HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

ok, a cap compromise - from GoCoyotes

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-27-2004, 01:21 AM
  #26
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil
While this proposal sounds like a reasonable deal, it punishes the market value of players for what they can't even control - getting traded. Under this proposal a player's earning potential would drop significantly if he was unfortunate enough to get traded. Not exactly fair, in my opinion, and I don't think the player would agree to it for this reason.
He'd only be worried about his market value as an un-restricted free-agent, right. If he's a free agent, he'll be a cap hit regardless, right? Maybe I'm mis-understanding either you or the proposed system.

rt is online now  
Old
09-27-2004, 12:06 PM
  #27
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil
While this proposal sounds like a reasonable deal, it punishes the market value of players for what they can't even control - getting traded. Under this proposal a player's earning potential would drop significantly if he was unfortunate enough to get traded. Not exactly fair, in my opinion, and I don't think the player would agree to it for this reason.
That's the first major dent in my arguement that I've seen, and it is very valid. I've even considered backing off the traded players, and just making a free agent salary cap instead, which backs off my initial proposal considerably. At the same time, the PA probably wouldn't go for it as well.

Part of the problem as I see it, is that many players price themselves out of their markets. So a team like Pittsburgh has to trade Kovalev, Straka, Jagr, etc. because their salaries keep going up. By having traded players count against the cap, a player might negotiate more with the team they are on, to avoid counting against a cap on a traded team.

As an example, Jagr may have attempted to sign a more lucrative contract, at a reduced rate with the Penguins originally knowing that if he was traded to the Capitals that they wouldn't have the money to keep him at that same rate because it would count against the cap.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 12:15 PM
  #28
Jon Burke
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
How about a soft cap of $45M that makes GMs think twice before going over, and a hard cap of $60M to prevent excessive salaries?

 
Old
09-27-2004, 12:32 PM
  #29
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Burke
How about a soft cap of $45M that makes GMs think twice before going over, and a hard cap of $60M to prevent excessive salaries?
That wouldn't change salaries at all.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 12:38 PM
  #30
Jon Burke
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
That wouldn't change salaries at all.
Why not? There were 12 teams (I believe) with payrolls over $45M and 7 teams or something with payrolls over $60M.

 
Old
09-27-2004, 12:59 PM
  #31
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Allow me to change what I said....

That wouldn't change salaries enough to fix the game's problems.

degroat* is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 01:11 PM
  #32
joepeps
Registered User
 
joepeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,782
vCash: 500
Yeah!!!

What would you do in a certain situation where Player X gets draft by Team X.
Plays for X ammount of years on Team x, get's traded to Team Y, plays X ammount of Years, and then sign's or gets traded to Team X.. your saying becasue they drafted him his still gets exempted or are you saying only first stints with the club??

joepeps is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 01:31 PM
  #33
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
That's the first major dent in my arguement that I've seen, and it is very valid. I've even considered backing off the traded players, and just making a free agent salary cap instead, which backs off my initial proposal considerably. At the same time, the PA probably wouldn't go for it as well.

Part of the problem as I see it, is that many players price themselves out of their markets. So a team like Pittsburgh has to trade Kovalev, Straka, Jagr, etc. because their salaries keep going up. By having traded players count against the cap, a player might negotiate more with the team they are on, to avoid counting against a cap on a traded team.

As an example, Jagr may have attempted to sign a more lucrative contract, at a reduced rate with the Penguins originally knowing that if he was traded to the Capitals that they wouldn't have the money to keep him at that same rate because it would count against the cap.
Another part of the problem as I see it, is that teams put themselves in the market for players that they have no business acquiring (given where they are in the 'franchise life cycle')... The more teams that are in the market for a given player, the more demand for the given player, the higher the bids for the given player, and thus - the higher the salary... By having teams trying to 'skip steps' (by not focussing on developing their own players), IMO, it inflates the market significantly - and unnecessarily...

IMO, if each team naturally let the evolution of their franchise happen (essemble a young, talented core - let them develop and grow together), the market would naturally correct itself under the old CBA...

