HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

One hole in the salary cap argument

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-23-2004, 09:27 AM
  #26
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
The other option is to maintain their payroll at $35 million, with the money going towards re-signing and obtaining more players
so how does a 35m cap help teams that can even afford a 25m payroll (PIT) ? How does a cap of 35m help a team like CGY and EDM and CRL and so on ? They all are currently under 25m and except for the case of CRL, they already play to a capacity audience, so dont use the "better chance of winning makes them money" line.

so ...

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 09:35 AM
  #27
pensfan13186
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 23
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
Any team with a 30m payroll today wont see it decreased enough under a cap to make them from money losers to money makers. A cap will only help the big market teams make more money, it wont help the teams currently losing money one bit.
Actually it will help the other teams. With the big market teams unable to spend large sums of money on UFAs, then the small market teams, like the Penguins, will be more competitive and have better ticket sales and local t.v. contracts which equals more money. As for the alreadysold out option, if the team is better they can raise ticket prices and maintain the same attendence.

pensfan13186 is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 09:48 AM
  #28
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensfan13186
Actually it will help the other teams. With the big market teams unable to spend large sums of money on UFAs, then the small market teams, like the Penguins, will be more competitive and have better ticket sales and local t.v. contracts which equals more money. As for the alreadysold out option, if the team is better they can raise ticket prices and maintain the same attendence.
Theres no sense explaining if someone cannot understand a salary cap would also require revenue sharing.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 10:12 AM
  #29
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
so how does a 35m cap help teams that can even afford a 25m payroll (PIT) ? How does a cap of 35m help a team like CGY and EDM and CRL and so on ? They all are currently under 25m and except for the case of CRL, they already play to a capacity audience, so dont use the "better chance of winning makes them money" line.

so ...

dr
The same principle applies. The Walz example may not have been the best example ( I took the smallest payroll team I could think of, and first UFA player on that team I could think of), however, keep in mind, that the current salary market is being heavily influenced by the "threat" of a cap, and certain players are willing to accept what would otherwise be a lower than market deal in order for the job security.

A $35 mil cap still helps out a $25 mil team. The cost of players still gets influenced. The same principles apply, where if the Pens had any free agents, that many teams that would otherwise be interested in those players, wouldn't be able to bid on them due to lack of cap room. Less buyers equals reduced demand, which equals lower salary.

On top of that, the are indirect benefits to those lower market teams. Under a $35 mil cap, teams will need to be careful to not overpay players. For example, you wouldn't see some of the RFA players receive abnormally large contracts, such as the one Pronger received a few years ago, which had a trickle down affect on a lot of defencmen. Contracts such as those had an inflationary effect on all other RFA's due to the use of arbitration. With less instances of those cases, you'll see lower arbitrator awards, and more importantly, lower expectations of players heading into RFA, who will be willing to settle at lower contract amounts.

Based on fundamental economic principles, a cap will lower the payrolls of all teams. The real issue at hand is whether it will help enough, and whether the change in the competitive landscape will be good for the game.


Last edited by discostu: 03-23-2004 at 10:29 AM.
discostu is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 10:23 AM
  #30
kyle
Registered User
 
kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
small problem with your example. We Walz did sign a contract for around 2m per season and there is no cap.

Are you suggesting he would have signed for 1m if a cap was in place ?

Any team with a 30m payroll today wont see it decreased enough under a cap to make them from money losers to money makers. A cap will only help the big market teams make more money, it wont help the teams currently losing money one bit.

DR
Take a look at Pittsburgh. Let's say there is a $35 million hard salary cap in place. They have automatically become a competitive team. Why? When players' contracts are up and they become UFA, they don't automatically go to Detroit or New York or Washington (teams with money). If they want a big contract, they have to sign with whoever has cap room.

This makes the primary factor in contract signing cap room, not ownership's pocketbook. Since each team is now in control of how much cap room they have, there is no "edge" to being Detroit over Pittsburgh.

kyle is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 11:36 AM
  #31
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Theres no sense explaining if someone cannot understand a salary cap would also require revenue sharing.
the owners dont need the players to agree for them to have revenue sharing. they can give their money to whoever they want.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 12:20 PM
  #32
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle
Take a look at Pittsburgh. Let's say there is a $35 million hard salary cap in place. They have automatically become a competitive team. Why? When players' contracts are up and they become UFA, they don't automatically go to Detroit or New York or Washington (teams with money). If they want a big contract, they have to sign with whoever has cap room.

