HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

No Salary Cap or Guaranteed Contracts

View Poll Results: If it ended the lockout today, would you get rid of the cap and guaranteed contracts?
Yes 35 45.45%
No 42 54.55%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2012, 11:21 AM
  #26
Peter Puck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsbergForever View Post
There were exceptions however, like Calgary in 2004, Carolina in 2002 and Buffalo in '99. Regardless of financial resources, a team still needs a high quality scouting and development department to build a team, as opposed to a collection of players, like the Rangers you reference in your post.
Yeah sure. Every few years one of the small market teams can make a run and even win it all. But say your a fan of a small market team. Once every 15 or 20 years your team makes a great run and has a legitimate at winning the cup. All those other seasons they are dominated by perennial high spending contenders. Year after year you miss the playoffs or squeak in and get swept out.

Maybe you even find a budding star and develop him into an allstar. Then his contract comes to an end and the Rangers sign him for 3 times what your owner offers. Probably he wants to stay, but he can't afford to turn down such a big salary, especially to stay with a cash strapped team and no pension.

This is similar to baseball. A few years ago the Yankees grabbed a top player who wouldn't fit on their roster just to prevent the Red Sox (and other teams) from getting him.

All this leads to a downward spiral of fan interest and a lousy league.
It's one thing to be a fan of a continually bad team. It's something else entirely to follow a team when the league financials mean your team can never really compete with the league's elite teams.

Peter Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 12:04 PM
  #27
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
I am fine with eliminating guaranteed contracts, but the salary cap STAYS!

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 01:18 PM
  #28
Flukeshot
Holmgren activate!
 
Flukeshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Milton, Ont
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 50
I voted Yes for one reason. I want to see top quality hockey and the Stanley Cup be competed for.

I'm fortunate to be a fan of a team that would benefit from no cap and no guaranteed contract. However the Flyers had the ability to "buy" a Cup between 1975-2004 and failed to do so.

I definitely prefer a cap system and even playing field but when given the choice of some NHL or no NHL. I'll take what I can get, poor teams be damned.

Flukeshot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:25 PM
  #29
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,087
vCash: 256
Guaranteed contracts are fine I don't see why some people are looking to get rid of them honestly: sure some deals can really backfire but the concept really reinforces the need for smart planning for GMs.
Without guaranteed contracts rich teams could bail on underperforming players and go and poach other teams players with very inticing offers while on the other hand overperforming players could be jerks and hold their team hostage...

It seems like a giant can of worm that is not worth opening; I suspect most posters who argue for the removal of guaranteed contracts are doing so on emotional grounds rather than simple numbers or even more importantly, in this case, the need to keep your employees happy.

I don't think anyone in the NHL is seriously considering putting guaranteed contracts on the table because unlike some people around here I don't think the NHL strives to make players' lives miserable: they want to make everybody happy as much as possible.

Do Make Say Think is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:50 PM
  #30
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
And of course, none of the players on ELC's or 2-ways have guaranteed contracts. Nor do rfa's under 26 who can be bought out at one third their contract like Ray Emery was. Nor any player that can be bought out at two thirds. And of course there are a great number of players on one year contracts. Its most amusing when those lambasting the players for not accepting a partial make whole clause as their salaries were never guaranteed anyway. So if they dont accept it the threat is to remove their guaranteed salaries?

The NFL has guaranteed up front signing bonuses. Is that really any different from guaranteed back end buy out clauses other than the emotional sating provided from the feeling of firing rather than buying out someone?


And of course it goes without saying, when we say non-guaranteed contracts, we only mean for the owners. The players will still be expected to live up to them. After all, its a contract. You cant be like Yashin and not honour it.



You know its possible to create a league without a salary cap that is fairer competitive wise than one without it. The opposite of a salary cap league isnt baseball. Although there are no owners losing money in baseball. And making 30 equal spending teams doesnt lead to a fairer league than one with 30 teams cycling through the cap but at various wildly different stages of spending.

Remember when big market St Louis was the cause of a lockout for stealing Dough Weight from poor lil Edmonton. And the evil big market Avalanche with all their $10 mil players. And of course the huge megalopolis of East Rutherford. And now that there is a salary cap, these teams are all seen as small markets that require help to compete. Well i can think of something that worked for them before. Maybe there's ways to allow them to become great, make a lot of money, and afford to spend that doesnt require a salary cap after all?

Maybe there are other ways of creating different but equal access to building greatness other than the facile hammer of 30 equal spending teams. Maybe the creation of 30 equal spending teams, which we just tried and everyone seems to admit failed, isnt the smartest way to create fairness and equality of opportunity in a sports league. Maybe there is no perfect solution possible and idealism is now a nemesis.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 05:03 PM
  #31
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And of course, none of the players on ELC's or 2-ways have guaranteed contracts. Nor do rfa's under 26 who can be bought out at one third their contract like Ray Emery was. Nor any player that can be bought out at two thirds. And of course there are a great number of players on one year contracts. Its most amusing when those lambasting the players for not accepting a partial make whole clause as their salaries were never guaranteed anyway. So if they dont accept it the threat is to remove their guaranteed salaries?

