Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Because all it does is widen the gap in salary between the top players and the role players, and I personally just don't think that the gap in salary matches the gap in team contributions.
If Anze Kopitar and Jeff Carter each made 12 mil, would they be able to keep/get Williams, Stoll, Gaborik, Brown, Richards, etc..? Can you possibly have enough young players to suppliment those roles and offense? Pretty tough to expect 20 year olds to do Williams or Stoll's job just because you have to pay your top 2-3 players the majority of your cap.
Is there a difference in lifestyle that occurs between the $7-8mil salary range and the $10-12 that I'm not seeing? Is it worth potentially giving up successful seasons and championships?
|
They've won two cups. They'll be a good team if they sign for big bucks as the cap goes up.
I just don't see why people expect the best players to take less while having no issue with the fact that most of the savings is wasted on signing middling depth guys who end up overpaid.
Glencross took less money to stay with the Flames. Now the team is barely spending over the minimum so all the savings he gave to the team is just lining the owners pockets.
If I'm worth $12 million dollars/year, I want to get paid $12 million/year. If management can't figure out how to build a winning team with that situation, then get a better management team who can.
EDIT: here's the top cap hits right now -
http://capgeek.com/leaders/?type=CAP_HIT Anaheim has two of the top 10 and manage to be very good. Rangers have two of the top 11 and made the finals. I see no correlation between having no high cap hits and being a good team.