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.

why am i against a cap ?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2004, 06:38 PM
  #1
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
why am i against a cap ?

here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:03 PM
  #2
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Last CBA the players got a *one* year reduction from 32 down to 31. You think they're going to get at *least* four years this time? With far less bargaining power this time? Impossible.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 08:21 PM
  #3
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr
Who cares man... the system is broke and needs to be FIXED!!! I don't care about the players, I hope for the TEAM!!! The logo on the front is more important than the name on the back, that will never change for me! The players need to start thinking that way also!

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:10 PM
  #4
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Last CBA the players got a *one* year reduction from 32 down to 31. You think they're going to get at *least* four years this time? With far less bargaining power this time? Impossible.
last CBA the players didnt give up the salary cap, so they didnt ask for hte homerun on UFA. this CBA, they sure do have the bargaining power if they finally agree to a cap.

you dont think that if the owners get their homerun the players wont get theirs ? in the end, it doesnt hurt the owners to give up a lower UFA and get a cap. it hurts the FANS who like having Jarome Iginla, Marian Hossa and Vincent Levalivaier tied up until they are 31.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:12 PM
  #5
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7
Who cares man... the system is broke and needs to be FIXED!!! I don't care about the players, I hope for the TEAM!!! The logo on the front is more important than the name on the back, that will never change for me! The players need to start thinking that way also!
read what i posted .. i dont care how much they make either .. i just happen to like keeping the guys i like with the jersey of the team i like.

i dont want Matt Cooke to have UFA at age 26 or for Jarome Iginla to have UFA etc ....

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 09:13 PM
  #6
Loki
PK Specialist
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Since you are against the cap, I assume you are a fan of a big money NHL team. Which one is it?

Loki is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:15 AM
  #7
iAvs
JUST WIN
 
iAvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since you are against the cap, I assume you are a fan of a big money NHL team. Which one is it?
I guess we have to punish teams that are successful by slamming them with a cap then? Is that how the NHL should be run? After a cap... every team will be mediocre. That would really hurt the NHL from a fans perspective. But, it gives poor teams a chance to win. Yippie.

iAvs is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:30 AM
  #8
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Since you are against the cap, I assume you are a fan of a big money NHL team. Which one is it?
i live in Calgary.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 01:15 AM
  #9
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

first, i dont care how much or little the players make. 100k is an awesome salary for a year, never mind the double that or 10x that. thats not hte issue.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr
I understand your sentiment, but isn't this truely inevitable? Eventually with the next 10 years of CBA negotiations again, the age will come down more and more.

That's why I say the homegrown cap...keep the teams together first and foremost, restrict the UFA's without disabling them.

Guest is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 02:32 AM
  #10
BlueBleeder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Looking for others
Country: United States
Posts: 1,677
vCash: 500
If a cap is put in place, they need to install a franchise tag like the NFL has.

BlueBleeder is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 03:01 AM
  #11
coolguy21415
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBleeder
If a cap is put in place, they need to install a franchise tag like the NFL has.
The franchise tag is a joke, and more of a hindrance to the player than not.

coolguy21415 is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 06:40 AM
  #12
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1LS9
I guess we have to punish teams that are successful by slamming them with a cap then? Is that how the NHL should be run? After a cap... every team will be mediocre. That would really hurt the NHL from a fans perspective. But, it gives poor teams a chance to win. Yippie.
God I`m sick of people saying this. Are the players suddenly going to suck after their is a cap? It is true that we might not see stacked teams like Toronto, Philly, Detroit, Colorado etc... But to say that all teams will be mediocre is rediculous.

Chelios is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 10:08 AM
  #13
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.
Well, a lot of teams can't afford to keep their good young players until then the way things are now, so big deal.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 10:48 AM
  #14
FlyersFan10*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,349
vCash: 500
See, the big problem I have with a salary cap is that the cap will allow bad owners to make a profit. There's no incentive to improve a team. Mediocre teams will make a lot of money. The league needs to address that issue. I mean, c'mon. If a salary cap is instituted, then think of big market teams like Boston and Chicago. The owners are skin flints to begin with and a salary cap will give them all the more reason to continue to be so. There should be a competitive balance rule in place. For instance, if a team is accused of knowingly tanking it just so that it can make a higher profit, then the team should be fined and be fined quite heavily. As well, if a maximum is going to be placed on spending, then there should be a salary minimum. I agree that 31 million per team is too low. If the league says that revenue is $2.1 billion, and they want to split 50/50 with players, then the cap per team would be $35 million. I'd say this. A salary cap of 42 million per team (60% of the revenue). A salary minimum of 35 million per team. Anyone found guilty of intentionally tanking so that they can generate more revenue and profit, they give up all their revenue for that year and put it in the NHL Retirement Fund. In return for the salary cap, the players get unrestricted free agency after they complete their first contract.

