View Single Post
08-10-2012, 08:15 AM
Culture Changer
Herby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,838
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by driller1 View Post
I don't agree with the sentiment that it's a bad deal for owners. At all.

It's a bad deal for some small market owners, but I would argue it benefits over 2/3rds of the owners. The biggest owners win the most. The salary cap essentially means they can't do what the Yankees do in baseball, and buy a superstar team. Yet their revenue remains the same, hence they profited the most. The middle third of owners benefit because there's more parity. They have don't have higher costs in terms of player salaries, but do benefit from parity driven by the salary cap making their team more competitive. The bottom third struggles because they do not enjoy higher revenues yet must meet the cap floor. It's the bottom third that needs to be supported.
I think your numbers are way off though. In regards to how many teams are losing money. According to Forbes it was 18 of the 30 teams. And that was before the increase in both the cap ceiling and floor and the wacky contracts being handed out this summer to very average players.

The NHL would not risk another work stoppage (which is going to be a PR disaster) to nickle and dime the players, and they would not risk one if this system benefited 2/3 of owners like you suggest.

This system is horribly flawed and they aren't close on the numbers. With Fehr in charge of the NHLPA this could be really ugly.

Herby is offline