What do you guys think about it? I think it's a load of crap. The Chicago Blackhawks are in a big market yet they don't spend money. What does that show? That it's really up to the owner. It makes me sick when I see that idiot Boston owner voice opposition about our current economic structure while he spends about half of what he could on that franchise. When he does spend money, he spends a lot of it on losers like Martin Lapointe. *Shrugs* Oh well.
The Chicago Blackhawks are in a big market yet they don't spend money. What does that show? That it's really up to the owner. It makes me sick when I see that idiot Boston owner voice opposition about our current economic structure while he spends about half of what he could on that franchise.
Bryan
True. But for everyone of those cheap teams, there are teams that legitimately cant afford to be competative. Such as the EDM and Calgary's of the world. I dont know what they should do, but salarys have gotten ridiculous.
What do you guys think about it? I think it's a load of crap. The Chicago Blackhawks are in a big market yet they don't spend money. What does that show? That it's really up to the owner. It makes me sick when I see that idiot Boston owner voice opposition about our current economic structure while he spends about half of what he could on that franchise. When he does spend money, he spends a lot of it on losers like Martin Lapointe. *Shrugs* Oh well.
Bryan
Blackhawks are the exception.
Their owner is known for being a cheapie. Hell they don't even televise any home games.
The NHL is losing hundreds of millions of dollars and spends more on it's players (a higher percentage) than any other major sports league in the country. That's why they need a cap. Even if there are going to be a couple of Cincinatti Bengals clones out there.
I think it will help prevent the Rangers from ruining Hockey.
Had to get that in there before some troll starts spouting it off.
Anyway, While I don't normally believe in limiting a persons earning power, I do believe that in order for the league to enjoy success all around there has to be some form of restriction in how much an owner can spend on their payroll.
I like the NFL's situation where as you don't know from year to year which teams will be competitive as the cap has created alot of pairity, some folks hate the fact that there are no more dynasties and I can appreciate that, but I believe that has more to do with the win now at all costs as opposed to working the cap today to be competitive in 3-4 years.
Most of the time the cap situation prevents that from being done at all.
Anyway, each sport produces their own unique individual issues, and the NHL's happen to be players looking to be paid on par with other sports while the majority of teams do not generate nearly half the revenue of the other sports.
the only way to keep players salaries in line with the revenue generated is to place heaby restrictions on either the Owners from spending (Tax) or place a cap on the Salaries.
Since we know not to trust the owners, the players will have to "suffer" with making 8 million instead of 11 million.
True. But for everyone of those cheap teams, there are teams that legitimately cant afford to be competative. Such as the EDM and Calgary's of the world. I dont know what they should do, but salarys have gotten ridiculous.
You are right but spending money dont mean anything in hockey, Oilers cant afford to be competative, heck at least they made the playoffs last few years, where the hell was the 90 million $ rangers? Playing golf.
The NHL is losing hundreds of millions of dollars and spends more on it's players (a higher percentage) than any other major sports league in the country. That's why they need a cap. Even if there are going to be a couple of Cincinatti Bengals clones out there.
Just remember that report came straight from owners so who knows the accuracy of that report.
I don't think there will actually be a cap...it might be needed but i don't see it happening. and the reason for that is that a hard cap benefits only the poor (or cheap) teams but the rich teams and players have to argee to it too and why would either of them agree to it...not to mention the fact that a hard cap won't work unless you have non-guaranteed contracts and the players would never agree to that...
most likely scenario is to end up with a soft cap & a luxury tax, which will help the poor teams cause it will give them some extra $$ BUT if you look at mlb or the nba you'll see that this won't stop teams from spending big $$ on players, it just changes the way they structure deals and forces them to trade salaries instead of players...this won't completely solve things but it should make things better and it is a compromise that all sides should be able to live with...
unfortunately the thing that probably needs to be done to truly fix things is the elimination of a few teams...so many of the leagues problems stem from bettman's overexpansion which results in dillusion of talent and teams being stuck in cities that shouldn't have teams...but you'd really, really hate to see any city or any group of fans lose there team. so while it might solve a lot of the leagues problems, it is really an option you'd rather not use
I like the NFL's situation where as you don't know from year to year which teams will be competitive as the cap has created alot of pairity, some folks hate the fact that there are no more dynasties and I can appreciate that, but I believe that has more to do with the win now at all costs as opposed to working the cap today to be competitive in 3-4 years.
The HUGE difference between the NFL cap and a similar would-be NHL cap is the fact that the NHL has to deal w/ Canadian teams and those teams are autumatically weaker becuase the Canadian dollar is weaker than the US dollar. An NFL-type cap cannot work in the US becuase the Candian teams are already behind the 8-ball.
The HUGE difference between the NFL cap and a similar would-be NHL cap is the fact that the NHL has to deal w/ Canadian teams and those teams are autumatically weaker becuase the Canadian dollar is weaker than the US dollar. An NFL-type cap cannot work in the US becuase the Candian teams are already behind the 8-ball.
The difference also is the national TV contract which every team in the league shares. And, teams split the gate with the home team getting 60% and the visiting 40%. And that works because there are only 16 games and the majority of the teams sell out every game. The same can't be said about the NHL.
I think it would reasonable to have a $40M or so soft cap with a luxury tax. That way, the teams that want to spend money aren't hamstrung, and the "tax" revenue could be split amongst the lower third or whatever teams are in or near the red.
No. That just under $40m cap number is what Bettman is pushing for to accomodate the Canadian teams. Even a team like NJ spend right around $60m. Those Canadian teams should actually have to sell out their own buildings before getting a cap number that is friendly to them.
I'll tell you this, if there is going to salary ceiling and luxury tax, there better be a salary floor and fine for not spending. If that means losing teams so be it.
I'll tell you this, if there is going to salary ceiling and luxury tax, there better be a salary floor and fine for not spending. If that means losing teams so be it.
Well, if baseball is any indication, the players association will not want a salary floor. The baseball owners were considering this during the last deal but the players did not want it. Not sure the exact reasons but probably has to do with it artificially affecting the market.
What I think makes more sense is to ensure that teams spend any luxury tax revenue on personnel. I'm unsure how this can be enforced but it's better than watching the tightwad owners receiving millions and putting it right into their pockets without attempting to improve their team.
No. That just under $40m cap number is what Bettman is pushing for to accomodate the Canadian teams. Even a team like NJ spend right around $60m. Those Canadian teams should actually have to sell out their own buildings before getting a cap number that is friendly to them.
Come to think of it, you're right. Maybe 50-55M would be better. Placate the whiny small market teams, while still allowing the teams that spend to do so. Having a hard cap or a low soft cap would just reduce every team to the level of a Calgary or a Minnesota, not to mention the NHLPA not going for something as drastic.
You are right but spending money dont mean anything in hockey,
Yes it does. There's a reason that the last umpteen Stanley Cup champions have been in the top 10 in payroll.
The Rangers are an exception just as Baltimore was the baseball exception a couple of years ago. Baltimore's NOT going anywhere didn't change the fact that the Yankees, Braves, Mets, and Diamondbacks were all going to be the favorites to go far in the playoffs. Do flukes happen? Sure but generally speaking, the teams with the upper echelon payrolls are the ones that go furthest in hockey and in baseball, and they're pretty much ALWAYS the ones who win championships.
Just remember that report came straight from owners so who knows the accuracy of that report.
That may be true where losses in revenue are concerned, but the percentage of payroll-to-budget is simple statistics. In a league where the AVERAGE salary is higher than that of the average of NFL quarterback, it's pretty clear that player salaries are completely out of whack.
the NHL has to deal w/ Canadian teams and those teams are autumatically weaker becuase the Canadian dollar is weaker than the US dollar. An NFL-type cap cannot work in the US becuase the Candian teams are already behind the 8-ball.
True but only a strengthening of the Canadian dollar can change that. The league's attempts to bring fiscal equality can't be held up because the Canadian economy can't match up to that of the US.