IMO, teams should be very careful who they are acquiring (in both trades and free agents)... IMO, some teams just shouldn't be in the market for certain players... The Jagr's of the world should be reserved for the 'elite' teams - the teams that can afford him through solid hockey operations... The teams that have success year after year and are looking for a 'special' player to give them a competitive advantage for a cup run... IMO, the NYR (although they can afford it) shouldn't even be in the market for Jagr... The NYR should be re-building (i.e. carefully and slowly developing a 'core' with the plan of being 'elite' within 5 years)...

I assume that the goal of a franchise is to become 'elite' (i.e. year-after-year success; reap the benefits of large profit and peer respectability from being elite; solid chance of getting the Stanley Cup year-after-year; fan excitment; etc.)... I assume the goal of a franchise is not to win a Stanley Cup once and then go back to obscurity (the respect, success, and profits are short-term - the reward is temporary and limited)...

There is only one way to become 'elite' (and history backs me up) and that is to 'home grow' your core... An added bonus is that it is cheaper to 'home grow' your core than to try and buy your 'core' (i.e. payroll and team salary structure is kept in check while the core is developing)... Another added bonus is that it doesn't inflate the market... By having teams trying to 'skip the line' and acquire players that they shouldn't (i.e. a very young and developing mediocre team acquiring an ultra-expensive veteran superstar) - sure, maybe the team might be able to make a stronger push for the playoffs, this year... maybe the team will find some playoff success, this year... But the decision to get this expensive player is ultimately shortsighted, and the success is very often temporary... One hit wonders... If this expensive, veteran superstar was acquired through a trade - with one or two promising young players being traded, IMO, this was ultimately a very dumb move (if the goal of the franchise is to become 'elite')... If acquired through free agency, IMHO, the money spent on the expensive superstar would have best been served to try and keep the developing core together... Sure, acquire a veteran presence to help the kids along - but do NOT disrupt your team salary structure... and do NOT make the decision with only short-term goals in mind...

For year-after-year team success, the whole must be greater than the sum of it's parts... The 'core' has to be stronger then any individual player... If Forsberg goes down with an injury - the properly developed 'core' is able to adapt and still find success... Even without Patrick Roy (and with IMO, a terrible coach), the Avs have been able to find success because of the solid, developed core...

Once 'elite', the team can THEN get the expensive players - to try and give them that 'Stanley Cup advantage' - to try and augment the developed core - to try and replace an aging core so that the 'elite' status can be sustained as long as possible... And the team can support the acquisition because they are profitable due to year-after-year success...

IMO, Lexicon Devil does make a valid argument... But I personally wouldn't back off on the traded players part of the proposal... If considered unfair, I'd personally think about a % of the contract that gets counted towards the cap (so that it is not the whole contract - nor considered as the same circumstance as a free agent signing)... But I personally wouldn't back away from the idea all together...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 02:30 PM
  #34
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,246
vCash: 500
Yeah, I don't want to back away from the traded players part for much of the same reason that you explained, and you explained it very well so good job on that one.

Sure the traded players limits the movement a little bit, but if it's set at the right amount (even $31 million cap) as proven earlier you can still assemble a great team. It would have an effect on salaries as well I believe, lowering many in the process, which would make it easier to keep under the cap.

It'd make teams reassess their rosters before acquiring higher priced players via trade, instead of acquiring them because the poorer teams can't afford them as the Rangers and Toronto have done on occasion.

You would see a situation like Weight & EDM change, where Weight might ask for more money and price himself out of the team's market, but if no other teams are willing to pay him what he asks for, because they might be discouraged under my proposal, then Weight's demands would decrease and perhaps he would stay in Edmonton.

UFA's might re-sign with their existing teams if they have had a long enough tenure or would be considered exempt from such a cap and their salary would be more flexible to that team than if they signed somewhere else. It still gives that player a choice to sign where he wants to, but it gives his existing team a little bit of an advantage and they may have to pay more for that advantage.

If you are a fan of a team that has had to cast off high salaried players to teams with much higher payrolls, just consider the players who have been traded and if those players would have still been acquired by their new teams with such a system in place. I know there is the arguement that these types of deals often help to rebuild a roster, but it also leads to the current situation where many players were basically bought and you end up with superstar rosters in some markets and pluggers in other markets.

