Discussion in 'Detroit Red Wings' started by RedWingsNow*, Dec 7, 2012.
Umm, just to chime in, like was previously stated, that's a Loria issue, not an MLB issue.
Really wish all the teams that shouldnt exist were contracted. How Phoenix is still around is incredible. They cant get people to go to games unless they charge next to nothing.
Not enough fans and not enough fans willing to pay enough for it to make sense to have a team in Phoenix. Really wish Bettman would realize that.
No not every team can be a cap limit team every year and that's OK. Small market teams will have to follow the best blue print there is , Nashville. They draft well and save their money and when they think they have a team on the brink of challenging for a Cup they spend. I live in Winnipeg and have no problem with the Jets following this blue print (which Chipman has said he would do). What has happened is because of the system that has been put in place drafting is now the most important factor in developing any team (Holland has said as much). The Kings and Rangers are good examples of this. Built their teams through the draft and then suplemented through free agency. Players will ultimately go where they feel they can win especially if the owners take away flexibility in contracts (Hossa). Even if they do find loopholes I don't mind much because it has been proven over and over again that signing free agents doesn't gaurentee a winner (right Buffalo?).
Contracting Anaheim, Phoenix, Carolina and Florida would do wonders for the league.
Or the city of Glendale who just approved more money to support the team.
Insane, It's like the city wants to go bankrupt.
If they are serious about keeping the cap floor 16 mil under the cap, this would happen; revenues would rise -> cap would rise as would the floor. Now we just have other teams struggling. And players making more money.
They'd need to get rid of the floor or lower it significantly. Which would sort of defeat the purpose of the whole cap.
'Bad market' teams are good in a sense because they keep players salaries at bay to a certain extent.
The floor should be relative, then it works better. It was 41% at first season after the lockout (23/39mil), now the 16 million gap is relatively only 23% of the 70 million cap.
Let's say, the floor should be 30% of the cap, then it would rise less than the cap and it would nothing but a good and fair system for the teams.
But the greedy players want this 16 million locked gap between cap and floor, because in that system they can get more money. They have kind of an attitude that teams financial problems is not players problem. But their greediness causes the problem.
I've never heard of the players speaking about the floor (not saying they haven't). Originally the floor was an owner idea. The owners who were sharing the money didn't want the recieving owners to just pocket the money. They wanted to be sure that that money was spent on players. The problem with the sharing system they have is that it isn't tied to anything it was just a strait 150mil.
It was not a fixed value, it was set to 4.5% of HRR. And actually could go higher or lower then that amount based on a lot of formulas.
My understanding is that the sharing proposals being tossed about during the current CBA negotiations are also %'s of HRR, though just about every media report just says how much the sharing amount would have been if there were a full 2012-2013 season.
Separate names with a comma.