Mat said:
of the few threads ive dabbled in here that seems to be the overall consensus of what i've read
which made me make this thread because i see so many pro-owner people, but ive never read anyone explain how a hard cap will help the NHL and create an even playing field (esopecially when most small market teams struggle to pass the 30m mark, then again, these franchises should never have been put in where they are and should have had more of a screening on ownership, like they failed to do with NYI a few years ago)
Okay, one more time.
A cap means that teams cannot simply sign every player that becomes available, which puts downwards pressure on salary demand from people like Iginla, without the illegality of collusion.
If no one else can sign Iginla, he has to stay with Calgary.
Calgary is a better team with Iginla.
So when Calgary plays a team that ordinarily would have Iginla in their lineup under the old CBA, now it does not, and Calgary does.
The team Calgary playing would be a better team with Iginla in their lineup.
Since Calgary has Iginla in it's line up, it has a shot against the team that was unable to sign him.
The field has become more level.
And regarding the franchises, they're already there, and they do have fans in those cities. Too bad, but they are not going anywhere anytime soon..