quat said:
Look, first read the comment, then think please. During the hockey season you post some intelligent thoughts, so you are capable of using your head.
Certainly you are aware that some teams generate more revenue than others? And if those teams are intelligent (remember, one of my criteria), they will be able to use their larger budgets to their advantage. That's pretty basic stuff DR. No mystery there. You jump all over this "teams buying a cup" thing, while ignoring the fact that posters are mostly refering to the fact that financial imbalance gives the richer teams an advantage. Stop being so obtuse.
Ok, so some teams generate more revenue. if the owners want to fix that, why kill the NHL over it when all they need to do is share their revenues with each other ?
a salary cap does not raise revenue for lower revenue teams, so how is that the answer to "revenue disparity" in fact, the players proposal does address this quite effectivly (if the owners would negotiate the salary tax% and trigger).
Colorado deserves every penny they have earned and the fact they reinvest in the great players they drafted (or traded well used draft picks for) is WHAT SHOULD BE REWARDED, why are you using teams like COL(or NJD and DET) of teams that who have done wrong by the fans.
Revenue disparity is an ownership problem and has little to zero effect on competitive balance.
I see rich well run teams like NJD, DET and COL winning and dominating and I see rich poorly run teams like WSH, NYR and TOR not winning.
I see "revenue challenged" teams like ANA, BUF, CRL, MIN, SJS, OTT, CGY and TBY having just as many chances if not more.
If the owners of ANA, BUF, CRL, MIN, SJS, OTT, CGY and TBY think its unfair that DET, COL, NYR, TOR and PHI have more revenue then TAKE IT UP WITH THEM !
If revenue disparity is the true problem, they owners should look to themselves to fix it. A luxury tax is a fair mechanism for this.
DR