Manton wrote:

---

Reported by TSN, an arbitrator awarded him the 5 mil which is one mil more than the Devils offer but 2 mil less than what Gomez wanted.

---

I mean he is good, but he isn't worth the 7 million he wanted and not really worth the 5 million he was awarded.  I would have gave him 4 million tops.

I say lower the cap, and free it at 40 mil. Players who want big contracts will either not play, or be stuck a **** team.

here i go again , the lockout accomplished alot . look how toronto , newyork detroit and dallas are spending , the same as the habs , not 40 million more . for the last time people the lockout / salary cap is not to limit the players salaries its to limit team spending , the fact its called a salary cap is a misnomer it should be called a payrool cap as noone can be above 44 mil. do you think jersey would be worried about the arbitrator if there was no cap , no they would have given gomes his 5 long ago , plus signed gionta to 4 more , and who knows who else they would sign , now thanks to the cap teams , not individuals are finding it hard to stay under the cap if they are going to be stupid about spending like jersey .

niller my logic is ill give you 44million dollars to spend on a team , you go sign thornton, jagr and all the big price guys you want , now when you get to the cap stop , how many people do you have on you team 10-12 . in a few years this cap system will sort out and teams will be better at managing it so it will play out evenly in the end .

; : ' " ? . , there you go now put them where you think they should be .

thanks habber

Nil d wrote:

---

macneil wrote: here i go again , the lockout accomplished alot . look how toronto , newyork detroit and dallas are spending , the same as the habs , not 40 million more . for the last time people the lockout / salary cap is not to limit the players salaries its to limit team spending ....... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So are you saying that while the top players are still getting the big salaries, the overall team cap causes the lower players to get less?  (Otherwise where would the money to pay the top guys come from?) I have a hard time following your logic, which is compounded by your continued reluctance to get acquainted with my old friend, Punctuation.............  

---

Nilsey- you hit the nail on the head. All the lockout accomplished was making it so the elite players on each team made big money. By elite, I say the top 5. After that it goes downhill because teams run out of cap space. If I am a middle of the road player like, say a Ryder, I am totally pissed at the new CBA. There is increased emphasis on arbitration now and you will see more and more players going that route at the urgings of their agents (just look at the awards). So you go the route of the Habs or Sabres. You develop from within. In about 4 years your young guns have matured and they take their one run at the Cup (see Sabres and Oilers last year). Players values skyrocket because of the team's success and the "young guns" go to arbitration or UFA and whammo..their teams can no longer afford them.

I think Gainey is going the right way developing within. But let's not kid ourselves. Once the kids like Perazhogan, Higgins, Chyp, Latendresse etc mature and become the players we all hope they will be, Montreal will get once chance at the cup..then start rebuilding.

In a sense it reminds me alot of Major Junior. You build a team for 3 -4 years, you get your shot, and then you start over. Having said that, yes of course it has evenened teh playing field to an extent. Everyone is in the same boat. The Torontos can no longer open the vault. But in the long run did the medicine treat and cure the illness? Not by a long shot.