Sure you would have. This "logic" was spewed by the small market teams when the cap was put in place. "Well, with the cap you won't see such huge contracts!"
Take a wild guess how that worked out.
In 2000 Paul Kariya in Anaheim made $1M~ less than the entire Minnesota Wild roster ($10M vs $11M). That's just one small market team vs another (expansion) team. And you're saying the system got worse post lockout?
In 2000 Paul Kariya in Anaheim made $1M~ less than the entire Minnesota Wild roster ($10M vs $11M). That's just one small market team vs another (expansion) team. And you're saying the system got worse post lockout?
Look at it now. Just as man "ridiculous" contracts are handed out today. The cap has done nothing to curb spending because the GMs don't find it bad. This is not that hard of a concept.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
If the market is driving these contracts up than the contracts are not really ridiculous. They are market price.
But the market has been able to use various methods to circumvent the intended rules. Lowering the avg. cap hit by adding fake years at the end....burying players in the minors...etc. If the loopholes are closed do you still believe teams would continue to offer absurd terms to players knowing they could be on the hook for years to come?
Look at it now. Just as man "ridiculous" contracts are handed out today. The cap has done nothing to curb spending because the GMs don't find it bad. This is not that hard of a concept.
Name one team in the league today that pays one player almost the same amount as another teams entire team salary. Take your time. Cap and contracts increased as revenue increased in the past CBA. Circumvention helped to exploit this system, measures like the "Redden" rule are in place to hammer out these work arounds.
Redden played like he didn't give a ****. He cashed in and gave up.
I disagree, at least in this case. Redden just isn't very good anymore. A combination of age and mental issues have just sucked his game away. The signs were clear before the Rangers signed him, it's not like he started declining only after he signed the contract. He was clearly declining in Ottawa before the deal.
Player's aren't always to blame, sometimes the teams (and fans) expectations are way too high.
Name one team in the league today that pays one player almost the same amount as another teams entire team salary. Take your time. Cap and contracts increased as revenue increased in the past CBA. Circumvention helped to exploit this system, measures like the "Redden" rule are in place to hammer out these work arounds.
Who cares about the old Kariya contract? Teams today still hand out "ridiculous" contracts. That was my point. Now since your argument is so beyond wrong you are trying to stretch the topic.
But the market has been able to use various methods to circumvent the intended rules. Lowering the avg. cap hit by adding fake years at the end....burying players in the minors...etc. If the loopholes are closed do you still believe teams would continue to offer absurd terms to players knowing they could be on the hook for years to come?
The intended rules were to increase parity in the league. By removing Redden from the Rangers, all teams had a chance to acquire him on waivers. No one wanted him. We have a great level of parity right now other than the poorest of the poor (who are generally poor for reasons of no fault to anyone but them).
If the current loopholes are closed, more will be found. Perhaps the value of non-star players drops SIGNIFICANTLY in order to pay the stars more. Then how fair would that be? Teams will do what it takes to get the players that they need. There are always loopholes to be exploited.
One other severe negative to this will be the amount of player movement. Teams will hardly ever give deals over three years. You will see lots of high priced, short deals. Insane player movement and little to no stability (other than the young controlled players). Talk about a horrible situation. Long term deals enable stability which is good for the fans of the league.
One other severe negative to this will be the amount of player movement. Teams will hardly ever give deals over three years. You will see lots of high priced, short deals. Insane player movement and little to no stability (other than the young controlled players). Talk about a horrible situation. Long term deals enable stability which is good for the fans of the league.
Well said. Not only for fans, but players as well. 30 y/o players don't want to have to relocate their family 3 times over the course of their careers.
It's an iron-fisted way for the NHL to clamp down on the UFA market.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
Well, it's not the NHL clamping down. It's the poor teams banding together. This is a league run by the poor. The say of the rich teams is essentially meaningless.
Well said. Not only for fans, but players as well. 30 y/o players don't want to have to relocate their family 3 times over the course of their careers.
It's an iron-fisted way for the NHL to clamp down on the UFA market.
I get what you are saying, but what is to stop said player from approaching the team and asking for an extension in his final year? Just because it is a 3 year deal doesn't mean they HAVE to leave. Just less guaranteed money/years.
