HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

kinda ot- time to change the salary cap system?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-27-2008, 02:34 PM
  #1
TheHotRock
Registered User
 
TheHotRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
kinda ot- time to change the salary cap system?

maybe, witht he emergence of the khl, its time to change the salary cap system to allow teams with deep pockets to spend? i'm thinking somehting like what baseball has....luxury tax and revenue sharing. if you're the nhl, would you rather a small market lose a big star to russia or to a bigger nhl market? a luxury tax spread around to smaller market teams doesn't seem like a bad idea. the cap ceiling at 55 mil is perfect...but if a team like the rangers, toronto, montreal, philly etc want to exceed that, they should be allowed to, for the benefit of the league, with a dollar for dollar luxury tax. it makes sense to me and i think most fans in smaller markets would agree with me. you'd rather see the big superstar come back to your town with a big market team than watch videos of him on youtube with a yaroslavl jersey on, right?

thoughts?

TheHotRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 02:57 PM
  #2
Burlington Bomb 26
Louie Louie Oh oh
 
Burlington Bomb 26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Green Mountain State
Country: United States
Posts: 16,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHotRock View Post
maybe, witht he emergence of the khl, its time to change the salary cap system to allow teams with deep pockets to spend? i'm thinking somehting like what baseball has....luxury tax and revenue sharing. if you're the nhl, would you rather a small market lose a big star to russia or to a bigger nhl market? a luxury tax spread around to smaller market teams doesn't seem like a bad idea. the cap ceiling at 55 mil is perfect...but if a team like the rangers, toronto, montreal, philly etc want to exceed that, they should be allowed to, for the benefit of the league, with a dollar for dollar luxury tax. it makes sense to me and i think most fans in smaller markets would agree with me. you'd rather see the big superstar come back to your town with a big market team than watch videos of him on youtube with a yaroslavl jersey on, right?

thoughts?

Yeah but if big market teams are allowed to exceed the cap then small market teams wont be able to hold on to their star player. The big market teams would be no bette rthan the KHL

Burlington Bomb 26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 02:57 PM
  #3
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,054
vCash: 500
I was alway for..

a different system, especially one that would enable the league to not cancel the season and would be equitable to everybody. But, it's in place now and I don't think it's time to go to back to the drawing board - there would be way too much resistance and you'll never get it accomplished. Plus, I think I'd rather see how this one plays out. Normally I hate to be reactive, but in this case I'm willing to be. That's competition - it happens, and I don't think the loss of a few top players will really paint the picture of the NHL being a lesser league.

Fletch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 03:06 PM
  #4
TheHotRock
Registered User
 
TheHotRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblegumGang184434 View Post
Yeah but if big market teams are allowed to exceed the cap then small market teams wont be able to hold on to their star player. The big market teams would be no bette rthan the KHL
tell that to gary bettman, you know what i mean?

i'm sure he'd much rather make money off a guy like Kovalchuk than let the khl do it.

TheHotRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 03:13 PM
  #5
Forechecker
Registered User
 
Forechecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Forechecker
You know, I think they should institute an NBA-like pay your superstar whatever he wants kind of clause. Let the Penguins pay ONE player on their team up to 25%? 30%? 40% (yikes)? of the salary cap WITHOUT it hitting the cap. That would allow teams to build around their young studs, and keep butts in the seats. A team could offer this contract only to a player who's been on their team for the majority of their most recent contract.

Forechecker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 03:15 PM
  #6
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
You know, I think they should institute an NBA-like pay your superstar whatever he wants kind of clause. Let the Penguins pay ONE player on their team up to 25%? 30%? 40% (yikes)? of the salary cap WITHOUT it hitting the cap. That would allow teams to build around their young studs, and keep butts in the seats. A team could offer this contract only to a player who's been on their team for the majority of their most recent contract.
Not a bad idea really. MLS does the same thing with the Beckham rule.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 03:33 PM
  #7
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
The cap rule is ridiculous, if you are in NHL and you cant compete payrollwise, then you need to get out. There are way too many teams in the NHL anyway, 24 was plenty. Anyway, as Ranger fans know already, just because you can spend the most money doesn't guarantee you anything.

bubba5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 04:19 PM
  #8
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubba5 View Post
The cap rule is ridiculous, if you are in NHL and you cant compete payrollwise, then you need to get out. There are way too many teams in the NHL anyway, 24 was plenty. Anyway, as Ranger fans know already, just because you can spend the most money doesn't guarantee you anything.
Exactly. You still have to win. Look at the Yankees. They spend more money than anyone but dont win every year. You can spend all the money in the world but you still need the players to execute.

