View Single Post
10-30-2012, 05:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by kabbott50 View Post
Expansion would water down the product, and give us more teams that eventually need to be moved or contracted. Personally, I think they should move (at least) two teams and contract (at least) two others.
I disagree. What waters down the talent more? Expansion or a salary cap?

You have a finite amount of cap space in the league. The best players get the big contracts, and after that, teams round out their rosters with young (aka CHEAP) players. It squeezes the veteran third-line players out of the league and replaces them with rookies who aren't quite ready for the league.

I think most of the "talent dilution myths" are destroyed by the Islanders. Not that the Islanders are a great team, but they're a great showcase for these concepts.

Guys like Doug Weight, Marty Reasoner and Brian Rolston used to go to better teams giving their grinder lines $2 million. The Islanders never got guys like that. Now, Cup contenders don't have cap space to give their bottom lines $2 million, because their top line, D-pairing and starting goalie is making 70% of their cap space. So they use young guys from the AHL and 35-year olds with playoff experience are out of work.

Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Not appreciably. You could probably find enough talent stuck at the AHL level behind established veterans to field two teams that win 40% of their games at the NHL level almost immediately. I just don't see the dearth of talent in this league that some people claim to see.
The argument goes like this: Fringe NHL players are usually someone who is about 24 or 25, shuffles between AHL/NHL as a depth player, played in about 30 NHL games in his career and scored a handful of goals. Those are not NHL caliber players. Adding two teams to the league means a guy like that is now a significant piece of an NHL team. Who wants to see a team of scrubs like that?

Three years ago, that description fit the Los Angeles Kings' Matt Moulson: 25 years old, 29 career games, 6 goals.
Again, Islanders blow up an expansion dilution myth. Would you say Matt Moulson isn't a capable NHL player? Heck no. They gave him a steady job and he's been a 30-goal scorer all three years on Long Island.

Is he a super-talented, NHL superstar like Ovechkin/Stamkos? Not at all. But not all 700 guys in the league are. There's really not a lot of difference between the 690th-best hockey player in the world and the 736th-best hockey player in the world.

Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
More teams producing profits, means more money available for the RS pool.
Yeah, but raising the average revenue, meaning more teams need more money. This is why median needs to be adopted: More teams making profits would mean more revenue sharing dollars that would raise the bottom of the league; with average, more profits = higher cap/floor, more teams further in the red.

Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yes, but as we've discussed before, it would mean a shift in HRR to use the median revenue... which means a decrease in HRR, which Fehr would never ever accept. They might have been able to get that initially, but to try to do that now will not work.
I don't get why it's a one-way street: If more profits = more revenue sharing; then going to Median would make for more profitable teams, more revenue sharing dollars, more teams SPENDING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SPEND.

And using median might not actually lower the dollars for the NHLPA. Yeah, it's less dollars using median instead of average if you use the same percentage. But why would you use the same percentage?

It was 57% of HRR. The NHL and NHLPA both seem to okay with 50% as long as other conditions apply.

Using 2011 dollars:
50% of HRR using AVG for midpoint = $1,558.5 million to the players
12 teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay into revenue sharing, 10 teams in the middle.

Using 2011 dollars: 53.6% of Adjusted HRR* using MED for midpoint = $1,559.8 million (About the same money).
SIX teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay a lot into revenue sharing, 7 teams can pay a little into revenue sharing, nine teams in the middle.

It lowers the amount of revenue sharing NEEDED and creates more revenue sharing to bump up spending on players. Mission Accomplished.

Last edited by KevFu: 10-30-2012 at 05:28 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote