HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Salary Cap Expected to Go Up?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2010, 06:15 AM
  #26
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
3.5 to 4.5 mill does sound a bit high to me. I know they're getting a new TV deal (and the current one does suck), but my general feeling is that in a few markets around the league, attendance has been absolutely horrendous and not likely to get much better.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 06:47 AM
  #27
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yeah, pretty much... but a lot of this is all projection based off of the next TV contract and all that good stuff. The beauty of the system is that it is tied to the league's revenue streams... if the league makes more money, the players make more money. Thus why even if they lower the %, the players aren't getting "gouged." Just changing the pie between the two parties.
Wow, that's some hardcore euphemism.

5% of several billion dollars is absolutely significant amount of money. In cases like this, the players do seem to have a solid argument which is: You demanded a percentage of the league revenue. You've gotten that exact percentage. What is your problem, again?

Sure, players dislike the escrow and that will likely be changed but to throw around 5% of the league revenue like it's just "changing the pie" is a bit silly.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 08:15 AM
  #28
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Wow, that's some hardcore euphemism.

5% of several billion dollars is absolutely significant amount of money. In cases like this, the players do seem to have a solid argument which is: You demanded a percentage of the league revenue. You've gotten that exact percentage. What is your problem, again?

Sure, players dislike the escrow and that will likely be changed but to throw around 5% of the league revenue like it's just "changing the pie" is a bit silly.
Not necessarily, if league revenue goes up (and continues to go up) then even shaving off 5% the gross amount of money the players are getting could continue to rise.

This is the same exact issue that is about to lead the NFL into a lockout, btw.

I also refuse to view athletes with guaranteed contracts, and minimum salaries of 500+K as getting "gouged."

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 08:32 AM
  #29
MrHockey1982
Registered User
 
MrHockey1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,188
vCash: 500
http://capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=24

Just in case you needed it...

MrHockey1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 08:33 AM
  #30
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Honestly they really should halt the salary cap sometime, or else every gteam will be screwed once it drops.

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 10:42 AM
  #31
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not necessarily, if league revenue goes up (and continues to go up) then even shaving off 5% the gross amount of money the players are getting could continue to rise.

This is the same exact issue that is about to lead the NFL into a lockout, btw.

I also refuse to view athletes with guaranteed contracts, and minimum salaries of 500+K as getting "gouged."
I'd prefer they move to a luxury tax system. The cap and lost year are doing nothing that they were meant to address.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 10:49 AM
  #32
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
I'd prefer they move to a luxury tax system. The cap and lost year are doing nothing that they were meant to address.
???

Simon Gagne would still be a Flyer is there were no cap. Kovalchuk probably wouldn't be a Devil because NY would have thrown the $100M contract at him. It's working.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:03 AM
  #33
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
I'd prefer they move to a luxury tax system. The cap and lost year are doing nothing that they were meant to address.
Ah, this isn't true at all. The league is and has been growing even more flat and competitive across the board. Player movement is FAR more diverse than it used to be. Paul Martin, for example, doesn't sign in Pittsburgh prior to the lockout (and that isn't a question of that team being good or bad).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:03 AM
  #34
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I also refuse to view athletes with guaranteed contracts, and minimum salaries of 500+K as getting "gouged."
I also refuse to view billionaire owners with guaranteed revenue percentages and tax shelters to hide their profits as getting "gouged."

That works both ways.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:05 AM
  #35
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
I also refuse to view billionaire owners with guaranteed revenue percentages and tax shelters to hide their profits as getting "gouged."

That works both ways.
Not all the ownership groups are guaranteed revenue, and whatever money they made outside the NHL is independent of the business entity that is the NHL -- if you want to attract smart/good owners, you want the league to be a good investment.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:13 AM
  #36
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not all the ownership groups are guaranteed revenue, and whatever money they made outside the NHL is independent of the business entity that is the NHL -- if you want to attract smart/good owners, you want the league to be a good investment.
Until the NHL moves two teams to Canada then I think they are violating one of your principles.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:18 AM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Until the NHL moves two teams to Canada then I think they are violating one of your principles.
Not necessarily... the salary cap has worked to make the league more effective, and more evenly distribute the talent around the league. That makes it easier to get competitive and win games... and winning games helps you develop a market. So, attention to the cap is directly connected to improving the investment quality of even struggling franchises, as well as improving the potential return down the line.

