Would a cap help the Pens?
Brunt thinks a cap would not:
"The Penguins, now that Straka's gone, have payroll obligations for this season totalling $22.6-million (all figures U.S.), the lowest in the league -- and about $10-million below the hard cap figure that Gary Bettman and company dream about. After Lemieux, their best-paid player earns $1.5-million -- a little more than a quarter million dollars under the league average. So the notion that the Penguins have been forced by the system to spend their way into poverty, especially when a quarter of their payroll is deposited directly into one of the owners' bank accounts, seems a bit of a stretch.
It's a gate-driven league, and right now not enough people are willing to pony up, at least at current prices, for a product they don't find overly desirable."
I don't know if he is quite right.
He is looking at the current situation and not the events that led to their fall. Imagine three years ago - 2000/1, a cap is in place at $35 million, and the team has Jagr, Kovalev, Lang, Lemieux, Straka, and Hrdina.
What would the team look like today?
Would the salary pressures of Jagr, Kovalev, and Lang that forced them into making those horrible deals have existed if teams had to abide by the cap?
To say that the fans are disenchanted now, because of the existing roster, is a simplification. They have been beaten over the head over the last three years. Putting a cap in place now will not help the Pens this year, or next, but would it help the Senators or Canucks as their payroll increases with the age of their core?
"The Penguins, now that Straka's gone, have payroll obligations for this season totalling $22.6-million (all figures U.S.), the lowest in the league -- and about $10-million below the hard cap figure that Gary Bettman and company dream about. After Lemieux, their best-paid player earns $1.5-million -- a little more than a quarter million dollars under the league average. So the notion that the Penguins have been forced by the system to spend their way into poverty, especially when a quarter of their payroll is deposited directly into one of the owners' bank accounts, seems a bit of a stretch.
It's a gate-driven league, and right now not enough people are willing to pony up, at least at current prices, for a product they don't find overly desirable."
I don't know if he is quite right.
He is looking at the current situation and not the events that led to their fall. Imagine three years ago - 2000/1, a cap is in place at $35 million, and the team has Jagr, Kovalev, Lang, Lemieux, Straka, and Hrdina.
What would the team look like today?
Would the salary pressures of Jagr, Kovalev, and Lang that forced them into making those horrible deals have existed if teams had to abide by the cap?
To say that the fans are disenchanted now, because of the existing roster, is a simplification. They have been beaten over the head over the last three years. Putting a cap in place now will not help the Pens this year, or next, but would it help the Senators or Canucks as their payroll increases with the age of their core?
