PecaFan
Registered User
thinkwild said:Its certainly not wonderful to me. You missed many of professor Ross's points which are key to why fans are hurt. You are missing the fact that any current small market today, could become the big evil spending Colorado of tomorrow.
Feel free to point out any I missed. I thought I grabbed pretty much every one. There was lots of stuff on trust etc, but that wasn't related to the cap.
Personally, I don't believe that that every club in the league can become a high spending team. There's far too much dependence on local market for that to happen. But even if that is the case, then a cap simply means that everyone plays by the same rules. That's no unfair to anyone. Your premise seems to be "folks shouldn't want a cap, because *their team* might be the one getting all the unfair advantages in the future".
And to say it has nothing to do with parity, well at least we are in agreement there. But clearly fans are being encouraged to believe that. Look how many shout that here. Even you are implying that the result will be more even.
Nope, I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying *opportunities* are even with a cap. I believe that with money removed from the equation, then the best managed teams will be the most successful. Right now, many teams are able to outspend their mistakes, under a cap that would be eliminated.
I think changes in NHL parity are completely unpredictable. It might be higher, but could just as easily be lower. It's tough to draw comparisons from football on that, because the sports aren't comparable in terms of drafting, farm teams, roster sizes, etc.