I'm ok with the salary cap but the lower limit needs to be higher. Revenue sharing is ok but teams that pay into it should be allowed to go above the cap by 50% of what they pay.
And I hate the draft but understand the need for it. That said bring in territorial rights for one or two players per team per year.
Yeah, that's fair to the southern teams...
The funny (sad) thing is you're serious.
How does someone "hate" the draft? How else does a league disperse talent in a consistent and fair manner? Is every player a UFA at the age of 19, and they can sign with any team??
The cap is a hard cap for a (very GOOD) reason. Your gripe is with your team's management, not the cap.
Team A and Team B operate in the same league, and Team A has 10 times more fans than Team B. As a result, Team A's fans are willing to shell out a lot more money to support their team.
Why should the fans of Team A subsidize Team B's operations? What arguments would you present to them to agree to do such a thing?
First off would Team A's fans really be dolling out more in revenues per capita? Seems unlikely.
To the general point, though, Team A should be asked to subsidize Team B's operations because without Team B as well as a presumptive Team C, D, E, etc. the league in question will suffer from lack of competition, diminishing the prestige and value gained from winning championships in the long run. By refusing to assist other franchises to equalize the competitive structure through wealth distributions, franchises ultimately harm themselves in the long run by marginalizing the value of winning.
The dog eat dog survival of the fittest philosophy does not work in a franchise system. Do McDonald`s franchises compete with other McDonald`s franchises and try to drive them out out of business. While teams may compete on the ice, off of it they are all franchises in partnership in a league together.
How does it benefit Toronto if half the teams in the league are in financial trouble and teams are folding or moving constantly. How does it make Toronto richer if the league is perceived as a failing sport and advertisers shy away from it, and networks are not willing to pay as much to broadcast your games.
The healthier the league is as a whole, the more profit there is for all the teams to split up.
No cap in baseball, doesnt look like they're going out of business anytime soon?
The NHL becomes baseball without the cap. 20 teams become minor league teams feeding the top 10 teams.
New York Yankees Payroll 195,998,004
Oakland Athletics Payroll 49,137,500
Which team is 17 games above .500 and which team has a losing record? Every team in the top 9 in payroll has been to the World Series in the last 10 years only 3 in the remaining 21 have been and Chicago is at #11
A's are 4 games out of the 2nd wild card spot and have allowed the fewest runs in the AL. The Tigers and the Phillies have a combined salary of 300+ million and have less wins than the A's.
I'd keep the cap but I would want to phase out revenue sharing. I'm not sure what the value is in propping up failed markets. It just dilutes talent and frequently results in events that make the league look bush.
How does someone "hate" the draft? How else does a league disperse talent in a consistent and fair manner? Is every player a UFA at the age of 19, and they can sign with any team??
The cap is a hard cap for a (very GOOD) reason. Your gripe is with your team's management, not the cap.
Sounds fine to me. Looks like Justin Schultz didn't like the draft.
I agree with many of the posts here. It does create a more competitive league. It does create a more fair chance for smaller markets to succeed. On the other hand though I think that the free market should dictate the game as well.
Didn't work in the past and does not work in baseball.
The great thing about a salary cap is that it, for the most part, gives every team a chance. The last couple of years now in the NHL multiple teams have had their playoff hopes come down to the last period of their season, which keeps all 82 games very important. Look at the last few years of MLB with the one wild card, where there were more meaningless games than not. As an A's fan, why would I go sit out at the Coliseum to watch the Royals come to town? There were games last year where the two teams combined to be more than 30 games out of the playoffs. I dont think the NHL wants to have games like Oakland @ Seattle....where the outcome of the game could literally not matter any less.The closest I can think of that game in the NHL would be something like Columbus @ Edmonton or NYI.
If I was from New York or Toronto and my team was not relevant the last few years, I can see being upset, but they have to remember that it wasnt teams like Phoenix or Florida that made them sign Wade Redden for that amount of money, it was their own stupidity. People who complain about the cap are actually just upset that their moneybags owner/GM doesnt understand how it works, or how to use it.
Also, to answer the question a few pages back about why should team A have any incentive to pay team B, we need to go back to the baseball analogy.
