Um, ok...

in 4 years, 11M won't be as much, the cap will increase. In the meantime, they draft and try to develop organically

but in 4 years, Jt will be 32 ans Marner 26... so if they loose Marner because they signed Jt...

They might lose Marner in a trade or to an OS if he remains unreasonable. No biggie, they'll get something good back either way.

But I'd say the logic of your argument on JT impacting Marner's fate is pretty loose...Marner's camp is doing a pretty good job of that all on their own.

I'll never understand why someone like Marner trying to get fair market value is considered "unreasonable". The owners were the ones who locked the players out and forced a salary cap to try to suppress player value.

I'd say because this Marner = 12M narrative isn't based on fair market value, it's based on leveraging a situation for his maximum benefit. or something like that..

I think that's one of the many reasons for a salary cap... Another one is to prevent rich teams like MTL or TML or NYR or CHI from building super teams like in the NBA. Smaller American markets or markets under expansion would not be able to follow them.

The Salary cap is good for the league parity.

I would however, modify it to only include net salary under the cap. Helping Canadian team compete. (its harder to sign players if your state or province tax is 46%

Did TML, MTL, NYR, and CHI dominate pre cap? I mean, post expansion and pre cap, none of those teams were dominant. From 1990-2005 (lockout), they combined for a total of 2 championships. Toronto tried desperately to build super teams, but yeah, that didn't work out so well.

I don't think it's fair to compare the NBA and NHL structures though. NBA superstar talent pool is a heck of a lot thinner than the NHL's. Consider that one superstar changing teams in the NBA shifts both teams dramatically, whereas in the NHL, losing your best player (Say-John Tavares), certainly hurts, but the void can be filled (Isles finish 2nd in Metro).

I do think the "league parity" excuse is pretty funny though. Is there really more league parity? From 1992-2004, there were 8 different cup champs, and 13 different runners up (3 of whom won a cup) From 2006-2018, there have been a total of 8 different champs, and 13 different runners up (3 of whom won a cup). If the argument is for the jumbled up chase for 2 wild card spots per conference, sure, that happened a bit, but how much of that is a result of the mercy OTL/SOL points handed out?

There's no cap in MLB. There have been 9 different champions in the past 11 years. Considering there are only 10 playoff spots (Up from 8 a few years ago), that's pretty impressive. Last years playoffs included the #1,3,4,7,11,15,16,21,28 and 29th ranked payrolls. IMO, that's the definition of parity.

Poor management shouldn't be an excuse to suppress player value.