Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Oh, and I'm sure everyone here will appreciate the irony of how it is the likes of Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa that are causing salaries and spending to grow faster than the likes of Dallas, St. Louis and Colorado can sustain.  |
Actually I do!
In all honesty I don't really, I just kinda like the irony. I would like to see a more stable cap, instead of one that grows 5 mill a year. But I guess if this is the reality, it's nice that the roles are reversed.
I don't mind seeing a slightly lower linkage. I think 54% would be fair (actually I think 50% would be the best, I just don't think the players should have to get slammed twice in a row, maybe reduce it slowly over a few CBA's) and I do believe the contract rules need to be tightened up to prevent the player signing until well past their due date just to lower the cap hit/year. But I'll be really pissed if we miss hockey this year again. The owners got what they needed in essence last time. If they can't make it work it's their problem.
The stupid thing is, if there is a lockout, I think it'll hurt the league a lot more than it did last time. 2 lockouts in eight years? They are playing a dangerous game here. They think revenue is bad in southern cities now? Just watch what happens if hockey disappears again. Course then there will be MORE owners in trouble, more franchises that can't make money, and the NHL STILL fighting to make it work in those cities. They are really bringing it on themselves. And that's the essence of my Phoenix argument. That's how it's hurting the league. Sure Glendale is paying the bills now, but that's not stopping the problems, only putting a bandage on a festering wound. Only causing bigger problems down the road.
All this to save a few franchises in a few cities that clearly don't care about them. (Minus a city council without a clue)