Sure, the league would be better off with a couple of troubled franchises elsewhere... but that's the way it is (for now).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:22 AM
  #38
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not necessarily... the salary cap has worked to make the league more effective, and more evenly distribute the talent around the league. That makes it easier to get competitive and win games... and winning games helps you develop a market. So, attention to the cap is directly connected to improving the investment quality of even struggling franchises, as well as improving the potential return down the line.

Sure, the league would be better off with a couple of troubled franchises elsewhere... but that's the way it is (for now).
The league would be vastly better off by moving a few failed (not troubled) franchises. Hell, how much money would the other owners pocket from a franchise fee for the greater Toronto area? A dumptruck full of money.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:23 AM
  #39
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, this isn't true at all. The league is and has been growing even more flat and competitive across the board. Player movement is FAR more diverse than it used to be. Paul Martin, for example, doesn't sign in Pittsburgh prior to the lockout (and that isn't a question of that team being good or bad).
The cap was about "cost certainty." The lower teams were supposed to be protected by the new CBA. It was also supposed to allow teams that were cellar-dwellers prior to 2005 compete. Neither has really happened.

The OT/SO loss point has more to do with close playoff races than anything else.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:25 AM
  #40
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not necessarily... the salary cap has worked to make the league more effective, and more evenly distribute the talent around the league. That makes it easier to get competitive and win games... and winning games helps you develop a market. So, attention to the cap is directly connected to improving the investment quality of even struggling franchises, as well as improving the potential return down the line.

Sure, the league would be better off with a couple of troubled franchises elsewhere... but that's the way it is (for now).
It almost made one of the most talented forwards a member of the KHL this past summer.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:38 AM
  #41
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
The cap was about "cost certainty." The lower teams were supposed to be protected by the new CBA. It was also supposed to allow teams that were cellar-dwellers prior to 2005 compete. Neither has really happened.

The OT/SO loss point has more to do with close playoff races than anything else.
There are a few teams that were revitalized though you could say that Washington and Pittsburgh were revitalized via the draft rather than due to a salary cap. However, there absolutely was more talent distributed around the league. Without a cap teams like Colorado and the Flyers would have had 60-70M payrolls in 2005 rather than 40M or whatever it was.

Also, the OT/SO point system doesn't really add much to the playoff races. It may make them seem artificially close but every time anyone has analyzed the standings and took away SO points, there was very little change to the playoff seeding.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:42 AM
  #42
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
The cap was about "cost certainty." The lower teams were supposed to be protected by the new CBA. It was also supposed to allow teams that were cellar-dwellers prior to 2005 compete. Neither has really happened.

The OT/SO loss point has more to do with close playoff races than anything else.
Where were you for the last two Stanley Cup Finals? Three of the marquee franchises right now were consistently *ing terrible prior to 2005.

As far as cap certainty. I can tell you exactly what % of league revenue this year will go to the players. That's about as perfect cost certainty as you're going to get. Sure, the system applies upward pressure on the spending of the weak, and they need to put some reforms into it.

But to say the CBA hasn't accomplished what it set out to do is quite misguided.

And, yes, the point system has something to do with it... but of far greater importance (cuz you have to get to OT in order for the point system to matter) is the fact that talent is much better distributed. Detroit isn't holding all of their talent AND acquiring marquee UFAs every offseason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
It almost made one of the most talented forwards a member of the KHL this past summer.
Take out a talented forward, and talent is more evenly distributed... no?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:45 AM
  #43
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
There are a few teams that were revitalized though you could say that Washington and Pittsburgh were revitalized via the draft rather than due to a salary cap. However, there absolutely was more talent distributed around the league. Without a cap teams like Colorado and the Flyers would have had 60-70M payrolls in 2005 rather than 40M or whatever it was.