Most of you have probably seen moneyball. The Oakland A's had a fantastic team, and the place was packed for every game. A few years later, the entire team hits free Agency and the Yankees swoop in and offer obscene amounts of money for those players to leave Oakland and join the evil empire. What is the incentive for Oakland to pay and develop these players, if the whole league knows that NYY is just going to swoop in and buy them the day their contract is up? Revenue Sharing is the only way Oakland has any reason at all to even field a team of halfway decent players. Fast forward to today and NYY has a Payroll mutiple times that of Oakland, who is forced to sign scrubs because the rich teams offer unreasonably high amounts of money for any halfway decent player. Its a testament to the character of Ichiro, the Anti Jagr, that he hasnt been seen in Pinstripes.
Team A and Team B operate in the same league, and Team A has 10 times more fans than Team B. As a result, Team A's fans are willing to shell out a lot more money to support their team.
Why should the fans of Team A subsidize Team B's operations? What arguments would you present to them to agree to do such a thing?
Because Team A needs there to be other teams in the league to play against. Revenue sharing makes the league better. Eliminating the cap makes about 5 teams better and 25 irrelevant/farm teams for those 5.
The first round of the playoffs this year were the most exciting I can think of... and you want to ruin that entertainment... you realize this is supposed to be entertainment right?
The first round of the playoffs this year were the most exciting I can think of... and you want to ruin that entertainment... you realize this is supposed to be entertainment right?
A lot of people were complaining about how boring the playoffs were. I wasn't one of those people. I'm right there with you. I think they were some of the most exciting playoff series I've seen, and I've seen a LOT of playoff hockey.
Parity is a good thing unless you happen to support a team that just can't seem to break into the top half. It's no consolation to have a good team if they aren't making the playoffs. I'm sure it's doubly bad when that team is making huge amounts of money, while other teams in the playoffs are receiving revenue sharing dollars.
Still, revenue sharing is good for professional sports leagues. A salary cap is good for professional sports leagues. These things help build a competitive and stable league in which teams and fan bases can grow, rather than the majority of teams being cast aside as nothing more than mere practice teams for the money makers. I know it would be fun for Leafs or Rangers or Boston fans (etc) if their teams were able to achieve dynasty status, especially in the age of the internet when bragging rights are even more precious, but where is the fun for the vast majority of teams' fans when they know every year they don't have a shot against the Goliaths?
Next season absolutely any team can win it all. No one has any idea who is going to break out. Teams that some people think will be terrible could be electrifying. Teams that some people think will be forces to be reckoned with could be miserable. That's what makes watching hockey both frustrating and exciting, and the excitement wouldn't be nearly the same without the possibility, or reality, of frustration.
Summers would be longer and more dull without the cap. Now, we have things to talk about, even if it is ad nauseam. We can discuss how team X can fit players under the cap, or even how team Y is going to find a way to reach the floor (which is too high). Trades are more interesting because salary has to be taken into account. Money can't just be used in a trade, which makes it more fun.
A lot of people were complaining about how boring the playoffs were. I wasn't one of those people. I'm right there with you. I think they were some of the most exciting playoff series I've seen, and I've seen a LOT of playoff hockey.
Parity is a good thing unless you happen to support a team that just can't seem to break into the top half. It's no consolation to have a good team if they aren't making the playoffs. I'm sure it's doubly bad when that team is making huge amounts of money, while other teams in the playoffs are receiving revenue sharing dollars.
Still, revenue sharing is good for professional sports leagues. A salary cap is good for professional sports leagues. These things help build a competitive and stable league in which teams and fan bases can grow, rather than the majority of teams being cast aside as nothing more than mere practice teams for the money makers. I know it would be fun for Leafs or Rangers or Boston fans (etc) if their teams were able to achieve dynasty status, especially in the age of the internet when bragging rights are even more precious, but where is the fun for the vast majority of teams' fans when they know every year they don't have a shot against the Goliaths?
Next season absolutely any team can win it all. No one has any idea who is going to break out. Teams that some people think will be terrible could be electrifying. Teams that some people think will be forces to be reckoned with could be miserable. That's what makes watching hockey both frustrating and exciting, and the excitement wouldn't be nearly the same without the possibility, or reality, of frustration.
Summers would be longer and more dull without the cap. Now, we have things to talk about, even if it is ad nauseam. We can discuss how team X can fit players under the cap, or even how team Y is going to find a way to reach the floor (which is too high). Trades are more interesting because salary has to be taken into account. Money can't just be used in a trade, which makes it more fun.
I'm perfectly happy with the cap and RS.
Fine. NHL revenue has grown for the past 6 years. But we still have not passed the NBA. Summers were fine before the cap, you didn't like them because your team had little shot at those players. Maybe they just chose not to play there. Even under the cap if Toronto gave me 6 million and New York 5, I am taking the 5 from New York.
