[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i happen to think comparing payroll to winning percentage is a poor means of analysis as well. considering that if you have a good team (ie win alot) you will have good players and therefore be required to pay them as such.

In other words: In order to win, you have to spend a ton of money. That is a very self defeating argument.

i disagree that whether you make it to the finals is a poor look into the results of a team. who cares if you win 50 games or 30 games, all that matters in pro sports is if you win your last (playoff) game.

Of course you disagree. To agree would also defeat your argument.

by that measure, the money spent by PHI, TOR and NYR (as three of the biggest spenders) gave them no more advantage than teams that build differently (ie BUF, WSH, ANA, TBY and CRL).

I like how you mention all of the small market teams that came out of nowhere to make the finals once, while only mentioning the large market teams that didnt. Why do you ignore the Stars, the Avs and the Red Wings, hmmmm? Perhaps because it defeats your argument?

Take those five small spending teams (and it is charitable to put Washington into this group), and add Calgary as a freebie and match them up agianst the six big spending teams: Toronto, Philly, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and New York (I'll even give you this team). Now tell me how many times each group made the playoffs in the last CBA. How many times each group made the finals. How many times each group won the Cup.

i say, let NYR blow their money, it gives them ZERO advantage and history has proven me correct. i see nothing wrong with them having an 80m payroll and CRL having a 25m payroll, as it created no advantage for NYR.

No amount of money can overcome gross incompetence. One team that spent a decade making horrible decisions does not prove your point.

What about Detroit? Colorado? Dallas? Hmmmm?

anyhow, i know the battle is lost, i just wanted to show further real life proof that money doesnt buy championships, yet most people still want to live in hypothetical world, despite the evidence proving me correct over and over again.

Actually, the evidence proves you wrong over and over again. You simply choose to ignore anything that opposes your cause. A terrible debate strategy, as it only makes you look like a fool.