Not really. The point of the cap system is to make the traditionally lesser-spending teams more revenue. Those teams make more money by winning more games and therefore there is parity in the league. My point wasn't really about parity, but that a rapidly increasing salary cap creates an artificial over-inflation of player values and makes the league look silly by annually having to adjust the cap to compensate for spendthrift GMs. Granted, the cap has done some good overall, but needs to be re-worked in the next CBA.
The point of the salary cap is to create a level playing field, where big-market, big-revenue teams like DET and NYR can't simply open their vaults and outspend small market teams every time a marquee player enters the free agent market. While all teams are bound by their own financial constraints, the cap ensures there is a minimum and maximum amount each team is allowed to spend on players. I think what you are talking about is revenue sharing, where some money is pooled together from the richer teams and distributed to the poorer teams. That's what gives them more money to spend.
The salary cap is tied directly to league revenues (how much money the league brings in through ticket sales, merchandise sales, television contracts, etc. It is adjusted up or down every year bases on these revenues. The players collectively earn 57% of all money the league brings in. The cap is DESIGNED to be adjusted every year! If the cap was still at $39M, the players would only be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% of revenues, not 57% like they are supposed to.
I will go as far as saying that the salary cap saved the NHL. Without it, we'd probably be looking at a 16 team league.
- Z and D for the C likes this