from Adam Proteau of The Hockey News,

... This attempted crackdown on successful teams who like flexing their financial muscle raises a key debate over the NHL’s business philosophy. And while I was 100 percent behind the league in 2004 (and still am) in its effort to claw back the chasm that existed between the haves-and-have not franchises, I’m also not convinced that 100 percent parity is a great idea, either.

Why shouldn’t teams that have the most fans and interest and are the primary fillers of the league’s coffers also have at least a modicum of ability to benefit on the playing field for their success? Why shouldn’t Leafs GM Brian Burke get what he’s been publicly requesting for years now – the ability to absorb a percentage of the salary of a player he’s trading away? Why isn’t it valid for the PA to suggest the league allow small-market teams to trade a certain percentage of cap room to big-market teams in exchange for financial considerations?

The more Bettman’s negotiating team demands total parity, the less this business resembles the free market most of these team owners desperately demand and crave in the industries that made them multi-millionaires and billionaires and allowed them entry into the owners club. How can they rationalize the transparent hypocrisy in this stance?

more