You and goose need to take your heads out of the sand. The cap did not reduce wild spending like everyone claimed it would. Far from it. Now you use that same ludicrous "logic" here. After it's already been proven to be ********. Sorry, but that argument won't fly.
So you think Holik would have gotten the same contract post lockout?
Please lmfao
Before the CBA there were contracts in place that you never would have seen after the first lockout. Now there are contracts in place that you likely won't see after this lockout.
Columbus and Dallas don't spend to the cap and were able to afford to take Redden on, and arguably could still be paying him and have him on their roster without many cap implications. The Rangers have spent to the cap, and were still able to outbid both of these teams because they had more money and could stash their problem so they could take the risk. Columbus and Dallas didn't have that kind of security, and couldn't go over the top and outbid a team that didn't have to pay any repercussions for their actions regardless of how the player performed.
I get what you are saying, but what is to stop said player from approaching the team and asking for an extension in his final year? Just because it is a 3 year deal doesn't mean they HAVE to leave. Just less guaranteed money/years.
I mean you're right in a sense, if a player is wanted back he can find a way to stay if relocation is the top factor. I was more going after Jonathan's point that this could lead to more player movement. Sometimes player's aren't wanted back (good for the team obviously in that case), and a 5-7 year limit will leave more players looking for new deals at 33-35. Which is obviously tougher.
When you have big market teams allowed to spend without limits you get La Liga and the BPL. Big money teams buy the players, win titles, get all the fans, and continue to have the most money. The same 2-4 teams winning every year isn't any good at all.
When you have big market teams allowed to spend without limits you get La Liga and the BPL. Big money teams buy the players, win titles, get all the fans, and continue to have the most money. The same 2-4 teams winning every year isn't any good at all.
I definitely agree with your point overall (especially regarding La Liga and the BPL).
But at the same time the NHL has had a different Cup winner each year post-lockout. 12 different teams in the finals (max would be 14). The 7 years previous to that had 10 unique teams in the finals and 5 unique winners.
In my opinion, parity is at a pretty good place right now. I think some tweaks definitely need to be made - especially around contract length and structure (no more than 7-8 years, no insane bonus structures, no fake years, etc.). And increased revenue sharing is a necessity to allow teams to keep the lights on and retain their young players.
However, I do think being one of the few teams really helping to drive revenue growth should mean something. A scenario where the Rangers lose a great young player to another team due to cap issues, when the Rangers' increased revenue sharing dollars are paying that players' new contract, is not a just one from my view.
Last edited by HatTrick Swayze: 10-17-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?
Because there should be some sort of penalty imposed for the error of signing non-NHL talent in the first place. Of course Ranger fans wont like it - because we're biased. For the greater good of the game, I like the idea. It'll make owners/GM's think twice before handing out a stupid contract.
As for the OP, sports socialism??? That doesnt even make sense.
Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?
thats a management error and the GM and owners signed the contract...they should be penalized somehow. the rangers circumvented the cap by burying redden in the minors and got lucky they were able to do that
Because there should be some sort of penalty imposed for the error of signing non-NHL talent in the first place. Of course Ranger fans wont like it - because we're biased. For the greater good of the game, I like the idea. It'll make owners/GM's think twice before handing out a stupid contract.
As for the OP, sports socialism??? That doesnt even make sense.
The penalty imposed is having to eat MILLIONS of dollars. I fail to see why anything more needs to be imposed that isn't just a dollar amount. Perhaps make the team pay double the contract in a quasi-luxury tax system.
THe NHL needs to stop stripping advantages away from rich teams. Sooner or later rich teams will have all of their profits going to the league and even the poorest of the poor will be able to spend the same amount of money. The NHL hates success.
thats a management error and the GM and owners signed the contract...they should be penalized somehow. the rangers circumvented the cap by burying redden in the minors and got lucky they were able to do that
How the **** did they circumvent the cap? They put a non-NHL caliber player in the minors. This is not a difficult concept. Redden may have been able to beat out Bickel or Eminger. That's about it. And even then I have my doubts. He's THAT bad.