The NFL has guaranteed up front signing bonuses. Is that really any different from guaranteed back end buy out clauses other than the emotional sating provided from the feeling of firing rather than buying out someone?


And of course it goes without saying, when we say non-guaranteed contracts, we only mean for the owners. The players will still be expected to live up to them. After all, its a contract. You cant be like Yashin and not honour it.



You know its possible to create a league without a salary cap that is fairer competitive wise than one without it. The opposite of a salary cap league isnt baseball. Although there are no owners losing money in baseball. And making 30 equal spending teams doesnt lead to a fairer league than one with 30 teams cycling through the cap but at various wildly different stages of spending.

Remember when big market St Louis was the cause of a lockout for stealing Dough Weight from poor lil Edmonton. And the evil big market Avalanche with all their $10 mil players. And of course the huge megalopolis of East Rutherford. And now that there is a salary cap, these teams are all seen as small markets that require help to compete. Well i can think of something that worked for them before. Maybe there's ways to allow them to become great, make a lot of money, and afford to spend that doesnt require a salary cap after all?

Maybe there are other ways of creating different but equal access to building greatness other than the facile hammer of 30 equal spending teams. Maybe the creation of 30 equal spending teams, which we just tried and everyone seems to admit failed, isnt the smartest way to create fairness and equality of opportunity in a sports league. Maybe there is no perfect solution possible and idealism is now a nemesis.
So much wrong with this post.

All the players who get a guaranteed amount of money if they are cut/bought out have guarantees in their contracts. An NFL player has no guarantee whatsoever to a signing bonus - it is team choice whether or not to give it out and many/most of them are a pittance, and if the players are cut they get zero dollars from that point forward.

You can sit out as much as you want to in the NFL or the NHL - in both cases you get zero dollars until you come back.

MLB actually IS exactly the opposite of a salary cap league. Was that a typo? And when most refer to how "fair" a league is for competitiveness they aren't just talking about how many total teams show up in the playoffs, they're talking about if there's an imbalance between the likeliness of a playoff appearance between big money and small money, and people have clearly shown that big money teams have a decided advantage in reaching the playoffs in MLB. Many others consider "fair" in sports to be an equal opportunity ON the field. Most don't consider "fair" in sports to be putting together an all-star team because you have the money to do so. Fair in business is a different discussion.

Colorado paid Sakic that much because the Rangers poison pill offer sheeted him - its exactly the same as the Weber scenario with Nashville, salaries got set at that level due to big market teams, not because Colorado wanted to. And I do believe that's the first time I've EVER heard of Doug Weight signing 3 years prior to the lockout being the cause of the lockout. New Jersey is top 10 in revenues, not small market, their issues stem from their debt, not any "small market" status.

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say that the cap failed for competitive purposes that isn't a fan of a large market team whose success has taken a hit because they can't overcome mismanagement with money any more. And your last statement can be used as justification to maintain the status quo - if "there is no perfect solution possible and idealism is now a nemesis" then there's no reason to go to an unregulated system you feel would be the ideal, is there?

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 06:02 PM
  #32
Melnyks Mirage
We are what we are.
 
Melnyks Mirage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cumberland
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,967
vCash: 50
Would have liked to vote yes, end guaranteed contracts (with caveat) and keep cap.
Caveat being that you no longer have no-trades or no-movement clauses. Everything is movable and tradeable and "downgradeable" to the minors but not the ability to make everyone a free agent. That would be chaos.

The salary cap screwed us here in Ottawa by the way. It came with a lower UFA age which was totally bad...all our stars were UFA before 31, then we had to spend up to keep up with other teams and so on. Only recently have we got the prospect wagon wheels turning again and still, I doubt I'll see a team as exciting as the Chara-Redden-Havlat-Hossa craziness we had back in the day, if only for a very short time.

Melnyks Mirage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 07:20 AM
  #33
Sour Shoes
lol u mad cam?
 
Sour Shoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pgh-original 12 Team
Posts: 2,335
vCash: 500
with no cap, i sell my season tickets and never watch a second of nhl hockey. wins shouldn't be determined by population (lest you think nyr is wealthy for any other reason). so you have 4-5 GMs working with a stacked deck while the rest play moneyball and try to catch lightning in a bottle??? i'll pass..

and i'm very aware that the rangers buy everyone strategy failed. they still destroyed the teams they poached from.

Sour Shoes 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 05:48 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.