me2 said:
The $49m million slides the entire payscale up. Every team goes up through arbitration and other salary equalisation strategies. Why do you think Goodenow is so keen on a higher cap when he knows the vast majority of the teams aren't likely to spend more than $42.5m anyway?
Its not hard to see through the ruse.
I thought the NHL teams lost hundreds of millions of dollars the last two years... That's your idea of fiscally responsible?
let's assume that the financials are accurate - would this not be more indicative of a revenue side problem than a cost problem?
i have another question though that i think is worth exploring: many fans of small market teams complain that they simply cannot compete with their large market brethren. the argument rests on the notion that more money implies a greater ability to acquire free agent players, thereby ensuring a more competitive on-ice product. implicit in that argument is a strong, almost definite causal relationship between how much a club spends on player salaries to that club's on-ice performance. in that vein, i wonder if my small-market friends can explain why tampa bay (payroll $34,065,379) beat calgary (payroll $36,402,575), who in turn beat san jose (payroll $34,455,000) to advance to the cup finals? explain why a team that was on the verge on bankruptcy, (ottawa, payroll $39,590,000) is widely considered a model NHL franchise? why is new jersey (payroll $48,931,658) considered by most to rival the new england patriots as being the most well-run professional sports franchise? how has minnesota's wild (payroll $27,200,500) achieved so much success in its brief existence? why is atlanta (payroll $28,547,500) on the verge of entering the "competitive" phase of the team development cycle? what of nashville (payroll $21,932,500)? how were they not only able to qualify for the playoffs but provide such stiff competition to detroit (payroll $77,856,109)? why have the rangers failed to make the playoffs in 7 years? why have toronto, philadelphia, and st.louis been unable to win championships, or even qualify for a cup finals appearance despite their inflated salary structures? and why is it almost an unwritten rule in the NHL that any team can beat any other team on any given night, regardless of their total payroll differential?
we know that large market teams drive up wage rates in the UFA market, that is indisputable. but i challenge the underlying assertion that the ability of a club to compete and even contend, is determined primarily by how much they spend (of course for clubs like pittsburg and buffalo that is certainly the case). if the goal is to allow ALL clubs to retain their talent, why isn't more emphasis placed on reforming the ELS, arbitration and qualifier systems, the primary drivers of NHL salary inflation? if the goal is to allow small-market clubs to compete with the large-market clubs in the UFA market, then why not embrace a system that harshly penalizes those large-market clubs who do spend recklessly by forcing them to have to funnel money directly to their small-market rivals? i don't for the life of me understand by this board doesn't openly embrace a hybrid system, or perhaps even one that places a cap on UFA spending?