all the lower payroll teams less competative. So making it more likely that a high payroll team will win. So even if a team dosnt buy players, if they have the payroll to afford to keep their stars, they are reaping the rewards of other pirates.
Not that I think you have to make an obscure arguement to make the point. I'm just pointing out, that you are wrong, even assuming the best possible light for your arguement.
Head in the sand??
Hah.
Anyway, I agree. I wouldn't say a team "reaps" the rewards of other pirates when it is simply keeping its team together.
But there is a some truth to what you say.
But that doesn't change my view.
My view is that the NHL is a better place if all teams get to have their Steve Yzerman for 20 years.
A salary cap, IMO, makes that less likely. Therefore, it is bad for the game.
What turns people off in sports is the movement. Players change teams too often.
You might disagree with me. But I can tell that one reason why fans are on the owners side is because they are sick and tired of seeing their stars leave via UFA or trade in a salary dump.
IMO, the best option would have been a luxury tax revenue sharing plan that puts teams on closer to equal footing while, at the same time, gives teams the flexibility they need to keep teams together so that you can draft an Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom and have them all play together for 10 years.
See, the NHL was in trouble. And it needed a solution that would save the sport.
But it didn't get that. Why not? Because the owners don't feel like sharing their wealth with the other owners. Not in a meaningful way.
Instead of reaching for a solution that would give all fans the best of both worlds, we have a solution that turns every team into the Carolina Hurricanes.
Really, the only major benefactors are the owners.