|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 28, 2002 19:10:43 GMT -5
And what is wrong with that? If a team can be competitive with a 25 million dollar payroll then so much rthe better for them. In fact, it givews an incentive NOT to hiire expensive mercenaries. Example: If you are the Rangers and Savage is availabe for 3 million but he will cost you 4.5 million, would you hire him? Now another team that gets 5 million in subsidies has that 3 million to help them hire someone like Salvage. Salvage is not the best example because he suck lemon but you get the drift. This system rewards prudence and deflates salaries. I LIKE THAT. What's wrong with it is that it gives teams incentives NOT to ice competitive teams. The mistake you're making in your Savage example is that you're assuming teams would rather spend the 3 mil on Savage than pocket the 5 mil for themselves. Some would, some wouldn't. Your plan makes sense for teams like Ottawa or Edmonton, but it only gives more fodder to teams like Boston, Chicago and Anaheim to continue their penny-pinching ways. The system does not discriminate between those who can't spend and those who can but don't spend, and so it ends up rewarding them all. That is something that can never be done, if not for fiscal purposes than for ideal ones. Besides, isn't the reward for icing a competitive team within a structured budget a reward in itself?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 28, 2002 19:13:17 GMT -5
Wait until you see what I can do with the world economy........... I am always surprised how a team like the Rangers pisss away money. Forthe cost of one Bury they can have two farm teams and a dozen scouts scouring the planet. They sure piss away alot of money, but with the way scouting is in the NHL nowadays everyone's pretty much got the 4 corners of the globe covered. There aren't any secret islands budding with superstar players just waiting to get discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Ranchod on Nov 28, 2002 19:21:39 GMT -5
And I am just as surprised that Glen Slather can miss the playoffs and have sub .500 teams for the last 6-8 years and still have a job. Talk about job security. He keeps doing a crappy job, and the rangers just keep spending more money. Make sense to me. There's no way he can faulted for his first year in NY, the team he inherited was a complete mess and it's impossible to turn around a team like that in one year. Last year, I don't know how much of the blame can be put on his shoulders... he did his job by putting together a team that was good enough to make the playoffs but was killed by horrible performances by Radek Dvorak and Petr Nedved. He was counting on those 2 guys to give them second-line scoring and they didn't. If they wouldn't have just tanked it they would probably have made it. There are other factors involved, like Ron Low's bad coaching, Fleury's distractions and Mike York's perenial 2nd half nose-dive in production, but the 2nd line problem was the main culprit. This year, to me, is the first year where he definitely has to be held accountable if the team falters again. He's had enough time to put his imprint on the team and a good chunk of the ridiculous contracts Smith gave out have since expired. Even if they don't make it to the playoffs this year, which I highly doubt, he's done more good for this team in the past 2 years than Smith did combined since 1994. If you only had to witness the horrible, ridiculous parade of players we went through under Smith and the complete lack of any kind of farm system or prospect development... ugh, terrible. Simply terrible.
|
|