Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2006
- 19,799
- 1,811
Rangers have nothing to do with it. You can't make the argument that it's good for the sport to have teams having to trade away their best players merely to comply with a cap that they didn't anticipate.
Conversely, you can make the argument that a lot of the other owner proposals are good for the sport. Such as the ability to get out from bad contracts sooner, since bad contracts force teams to continue to employ bad players (or players who aren't earning their spots at least), and it waters down the product on the ice.
This proposal isn't good for the game.
How is competitive balance not in the best interests of the NHL as a whole? Large market teams having to make cuts - other teams able to pick up noteworthy players in a diluted market? Where does 90% of the league sign up for that deal? Do you think Marian Gaborik brings a sold out crowd to the Garden every night? He could be a bigger help for the game playing somewhere else. Sucks as a Ranger fan, but if you were willing to side with the owners and succumb to the financials argument...this is to be expected.
Admittedly, at least I see a reason for the opposition. As for the "get out of jail free" stuff? I want to have a system in place that doesnt give Glen Sather the ability to make a questionable decision at all. A meeting that ends with "...yea and we can send him to the minors if it doesnt work out" usually winds up with a Scott Gomez or Wade Redden on your roster.