[st_table="45%"][st_tr][st_td_row="2"]
[/st_td_row][st_td]
LittleDavey -
broncoshq.com[/st_td][/st_tr][st_tr][st_td="0.7"]
JOINED: .March 25, 2013
MESSAGES: 1,889
Reaction Score: 2,115[/st_td][/st_tr][/st_table]
And the problem comes in when players take unders to stay at (or go to) successful and/or well-run teams - like Coates taking less money to go to the Storm. By definition, then, the salary cap is NOT working as intended, as it is not levelling the playing field at all, there is still an imbalance.
Is it better than an unmitigated free-for-all? Of course. But it's not a good long-term solution because it is still leading to entrenched 'winners' and 'losers'. Compare and contrast the Storm with the Tigers and tell me the cap is working just fine (I know there's many other factors at play in that comparison but it does illustrate the point).