View Single Post
11-08-2012, 11:47 AM
Fight the Hate
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No, I completely understand that, but I was focusing on a different point. My point is that, regardless of which team is at the Salary Floor, the Floor shouldn't be so low as to make any teams that spend that low virtually automatically uncompetitive. If the Cap Floor is an uncompetitive level then it's simply too low; and allowing teams to spend that low will only result in a further economic downward spiral for those teams.

Yes, whatever the Salary Cap and Floor are, there logically will be teams that will lose money in the end because simply spending to the Floor will be too much for them. However, under no circumstance should that apply to any more than 1/2 the teams in the League. If it applies to more than 1/2 the teams in the League, then the mid-point on which the Cap Ceiling and Floor are based is too high.

Now, continuing again from the point I had been making: Teams losing money because even spending to the Salary Floor is too much, shouldn't equate to teams not being competitive if they only spend to the Salary Floor. So theoretically, a team losing money because even spending to the Salary Floor is too much, but that can be competitive, should be able to generate more revenue as a result of being competitive, and thus not continue (or continually) to be a money losing team.

If the Cap amounts are not horrendously out of reach, and if even spending only to the Salary Floor can still allow a team to be competitive, then one should imagine that there won't always be the same group of teams at the bottom end being the recipients of Revenue Sharing.

To Cont.
If there are teams which are fairly consistently competitive but are always losing money, then those teams are either located in places where hockey isn't sufficiently desired, or the League has a salary system in place which is demanding more to be spent to be competitive than what many teams can afford.

On the flipside, if the salary system is judged to be fair, that teams at the low end can still be competitive and can fairly regularly compete their way out of a position of being revenue sharing recipients, BUT you have one or two teams that never reach that success,... then it's either a case of teams located where there isn't sufficient demand for hockey, or there is poor management running those teams and not giving those teams the opportunity to succeed.

Adding something more:
Take Atlanta... It's quite possible that there was a 3-way negative dynamic going on there:
1) It seems clear that the owners didn't care and as a result the team got poorly managed.
2) Perhaps it's certainly true that the fanbase for hockey isn't that strong there (but hey, the same could be said for many NHL cities).
3) As we've discovered recently, the Salary levels have been simply too high for many teams in the League.

Put that altogether, and perhaps Atlanta (as well as Phoenix) didn't stand a chance in hell. Or alternatively, perhaps Atlanta is a place that just can't support an NHL team.
The problem is you can't divorce this line of reasoning from the central point I'm bringing up. The fact is that when the bottom revenue teams increase their revenue the cap floor goes up -- and thus so does the price of BEING competitive. They can't meet the standard of what it takes to be competitive at least in part because any time they make progress towards that goal, the goalpost moves further away.

The only way any individual low revenue team can get away from this problem is to surpass someone else, and then the focus is on that team and the league as a whole isn't really any better off.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote