Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Back in the 80s they used to pay very well, according to the players (salary info is hard to find but I recall some of those guys saying the Flames were among the tops in salaries). In the mid 90s they got cheap and lost players. (see Macinnis).
Kisio was a guy they threw money at in the early 90s.
|
I'd frame it in a different way.
In the 80's the Flames were a have team in the economic climate of the NHL back then. Our pockets allowed us to build the top level teams we did and was an advantage over most of the NHL.
In the 90's when the economics of the game started changing, the Flames very much became a "have not" team (wasn't cheapness, the environment changed). With no salary Cap in place, there was slight risk of losing the team, and it's why we saw the even smaller market Canadian teams (Winnipeg and QC) move.
Thankfully the cap came in and was literally the savior for markets like the Flames. Both in viability and ability to have a shot at competing.
I think what we are seeing now, is over the past 20 years, more and more rights / control has been negotiated by the players, and to someone else point, macro factors (like tax rates) and player preference now mean so much more than they did in the first few seasons of the cap, because the players have more control to action them than they first did. So, what we have now, is SOOO much better than if there was no cap, but it is surfacing up "have" and "have not" scenarios again.
I'm not sure if it skews my view point, but being a Flames fan as a teen in the late 90's, when there was never a hope of competing, and always the looming risk of losing the team, maybe makes me complacent with being just happy we have a hope each year of potentially fielding a team that could do some damage and win if the stars align.