But the point is you do not need a cap to be profitable and to win in this
league.
Oh, but you do- just look at my point later on in my reply for the
examples.
Look at NJ Devils - traditionally one of the lower payroll teams,
profitable and
wins more cups than the higher payroll teams (I will avoid the NY Rangers
joke.)
They've won 3 but not since their first one have they been in the lower
half of the league in terms of salaries.
Like the wings - the NJ situation comes down to front office management
talent
and fiscal responsibility and well - brains. Look at TB and Calgary last
year -
another example.
The Wings have a payroll over $60 million and you're talking about them
and "fiscal responsibility"? Are you kidding me? BTW, those "frugal"
Devils had a payroll over $50 million last year which puts them into the top
10. If you actually think that TB will STILL have a $36 million dollar
payroll if they want to keep that team together then you're even more out of
touch with reality than I suspected. Point at the Flames and I'll simply
point at the Cup winners for the DECADE before the Lightning did it- they're
easy to remember because there have been only 5 of them: the Stars, Devils,
Avs, and Wings with the Rangers buying their way to a cup in '94. Notice
anything in common among those teams?
I can not prove it but suspect that the owners crying loudest about the
loses are the same ones that went for expansion to generate $$ and expanded
the league into losing cities/markets. Now those new franchises are losing
cash and they are also crying - just ugly. So we have stupid owners and
businessmen that now the players have to bail out...sorry no pity for them.
No doubt a large part of the problem is the expansion of the league that
was quite frankly too much too soon, thanks to Bettman. Also, it's
certainly the fault of a few owners (like Mike Ilitch) who decided to buy up
just about every player with any amount of skill or keeping them around by
paying them ridiculously large sums of money who have been largely
responsible for the imbalance in the current economic system. But the
league is now looking at steps to ensure that there will be a way that ALL
the teams can survive, and it's now the players who are crying because their
cash cow will soon be cut off. Blame certainly deserves to be placed on
both sides, but IMO most of it now falls onto the players' shoulders since
they are now doing their best to block the implementation of a new system
that would bring those few dumb owners (like Ilitch) under control.
<spurious logic snipped>
So it's the owners' fault that they expanded and made bad business
decisions but now it's still their fault when they try to come up with a
solution to bring the economics of the league under control? Dude, you
really ought to think about what you're saying before you post.
The real interesting question or activity is to speculate on what the final
settlement will be....I see the following..
1) Some kind of luxury tax - that only goes to teams that meet some $$
standard for payroll. You do not want a team lowball salaries and payroll
just to make money on the luxury tax money that comes their way.
2) Lower rookie salary limits.
4) Some league contraction (I hope)
5) Arbitration lives
No, the league needs a hard salary cap. The advantages of the cap are
simple:
1) You will no longer see owners offering large sums of money to players
that don't deserve it (ie: Todd Marchant's 3-million-dollar-a-year contract
in Columbus) since they would have to work with a certain amount of space
under the cap.
2) Because owners would no longer offer large sums of money to those
players, there would be more of them available on the market which means
that parity is created instantly by the fact that more teams will have
access to the talent that's available in the pool.
3) It's still a good system for good players since teams will still pay
them large sums. When it gets right down to it, the cap encourages a system
to exist where star players and pluggers each get the money they deserve.
(eg: Peyton Manning who makes at least 9 million US a season with his
current contract with the Colts).
4) Finally, a hard cap is good because it's the proven way to keep certain
money-tossing owners under firm control. Yes, it's possible to circumvent
the cap temporarily (back-loading contracts is the most commonly used
method) to stack your team. However, any team that tries it and fails to
win can end up paying the price for years afterwards (just look at the 49ers
over the past 6 seasons for a good example). This system is great for
encouraging teams to make good management and coaching decisions rather than
throw money at the problem.
Frankly I think this is a fair deal. I do not see what is wrong with a
luxury tax as opposed to some form of CAP with a Larry Bird exemption. I
just do not think the players are every going to agree to a cap in any
form...but I have been wrong before....
Yes, you certainly have.