John Torturella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 04:20 PM
  #9
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
The overall cap needs to go up, & I think there should be a system similar to the NBA's that allows you to sign the teams tier 1 players & allows sign & trade deals.
Bottom line teams need to spend wisely.
No changes will be made until the next CBA.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2008, 04:55 PM
  #10
TheHotRock
Registered User
 
TheHotRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
i am a huge proponent of the idea of a luxury tax. wether it comes in the form of a soft cap (nba style) or if it comes mlb style where a team can just go out and spend. first of all, you have the khl issue and second, i pay a lot more money for my tickets than the guy in nashville or atlanta...my team should be allowed to spend more.

TheHotRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 12:38 PM
  #11
ogie
Registered User
 
ogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Staten Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHotRock View Post
i am a huge proponent of the idea of a luxury tax. wether it comes in the form of a soft cap (nba style) or if it comes mlb style where a team can just go out and spend. first of all, you have the khl issue and second, i pay a lot more money for my tickets than the guy in nashville or atlanta...my team should be allowed to spend more.
the worst part of that is us spending more money on tickets means that the cap goes up each year for all teams... so us paying more means teams like atlanta and nash have more room to spend on superstar players no one will ever get to watch.

i think the hitch to the whole salary cap issue will come in a few years when the minimum is so high smaller market teams will have trouble meeting that.

ogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 02:00 PM
  #12
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I'd like to see a discounted cap hit on contracts with a team's drafted players. As in, the Rangers would receive an 80% (or 66% or whatever) hit on any and every contract Dawes signs while they would be charged the entire 100% on traded and FA players.

This helps the lower teams sign and re-sign their high draft picks while the money making teams can use their assets towards scouts or towards the 100% hit on acquired players. Anything beyond this is unnecessary. The 'poorer' teams wanted this system and now they have to live with it. They took the ball and went home when they didn't get their way (as if the GMs don't ultimately control salaries) so I could care less if anyone loses players because of our current system that they demanded.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 02:19 PM
  #13
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHotRock View Post
it makes sense to me and i think most fans in smaller markets would agree with me. you'd rather see the big superstar come back to your town with a big market team than watch videos of him on youtube with a yaroslavl jersey on, right?
I strongly disagree with this part.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 02:22 PM
  #14
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by motime42 View Post
Exactly. You still have to win. Look at the Yankees. They spend more money than anyone but dont win every year. You can spend all the money in the world but you still need the players to execute.
You may not always win if you have the largest payroll but you will more than likely make the playoffs. The small market teams who win once in a while usually fall off the map after they win while the big spenders usually compete every year. There is a very distinct advantage to spending the most on payroll.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 04:06 PM
  #15
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,818
vCash: 500
I think the league would like nothing more than having one or two big name stars go off on their own to a bigger payday. There's not enough money for it to be a goldrush. It solididfies the logic behind the salary cap and the defectors will be back.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 05:25 PM
  #16
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
I think the league would like nothing more than having one or two big name stars go off on their own to a bigger payday. There's not enough money for it to be a goldrush. It solididfies the logic behind the salary cap and the defectors will be back.
I'm not sure about that. I don't think the NHL loved Bobby Hull running off to the WHL. It gave that league vaibility and a name. It didn't go head to head with the NHL necessarily but it took some of the market from them and in the end, 4 owners and a good number of players made out and in my opinion beat the NHL.

The world is a smaller place today and the NHL obviously has its eyes set on Europe. Just look at how they are opening the season over there 2 years in a row and this year is twice as large as last. There's a huge European contingent playing here and the potential is enourmous. If the KHL sets up shop, steals a few dozen stars, and establishes itself as a legitimate league, it'll be a nightmare of the NHL. Forget about Europe, the proximity and time zones will certainly make the NHL a much more desireable option for fans and probably for upcoming players as well. The KHL can steal the up and comers we need to fill the shoes for a large number of retiring stars and to fill seats in 30 buildings.

If the KHL can steal enough young players, all of the European leagues will band together and tear up the transfer agreement... probably forcing a five to ten-fold increase in compensation. I'm sure some here have a working knowledge of how soccer deals with players moving between leagues... I highly doubt the NHL wants to adopt that standard which European countries are more than comfortable with at this point.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2008, 10:25 PM
  #17
rickyrod
Registered User
 
rickyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
If the Euro leagues, Russia in particular, can really take a bite out of the incoming talent, contraction can't be too far behind. There is barely enough talent right now to service 30 teams through an 82+ game schedule. It's either contraction or more ham-and-eggers clogging up the league pipes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
You know, I think they should institute an NBA-like pay your superstar whatever he wants kind of clause. Let the Penguins pay ONE player on their team up to 25%? 30%? 40% (yikes)? of the salary cap WITHOUT it hitting the cap. That would allow teams to build around their young studs, and keep butts in the seats. A team could offer this contract only to a player who's been on their team for the majority of their most recent contract.
This idea was floated already during the lockout. I can't remember if it was a pundit suggestion or an actual nhl/nhlpa suggestion. Either way, neither side went for it.