This makes the primary factor in contract signing cap room, not ownership's pocketbook. Since each team is now in control of how much cap room they have, there is no "edge" to being Detroit over Pittsburgh.
I agree, and to top that off, if they really want to go to Detroit, they'll sign for less ala Kariya & the Avs, further not driving up the salaries.

I still say I like my idea of the homegrown player cap though, because it would allow more flexibility in the cap at this point. It'd save teams like Ottawa from being dismanted because they drafted well. I think you should encourage the skills in the game, whether it be on the ice or at the draft board.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 12:22 PM
  #33
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the owners dont need the players to agree for them to have revenue sharing. they can give their money to whoever they want.
In the end, the owners in the league need to realize a healthy league means a healthy wallet. Sure some teams like the Rangers and Leafs might not have to worry about money, but if the league went down the tubes, they would be left hurting as well. The stronger the league is overall, the foundation, the stronger each team will end up too.

This is extreme, but say things stay the same, 1/2 the teams in the league fold in 10 years time, are the Rangers going to be making nearly the same amount of money on their team in a 15 team league as they do now? I wouldn't think so, because the overall health of the sport would be in decline. Less people in Memphis buying Rangers jerseys, etc.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 12:29 PM
  #34
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I agree, and to top that off, if they really want to go to Detroit, they'll sign for less ala Kariya & the Avs, further not driving up the salaries.

I still say I like my idea of the homegrown player cap though, because it would allow more flexibility in the cap at this point. It'd save teams like Ottawa from being dismanted because they drafted well. I think you should encourage the skills in the game, whether it be on the ice or at the draft board.
I think most teams in today's NHL would be dismantled and that's what would create the parity. However, the reason this works in the NFL and doesn't work in the NHL is very simple.

There is an ENDLESS pool of talent in football. A team can pick 3 players in the draft/free agency and be a contender again, while the 3 vets they releases go to 3 different teams and help those teams compete. In the NHL, there simply isn't enough high end talent in the pool to create such a system. With this type of system every team would have a really solid top line and 3 ****ty lines behind it because there just isn't enough talent to go around. Every team would be a hard, grinding team and the only difference would be who coaches the team and how they trap..

ArtG is online now  
Old
04-10-2004, 04:15 PM
  #35
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
looks like I won this argument..

ArtG is online now  
Old
04-11-2004, 01:43 AM
  #36
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 33,200
vCash: 500
Of course big market teams' fans(be they big market through deep pocketed owners or location) would want the system as it is whether in the NHL or in Baseball. Small market teams' fans would want the opposite, no fun losing year in year out or having to hit the equivilent of the lottery to win. The answer lies in what is best for the sports. And sorry, but 70% - 80% of teams per se will not be in big markets. Unless you want to have leagues in baseball or hockey that have 4-6 teams each, which inevitably will happen when the small market fans wise up and realize that they are paying big time prices to support winning in 20% of the markets, and it ain't theirs . . . then you need to not look at the sport through so selfish a lense. True, it might actually make the Yankees and Boston in baseball, the Detroits and Colorados in hockey to actually compete on an even playing field and have to use a brain or two to maintain an edge . . . horrors . . . but that's the breaks. Until sports start thinking for the good of the game rather than of the individual teams who have a huge advantage over the others, then baseball currently, and hockey is heading there, will be no more an actual sport than the average harlem globetrotter - washington general's game. So question is, can hockey be brighter than baseball ever will be or are the Detroits of the world too unconfident to compete on a level playing field where scouting, Cap management and brains factor in? After all how many brains does it take to open a check book. Hmmm, thinking about the Rags of late, strike that. But you know what I mean.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
04-11-2004, 03:47 PM
  #37
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
You can't compare the NHL to the NFL though in terms of salary structure. Truth of the matter is that the NFL has proved that salary caps and revenue sharing work. How else would Green Bay and Buffalo manage to keep their teams. I mean, they aren't major centers and are small markets. As for this whole "good teams" get taken apart and mediocrity stuff, it's garbage. Truth of the matter is that good teams will pay good money for good players. That's the thing with a salary cap. The NHLPA doesn't want a salary cap because bottom feeder players right now get good money. With a salary cap, that will no longer be the case. A salary cap and revenue sharing will mean that teams who aren't in big markets will be able to compete with their big market rivals in terms of signing players and having the money to do so. The fact that this will benefit everyone is only a good thing.

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.