FlyersFan10* is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 10:48 AM
  #15
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Well, a lot of teams can't afford to keep their good young players until then the way things are now, so big deal.
BS ... every team can afford to keep their young players and if they cant they arent an NHL market...

what team cant afford their young players ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:11 AM
  #16
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Have Cap Room Buddy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
here is why i am against a cap and why all you cappers are going to regret "winning" the cap battle.

the issue is if the owners get their cap, its going to come at the cost of a 25 or 26 or at best a 27 year old UFA age. you think if the owners get their homerun (a cap) that the players wont demand a homerun for themselves too ?

so, prepare yourself for a new NHL where players can leave your team once they hit their prime and there is nothing you can do about it and you wont have ANYTHING to show for it. nothing, zero, zilch.

dr
Salary Cap, means DR that in order to a team to sign another player, a very talented one, that they would require having room under the salary cap to fit that player onto their roster. That means, that the Wings, Leafs and Rangers, etc. need to have 5 or 6 million under the cap to sign an Iginla, Lecavalier, Heatley, etc. away from another team. They may be able to do it one year, but really, they can't do it each year and still ice a competitive team.

We've seen, time and time again that 1 great player one your team means squat in the current NHL.

By your logic, the Packers should not have Brett Favre on their team, the Colts should not have Peyton Manning on their team, whom they signed to an extension this past summer because they would have left as free agents to the likes of the Cowboys, Redskins, etc.


Last edited by Street Hawk: 10-31-2004 at 11:15 AM.
Street Hawk is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:21 AM
  #17
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
BS ... every team can afford to keep their young players and if they cant they arent an NHL market...

what team cant afford their young players ?
Okay... How about good, not old players. Weight, Hamrlik, Guerin, Niinimaa... The Oilers had to give them all up prior to UFA age anyways.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:24 AM
  #18
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk
By your logic, the Packers should not have Brett Favre on their team, the Colts should not have Peyton Manning on their team, whom they signed to an extension this past summer because they would have left as free agents to the likes of the Cowboys, Redskins, etc.
im not completly up to speed on the NFL, but its not just stars I am talking about.

25 UFA affects all the players, guys like Matt Cooke cant leave the Canucks until they dont want him anymore (or he gets to 31). With a lowered UFA, he can leave.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:27 AM
  #19
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
Okay... How about good, not old players. Weight, Hamrlik, Guerin, Niinimaa... The Oilers had to give them all up prior to UFA age anyways.
you are so focused on your own little team. the reason EDM couldnt afford those players was because for 10 years they drafted NOBODY. they didnt build a winner and therefore didnt have winner revenue to support those types of players.

besides, so what .. you lost those expensive players and then replaced them with younger cheaper players, whats wrong with that ?

Reasoner, Brewer, Dvorak, Torres, Isbister, Stoll and JDD. if the owners win their cap, Hamrlik, Weight, Guerin, Niinima and others will be able to leave your team for nothing when they hit 25 or 26 and you woudnt have this nice list of young cheap players now. you would have nothing ! not because you cant afford to keep players (cap) but because no one will want to stay with a team like EDM that cant draft and build a winning team.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:31 AM
  #20
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Works the same way still IMO...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
im not completly up to speed on the NFL, but its not just stars I am talking about.

25 UFA affects all the players, guys like Matt Cooke cant leave the Canucks until they dont want him anymore (or he gets to 31). With a lowered UFA, he can leave.

dr
Whether it's Matt Cooke or Markus Naslund, a team needs to have cap room. Obviously to get Naslund requires more cap room, but you still can't go and over spend on a Matt Cooke because it eats up cap room which you could allocate part of to someone else.

Are they "Bad Contracts" in the NFL. Sure, the Detroit Lions signed Az Hakim, the 3rd WR from the St. Louis Rams to a big contract, but Hakim left a good playoff team in the Rams to sign with the lowly Lions. Why, cause the Lions had plenty of Cap room because they don't have many good players on their team.

So, every single contract under a Cap system counts, which means hard decisions are made each year.