Also, the OT/SO point system doesn't really add much to the playoff races. It may make them seem artificially close but every time anyone has analyzed the standings and took away SO points, there was very little change to the playoff seeding.
Drafting is important for sure (much more important now, in fact). However, key UFAs are getting signed by teams now that wouldn't have happened before. Hossa signs long-term and big with Detroit... Gonchar probably doesn't sign on with a ****ty Pittsburgh team.... so on and so forth.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:54 AM
  #44
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Drafting is important for sure (much more important now, in fact). However, key UFAs are getting signed by teams now that wouldn't have happened before. Hossa signs long-term and big with Detroit... Gonchar probably doesn't sign on with a ****ty Pittsburgh team.... so on and so forth.
If I ran a team that had a large budget then I would hire the best trainers on the planet, have a palace for a practice facility, have a car service on retainer that the players could use any time whether day or night, and have so many fringe benefit luxuries that small market teams wouldn't be able to compete. Now, obviously, there are probably some teams that do this but I would take it to an unprecedented, borderline obscene level.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 11:57 AM
  #45
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Still waiting for my season ticket prices to drop with the “cost certainty” that was promised. Yet they rise. Teams like the flyers had a payroll of 65mm at 1 time and still made $. Now they make that much more. That coupled with the food prices limits the games I go too. Cant afford to drop 200 bucks a game frequently. The small market teams cry seeing the cap rise and what it is today. Just think, those owners turned down what a 42mm hard cap that the players offered. How dumb was that in hindsight?

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 12:01 PM
  #46
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Where were you for the last two Stanley Cup Finals? Three of the marquee franchises right now were consistently *ing terrible prior to 2005.
I knew you were going to go there. The death of "Dollar Bill" Wirtz and his destructive management had more to do with the Hawks' resurgence than anything.

The Penguins were practically given Crosby out of the lockout and got Malkin because they still sucked. They were thisclose to moving to KC.

As for the Caps (I assume this is the 3rd "marquee franchise" you mention), their owner and Ovechkin being drafted have more to do with their resurgence as well.

Quote:
As far as cap certainty. I can tell you exactly what % of league revenue this year will go to the players. That's about as perfect cost certainty as you're going to get. Sure, the system applies upward pressure on the spending of the weak, and they need to put some reforms into it.

But to say the CBA hasn't accomplished what it set out to do is quite misguided.
Ken Campbell's Hockey News articles would disagree with you. Here's one:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...s-failing.html

Quote:
And, yes, the point system has something to do with it... but of far greater importance (cuz you have to get to OT in order for the point system to matter) is the fact that talent is much better distributed. Detroit isn't holding all of their talent AND acquiring marquee UFAs every offseason.

Take out a talented forward, and talent is more evenly distributed... no?
Oh, I see. If Kovalchuk stays but goes to another team, it's spreading talent around and if he goes to another league entirely, it's spreading talent around.

Columbus, Florida, and Atlanta are still on the outside looking in on this side of the lockout.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 12:02 PM
  #47
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
Still waiting for my season ticket prices to drop with the “cost certainty” that was promised. Yet they rise. Teams like the flyers had a payroll of 65mm at 1 time and still made $. Now they make that much more. That coupled with the food prices limits the games I go too. Cant afford to drop 200 bucks a game frequently. The small market teams cry seeing the cap rise and what it is today. Just think, those owners turned down what a 42mm hard cap that the players offered. How dumb was that in hindsight?
Except they also cut a check to the lesser-performing teams (economically speaking) in the name of league welfare.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 12:12 PM
  #48
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
Columbus, Florida, and Atlanta are still on the outside looking in on this side of the lockout.
But Chicago, LA, Washington, and most obviously, Pittsburgh certainly aren't on the outside looking in.

All four of those teams were in complete distress before the lockout, and the fact that they're competitive has nothing to do with the salary cap, just like if Florida, Atlanta, and Columbus ever get competitive it will have nothing to do with the salary cap.

It's almost a shame that Florida, Columbus, and Atlanta haven't gotten the right end of the deal while Colorado, Edmonton, and Toronto seem to be rising from the ashes before them.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 12:21 PM
  #49
Flyskippy
Registered User
 
Flyskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Audubon, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
But Chicago, LA, Washington, and most obviously, Pittsburgh certainly aren't on the outside looking in.