Ideally the CBA should dictate that the player is paid in the currency of the country wherein he plays. The average player in Calgary will no doubt complain that his $4 million is less than that of the average player in New York, but then again, his cost of living is ALSO measured in Canadian dollars.
What I think makes more sense is to ensure that teams spend any luxury tax revenue on personnel. I'm unsure how this can be enforced but it's better than watching the tightwad owners receiving millions and putting it right into their pockets without attempting to improve their team.
Don't mean to butt in here, but whenever I see a discussion on salary caps and luxury taxes, I seem to throw myself in.
I've been advocating a luxury tax system. That way, a team like the Rangers, who is willing to spend more, still has the option to do so, but as they continue to rise up the payroll structure, the cost keeps getting more expensive. The proceeds are then available to give to the lower spending teams.
As for ensuring that the money is spent on payroll, my preference is to put in performance requirements in order to qualify for the tax proceeds. One would be that teams that miss the playoffs for 3 straight years are not eligibile. Another would be teams that fail to win a playoff series within hte last 5 years are not eligible. Other requirements could be added as well. The result is that teams that do not spend are required to produce on-ice results. If they can do this without spending big money (i.e. the Wild), then more power to them, but if they can't, they will have to increase their spending to ensure that they don't miss out on the tax proceeds.
Anyway, While I don't normally believe in limiting a persons earning power, I do believe that in order for the league to enjoy success all around there has to be some form of restriction in how much an owner can spend on their payroll.
Since we know not to trust the owners, the players will have to "suffer" with making 8 million instead of 11 million.
Not to sound like an idiot (or the NHLPA), but the other alternative is that the owners could only spend as much as they have (i.e. make a budget and stick to it and only budget as much as you have to spend)as opposed to spending more ... sound business ... where does it say that they have to spend $70MM, the rangers have and it has gotten them nowhere. Look at Ottawa, small payroll, Eastern Conference finals. Sometimes the management is much more important than the money ...
Look at Ottawa, small payroll, Eastern Conference finals. Sometimes the management is much more important than the money ...
That's easily reversed, however. Yes look at Ottawa. They were stopped by the Devils, a team that spent $25 million more in salary. Could Ottawa afford to keep Scott Stevens as a UFA? Martin Brodeur? Could they afford to take on the salary of a Nieuwendyk in trade?
A low-budget team can go far and sometimes even win it all, but year-in and year-out, the team with the $55 million budget will beat the one with the $30 million.
This is why the league needs some kind of limiting device. Low-earning teams simply can't afford to keep players that high-earning teams can, much less go out and actually acquire more talent to help push them up from "very good" teams to "championship" teams.
Your theory could work if all the teams ran their businesses soundly, but teams don't. The Rangers have spent ruinously for years, and they don't care. They simply refuse to learn from their own mistakes, which would be fine if they were the only ones affected. They're not. Every one of their gaffs costs every other team when it comes to negotiation time with its own players. (And no, the Ranger certainly aren't the only culprits. Even Ottawa has to take its share of the blame. Signing Alexander Daigle, a player with no pro experience, to an unheard of contract didn't help the league financially.)
Your theory could work if all the teams ran their businesses soundly, but teams don't. The Rangers have spent ruinously for years, and they don't care. They simply refuse to learn from their own mistakes, which would be fine if they were the only ones affected. They're not. Every one of their gaffs costs every other team when it comes to negotiation time with its own players. (And no, the Ranger certainly aren't the only culprits. Even Ottawa has to take its share of the blame. Signing Alexander Daigle, a player with no pro experience, to an unheard of contract didn't help the league financially.)
I would agree that the Rangers have spent their money not wisely, but I don't think just spending is the problem ... I think there should be a balance between spending limits and intelligent management.
I'm not saying I think a cap is bad, it has worked wonders in the NFL, but the NHL isn't remotely the same. The NFL gets something like 70% of revenues from a national TV contract, the NHL gets what 5%??
To say a salary cap will help is I think a bit of an oversimplification, it may prevent the Rangers from hap-hazardly signing free-agents, but it won't necessarily bring competitive balance. Who knows, I'm sure we'll find out after this year.