Last edited by rickyrod: 05-29-2008 at 10:30 PM.
rickyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 11:19 AM
  #18
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
Free market = America

Salary cap = form of communism

Bottom line

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 11:28 AM
  #19
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmessier011 View Post
Free market = America

Salary cap = form of communism

Bottom line
Guess you're against the hockey draft as well because under your definition that would be Communism.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 11:35 AM
  #20
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Guess you're against the hockey draft as well because under your definition that would be Communism.
don't forget restricted free agency, and Entry Level Contracts, and Profit sharing.

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 12:50 PM
  #21
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Or the concept of 1 Stanley Cup that all winners share as a collective. Ah, the NHL: as bent a stick blade and as hard as the ice it is played on. Workers revolt!

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 02:00 PM
  #22
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Guess you're against the hockey draft as well because under your definition that would be Communism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
don't forget restricted free agency, and Entry Level Contracts, and Profit sharing.
Yes, I AM against profit sharing and entry level contracts. Am I a bad person because of this? Why should the Yankees have to give money to the Marlins when they won't spend money on their team. Should I apologize because the Rangers sell out every game? It's basically what you do when you share revenues. Why should great rookies be capped at $900,000 when the market value of some are $4,5,6 million? So we can lose them to Russia? Restricted free agency is fine because teams have the option of nabbing players from other teams and paying them whatever they want. There's free market, like American capitalism, then there's the NHL, so far from it, it's sad. If Nashville can't compete in the hockey open market, they shouldn't exist, and be pardoned from their inability to compete in the United States by way of the lockout that ****ed an entire season and perhaps permanently ****ed the league up in America.

I'm sorry I'm not sorry, its the way our country has and always should work.

nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 02:08 PM
  #23
DontStepanMe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Queens, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyrmessier011 View Post
Yes, I AM against profit sharing and entry level contracts. Am I a bad person because of this? Why should the Yankees have to give money to the Marlins when they won't spend money on their team. Should I apologize because the Rangers sell out every game? It's basically what you do when you share revenues. Why should great rookies be capped at $900,000 when the market value of some are $4,5,6 million? So we can lose them to Russia? Restricted free agency is fine because teams have the option of nabbing players from other teams and paying them whatever they want. There's free market, like American capitalism, then there's the NHL, so far from it, it's sad.
you just completely contradicted yourself. teams don't have the option of paying whatever they want b/c they have to give up picks which makes their value lower than what it actually should be. Hence RESTRICTED. the NHL would be more captialistic if everybody would be unrestricted free agents after EVERY SINGLE SEASON. Than everybody would get what they were actually worth and you can bid on any player w/o repercussions. Not just bid on a few who are let out.

And actually the truest sense of capitalism for the NHL would be the player being an unrestricted FA after each day. You know like in the real world. I don't like my job (team) so I quit and go to another one tomorrow. Would you want that?

DontStepanMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2008, 03:52 PM
  #24
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,347
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225 View Post
you just completely contradicted yourself. teams don't have the option of paying whatever they want b/c they have to give up picks which makes their value lower than what it actually should be. Hence RESTRICTED. the NHL would be more captialistic if everybody would be unrestricted free agents after EVERY SINGLE SEASON. Than everybody would get what they were actually worth and you can bid on any player w/o repercussions. Not just bid on a few who are let out.

And actually the truest sense of capitalism for the NHL would be the player being an unrestricted FA after each day. You know like in the real world. I don't like my job (team) so I quit and go to another one tomorrow. Would you want that?
I didn't contradict myself at all.

In terms of your last question, it applies typically for any job you enter in terms of competition clauses. Crosby can't just quit the Penguins and play for the Rangers, just like somebody can't quit Merrill Lynch and advise the same clients at another firm for a 12 month period (or whatever is stated in their contract). Crosby can quit and play golf for a living though, with no problem.

In terms of RFAs, obviously there is some measure in the league to keep them with their current teams. This is fine, this isn't pure capitalism, or is it communism or whatever I stated earlier.

But what I'm talking about is telling owners of a business how much money they are allowed to spend on talent. Does the government cap the brewing industry on how much they are allowed to pay brewmasters because Anheiser-Busch is just dominating the market with their delicious beer because they have the most talented brewmasters?

If Coors were to complain that there just aren't any good brewmasters out there for what they can afford what do you think would happen? Nothing, because thats business. If you have 12,000 fans per game, take a ****ing risk, buy some talent (players) and try to win. If you can't be successful even if you win, move out of your **** market. If I don't have any customers buying ice cream at the North pole, I'd move to Florida.


Last edited by nyrmessier011: 05-30-2008 at 03:58 PM.
nyrmessier011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:26 PM.

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.