hockeytown9321 said:
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:
1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.
This has to be one of the doltiest things posted. They are doing it simply out of greed? Do you really believe that? Nothing more than straight up greed?
hockeytown9321 said:
2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.
The only thing that will draw more fans is opening up the game. This has nothing to do with the CBA.
hockeytown9321 said:
3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.
Dynastys are a thing of the past anyways. When was the last true dynasty? Pens? It seems dynastys were around more, before the salaries got all stupid.
hockeytown9321 said:
4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.
But from the owners point of view, the status quo is a system that causes them to lose money. If you change the system and the result is the same, is that not the status quo? From the owners point of view, yes. From the player POV, no. Its just some stupid word that is being thrown around to sway the uninformed.
hockeytown9321 said:
5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.
So does that mean that a cap wouldnt change the competitive balance? Youre one example seems to show that. It seems that with a cap, the teams will still play about the same but there would be better financial stability in the league.
Yes, I'm being facitous, but hey, mabye a cap would help dyanstys. Mabye, since players would know they can only make ridiculus money on a ****** team with cap room, they will stay with their dynasty team for less money, just so they can win. I know if I was making 3 million, and they could only offer me 2.5 because of cap room, I'd stay if I loved the team and we were the team everyone feared, and I loved the city and had my family there etc etc.
Or mabye every team should put 1 million dollars in a pool at the beginning of the season, and the winning team gets 30 mil to spead around. If the superstar took a 2 million dolar pay cut to stay on his team, then he could get it back if they win it all.
But to be honest, I dont think a cap is the answer, but its a better starting place than the PA's offer. I think the owners have to realize that the player WONT accept a cap. They said so themselves. Theyre not going to go back on that.
And I think the PA has to make an offer that is actually not a token concession. They have to acknoledge the problems in the league, and address them. For real this time. They have been taking full advantage of the CBA for the last 10 years and the owners want a deal that will not enable this to happen anymore at the owners expense.
This league cant function if one of the sides is hurting financially, be it players having their pensions stolen by Eagleson, or some owners not being able to keep up with a league that thinks it's bigger than it actually is.