Every team operates under that same philosophy, so if the Nucks lose Cooke because a team, let's use Pittsburgh because of their low payroll, then the Nucks have to look elsewhere for a replacement. They have to find someone to fill Cooke's roll at or below the salary they have allotted for Cooke.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:42 AM
  #21
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
you are so focused on your own little team.
Uh, yeah. I'm not going to apologize for being a fan. I don't think I should have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the reason EDM couldnt afford those players was because for 10 years they drafted NOBODY. they didnt build a winner and therefore didnt have winner revenue to support those types of players.
The last few years they've had plenty of revenue. Sellouts all the time. 3rd jersey sales through the roof. Yet if things don't change, they won't survive. Why doesn't that click for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
besides, so what .. you lost those expensive players and then replaced them with younger cheaper players, whats wrong with that?
Okay. Then what's wrong with losing players to free agency at 25 or 26 (as you strangely insist on), and signing younger players to replace them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
not because you cant afford to keep players (cap) but because no one will want to stay with a team like EDM that cant draft and build a winning team.
Okay, you lost me. You haven't noticed the incredible improvement in Oiler drafting since the new management took over? I'd rather have it that way. It makes management more accountable because everyone's on a level playing field.

If my team's bad, I'd want it to be because of bad drafting, if super high salaries are the only other option. At least that way, there's room for improvement. If things stay the way there are now, we'll have no team. I'll take bad team over no team, thanks.

Seachd is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 11:43 AM
  #22
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk
Every team operates under that same philosophy, so if the Nucks lose Cooke because a team, let's use Pittsburgh because of their low payroll, then the Nucks have to look elsewhere for a replacement. They have to find someone to fill Cooke's roll at or below the salary they have allotted for Cooke.
see, this is what im going to hate if the owners win and why i dont want a cap. why shouldnt the Canucks be able to keep Matt Cooke until he is 31 ? as a fan, the cap is going to suck.

id rather a team can make its own decisions for its own reasons and not be bound by some artificial financial rule. especially when i also believe the CAP is doing nothing to solve the leagues finance troubles.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:21 PM
  #23
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
The last few years they've had plenty of revenue. Sellouts all the time. 3rd jersey sales through the roof. Yet if things don't change, they won't survive. Why doesn't that click for you?
Sellouts don't mean that much when your ticket prices are lower then that of a contender. And how many playoff games have they had in Edmonton over the past decade? You don't think the Oilers could have kept a player or two extra if they had averaged five or six more playoff dates a year?

Quote:
Okay, you lost me. You haven't noticed the incredible improvement in Oiler drafting since the new management took over? I'd rather have it that way. It makes management more accountable because everyone's on a level playing field.
How does improved drafting now (although its hard to say for sure if their drafting has improved since they only have Hemsky and Semenov to show for it) keep the players two to four years ago?

Why are you complaining about an unlevel playing field when your management was inept and responsible for your team's woes?

Quote:
If my team's bad, I'd want it to be because of bad drafting, if super high salaries are the only other option. At least that way, there's room for improvement. If things stay the way there are now, we'll have no team. I'll take bad team over no team, thanks.
Your team was bad because of drafting. They had their head scout based in freaking Mexico for crying out loud. The only excuse they could use was to blame the big market teams. And the suckers in Edmonton bought it.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:30 PM
  #24
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seachd
If my team's bad, I'd want it to be because of bad drafting, .
and it was BAD because of bad drafting and thats why you couldnt afford to keep Weight, Guerin, and Hamrlik.

so whats your point ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 12:33 PM
  #25
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Sellouts don't mean that much when your ticket prices are lower then that of a contender. And how many playoff games have they had in Edmonton over the past decade? You don't think the Oilers could have kept a player or two extra if they had averaged five or six more playoff dates a year?
You don't think they would have been able to get more playoff games if they had been able to keep (or get) a decent player or two?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
How does improved drafting now (although its hard to say for sure if their drafting has improved since they only have Hemsky and Semenov to show for it) keep the players two to four years ago?
I didn't say it did. DR was using the present tense, so I assumed he meant now, naturally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Why are you complaining about an unlevel playing field when your management was inept and responsible for your team's woes?
Because the management is different, and much better now. Yet the situation still won't change, and the owners have said that many times. Good management, bad management; good drafting, bad drafting; high attendance, low attendance; none of it will matter because there won't be a team. No offense, but I'll take their word over yours.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Your team was bad because of drafting. They had their head scout based in freaking Mexico for crying out loud. The only excuse they could use was to blame the big market teams. And the suckers in Edmonton bought it.
If you think salaries had nothing to do with it, you're only kidding yourself.

Seachd is offline  
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 06:57 AM.

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.