All four of those teams were in complete distress before the lockout, and the fact that they're competitive has nothing to do with the salary cap, just like if Florida, Atlanta, and Columbus ever get competitive it will have nothing to do with the salary cap.

It's almost a shame that Florida, Columbus, and Atlanta haven't gotten the right end of the deal while Colorado, Edmonton, and Toronto seem to be rising from the ashes before them.
The thing is (as you say in your 2nd paragraph) that the circumstances that led to those teams' resurgence is coincidental to - and not because of - the new (post-2005) CBA. That's my point. The Penguins staying in Pittsburgh also has the new building to thank. Winning always brings fans in Pittsburgh. Unlike Philly, losing means an empty building.

Flyskippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2010, 12:29 PM
  #50
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
Still waiting for my season ticket prices to drop with the “cost certainty” that was promised. Yet they rise. Teams like the flyers had a payroll of 65mm at 1 time and still made $. Now they make that much more. That coupled with the food prices limits the games I go too. Cant afford to drop 200 bucks a game frequently. The small market teams cry seeing the cap rise and what it is today. Just think, those owners turned down what a 42mm hard cap that the players offered. How dumb was that in hindsight?
Ticket prices have NOTHING to do with the CBA, and I would love to see a quote of them ever promising that (because that was a flat lie). Ticket prices are supply-demand economics in its purest form. If there is high demand for tickets, then the ticket prices should go up... if there's low demand, they should go down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyskippy View Post
I knew you were going to go there. The death of "Dollar Bill" Wirtz and his destructive management had more to do with the Hawks' resurgence than anything.

The Penguins were practically given Crosby out of the lockout and got Malkin because they still sucked. They were thisclose to moving to KC.

As for the Caps (I assume this is the 3rd "marquee franchise" you mention), their owner and Ovechkin being drafted have more to do with their resurgence as well.
Chicago... Boston... etc. opted out of the spending spree because as a matter of business it was a terrible decision to go there with Detroit and the Rangers for them. Wirtz was a schmuck, but on that front he wasn't wrong. It was a gamble unlikely to pay off.

And, yes, drafting is important... but the ability to hold onto your talent is even more important.

Quote:
Ken Campbell's Hockey News articles would disagree with you. Here's one:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...s-failing.html
Ah, yeah, you're not really seeing the big picture (and neither is he).

1) Cost certainty you cannot debate. We know exactly what % of revenue goes to the players each year.

2) There will ALWAYS be a correlation between spending and winning. Better players cost more money. However, the 21st, 20th, 19th, and 18th ranked salaries all made the playoffs.

3) He focuses on the "magnet" factor of what the salary cap means to teams... and that was a known reality when you institute a salary cap. However, that happens for a few important reasons. Teams that may not spend so willingly are no willing to because they know there is an even playing field if they're going to go to those heights. Additionally, they have the protection of cost certainty (the teams at the top of the cap actually end up getting some of that money back because of escrow).

4) The spread in spending last year was $63.8M to $31.6M (but that's really an outlier, as the Islanders were 9M behind Carolina at $40M). So, the reality is that $23.8M separated the top of the league to the bottom. 16 teams spent $53M or more... so were within $10M of the top of the league.

In '03-'04 the breakdown was $77.8M to $21.9M, and only 4 teams were within $10M of Detroit. The 16th team in '03-'04 was spending $39.2M... $38.6M less than the top of the league.

So, for Ken Campbell to suggest that the CBA hasn't accomplished anything... and no good is being done... is to be flat wrong.

Quote:
Oh, I see. If Kovalchuk stays but goes to another team, it's spreading talent around and if he goes to another league entirely, it's spreading talent around.
Ah... yes. It is. If Kovalchuk isn't playing in the NHL -- because he can make more money playing elsewhere -- then that means a team in the NHL doesn't have an elite talent adding weight to their relative talent. So, yes, that's exactly what that means.

Quote:
Columbus, Florida, and Atlanta are still on the outside looking in on this side of the lockout.
Florida and Atlanta have been run by complete morons. Columbus plays in a TERRIBLY competitive division, and yet has had the three best consecutive years in the organizations history and made the playoffs for the first time.

Jester 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 05:59 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.