I'm sure in some cases the higher salaried player would have still been moved, and maybe the return would have been less, but in many cases those players would have probably stayed with their teams too.

One last major thing to consider is when you look at the numbers provided previously from last season, the teams with the most non-home-grown are the teams who are setting the market standard. These are the same guys that you consistently see signing the bigger name free agents and trading for the higher salaried players. They've created a divide, and if they want to continue that divide, fine, but they have said they do not.

If they wanted to continue that divide, I've given a proposal in the past where you set up a two-league NHL, one with a cap and one without a cap but a salary floor as high as the cap of the other league. Basically just divide the league into teams spending over/under a specific amount, and you let the teams compete with their peers. Makes little sense to me to see a team with a $25 million payroll playing against a team with a $75 million payroll, even if the poorer team wins.


Last edited by Guest: 09-27-2004 at 02:40 PM.
Guest is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 02:57 PM
  #35
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
Makes little sense to me to see a team with a $25 million payroll playing against a team with a $75 million payroll, even if the poorer team wins.
IMO, even though a team has a $75 million payroll, this does not mean that the team should spend the $75 million on players... The same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a small market is the same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a big market... This is what doesn't make much sense to me... Just because you have the money to buy a Ferrari - doesn't mean you should... For wealth accumulation - buy a nice, comfortable luxury car and the difference between the Ferrari and the nice, comfortable car - put it in an investment...

If you earn $80,000 a year - and spend $80,001... you are just as poor as if you earn $8,000,000 a year - and spend $8,000,001...

IMO, NYR advantage should be to pay for world-class scouting, facilities, coaches, etc. that helps build an elite team QUICKER, BETTER, and LONGER... NYR advantage should be no worries to keep the properly developed core together... IMO, the NYR can and should have an advantage over small market teams (IMO, it's not their fault they're richer) - but I think they should pay big $ to their peers for making shortsighted salary decisions that impact every other team in the league...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 03:05 PM
  #36
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye
IMO, even though a team has a $75 million payroll, this does not mean that the team should spend the $75 million on players... The same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a small market is the same strategy that builds an 'elite' level team for a big market... This is what doesn't make much sense to me... Just because you have the money to buy a Ferrari - doesn't mean you should... For wealth accumulation - buy a nice, comfortable luxury car and the difference between the Ferrari and the nice, comfortable car - put it in an investment...

If you earn $80,000 a year - and spend $80,001... you are just as poor as if you earn $8,000,000 a year - and spend $8,000,001...

IMO, NYR advantage should be to pay for world-class scouting, facilities, coaches, etc. that helps build an elite team QUICKER, BETTER, and LONGER... NYR advantage should be no worries to keep the properly developed core together... IMO, the NYR can and should have an advantage over small market teams (IMO, it's not their fault they're richer) - but I think they should pay big $ to their peers for making shortsighted salary decisions that impact every other team in the league...
You think too similar to me on this type of stuff

It's just too bad that the league wasn't full of these spenders who are yielding no results (Rangers the past few years) and all of the smarter teams were mopping up the competition. Unfortunately, it's led to a watered down product and a lot of what you see on the ice in today's game is due to the evolution of the CBA. When you have 1/2 of the teams that can afford to pay for the good players, and the other 1/2 has to stock their rosters with what's left, it puts pressure on the weak part of the talent depth of the sport. Either spread the wealth or eliminate the weak, and I'd prefer to spread the wealth.

Guest is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 03:35 PM
  #37
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
When you have 1/2 of the teams that can afford to pay for the good players, and the other 1/2 has to stock their rosters with what's left, it puts pressure on the weak part of the talent depth of the sport.
And thus, clutch-and-grab, trap hockey (a growing trend as the divide deapens)...

I in the Eye is offline  
Old
09-27-2004, 06:24 PM
  #38
Jon Burke
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stich
Allow me to change what I said....

That wouldn't change salaries enough to fix the game's problems.
What have you got in mind? Surely you don't support the idea of a $31M hard cap, seeing as there was, what, 7 teams with payrolls below that figure. I don't think salaries are going to drop THAT much.

 
Closed Thread

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 09:46 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.