THIS. Back in 94 there was a shot to save the league. The owners at that time lost when they couldn't get a hard cap. Now we have large market teams that would never sign on, and some small market owners like Nutting and Fisher that would be even more adamant about not having a cap because that would require a spending floor. Those two pricks in particular are so cheap they make the biggest cheapskates in recent NHL history like Moyes and Karmanos look like f***ing Jeff Vinik in comparison.Baseball has become basketball in that both sports suck balls.
There will never be a hard cap being cheap owners making bank of the luxury taxes with no real desire to compete will never go for it. Sucks for the fans though, but then again sports no longer seem like they cater to the fan experience anymore. Too much revenue.
Are you asking if watching your team win is enjoyable?Is being a Dodgers fan even enjoyable? To me, the ride from the basement to the penthouse is the best thing about pro sports. Watching a young team grow before your eyes is so much fun.
This reminds me of a post years and years ago where someone tried to argue that the Nieuwendyk/Iginla trade was bad for Dallas because they only won the Cup onceAre you asking if watching your team win is enjoyable?
This reminds me of a post years and years ago where someone tried to argue that the Nieuwendyk/Iginla trade was bad for Dallas because they only won the Cup once
The best example in hockey would be the Kings getting Mike Richards. It was an objectively net-bad, but they win 2 cups with him and likely wouldn’t have otherwise, and maybe win more with someone better.Different sport but I see a similar argument trying to be made about the Goff/Stafford trade.
What would be the other things in this scenario? Like maybe there are some but I’m just curious on this particular instance what it could be.Oh sure there was. Leverage isnt restricted to trying to get more $$.
Its fantastic. All Toronto is ever used for is leverage.
Always. Players dont want to go there