HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

One hole in the salary cap argument

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-19-2004, 12:30 AM
  #1
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
One hole in the salary cap argument

Although I think that there will be an NHL cap next year, I do not want one. I think it will destroy the league. and destroy the team I cheer for. That is obviously the worst scenario.

There is one little hole however in those who argue that the owners want a cap. Although I think they do simply to lower the UFA ages, I fail to see why it is beneficial for them.

If every team that gets great is dismantled, the league will turn into a joke. Period. Just like the NFL. The owners can have good teams , but never for too long and never too good. Socialism at its best. Mediocrity at its best.

The one thing I dont get is the owners that see what a great team with drafting and patience can do for your bottom lin.e The team dominates for 8 years on end, on average. Pullling in huge numbers and tons of playoff dough.

Its been argued that owners want to sell hope to the fans by shortcircuiting the building process. This will destroy small market teams... teams that have an advantage at building and tweaking.

But the one hole in this whole argument, is that I really can't see the logical reasoning behind the owners wanting a cap. For one, the owners are greedy. Melnyk in Ottawa wants the most profits possible. I can't see him getting a cap and being happy about it... for one, the people in Ottawa will soon see the farce under the new NHL and attendance will decrease, perhaps even substantially, when the team is dismantled... same goes for Tampa, Vancouver, Colorado etc.

The point is : why would an owner want to risk their heyday in cash just to sell hope to the fans? Why would fans turn out more to see a worse sport? If anything over a couple years under a capped NHL, attendance would probably decrease. For one the NHL does not have the mass appeal of the NFL. It is not a TV driven league and never will be.

So why would owners shoot themselves in the foot? Or is it just another case of dumbing down or worsening a product/service etc to please the masses?

What has this world come to.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 03:01 AM
  #2
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Although I think that there will be an NHL cap next year, I do not want one. I think it will destroy the league. and destroy the team I cheer for. That is obviously the worst scenario.

There is one little hole however in those who argue that the owners want a cap. Although I think they do simply to lower the UFA ages, I fail to see why it is beneficial for them.

If every team that gets great is dismantled, the league will turn into a joke. Period. Just like the NFL. The owners can have good teams , but never for too long and never too good. Socialism at its best. Mediocrity at its best.

The one thing I dont get is the owners that see what a great team with drafting and patience can do for your bottom lin.e The team dominates for 8 years on end, on average. Pullling in huge numbers and tons of playoff dough.

Its been argued that owners want to sell hope to the fans by shortcircuiting the building process. This will destroy small market teams... teams that have an advantage at building and tweaking.

But the one hole in this whole argument, is that I really can't see the logical reasoning behind the owners wanting a cap. For one, the owners are greedy. Melnyk in Ottawa wants the most profits possible. I can't see him getting a cap and being happy about it... for one, the people in Ottawa will soon see the farce under the new NHL and attendance will decrease, perhaps even substantially, when the team is dismantled... same goes for Tampa, Vancouver, Colorado etc.

The point is : why would an owner want to risk their heyday in cash just to sell hope to the fans? Why would fans turn out more to see a worse sport? If anything over a couple years under a capped NHL, attendance would probably decrease. For one the NHL does not have the mass appeal of the NFL. It is not a TV driven league and never will be.

So why would owners shoot themselves in the foot? Or is it just another case of dumbing down or worsening a product/service etc to please the masses?

wake up buddy. in the last ten years only top ten payrolls have won the stanley cup. subtract the devils cups and they are all top 5 payroll teams that have won the cup. spending big money doesn't guarantee winning the cup, but not spending guarantees that you won't thats plain and simple.

building thru the draft is fine for a foundation, but teams that do that still are required to add elite players at high prices if they are going to compete. the unlimited load up of impact veterans at the trade deadline is an example of that.
Look who Ottawa, Toronto, Philadelphia, and Boston loaded up with at the deadline.
An allstar/hall of fame lineup of players. Tampa can't afford that and they stand pat.

maybe you want the detroit red wings and colorado avalanche of the nhl to be two of the 4 nhl contenders every year, but hoping for what you are hoping for you contem half of the league or more to NEVER having a legitimate chance to win the cup again. maybe edmonton and calgary will be happy with the cups they have won already. maybe vancouver fans don't need a cup to be happy. maybe fans in nashville and phoenix will be happy with a playoff race in march every few years to be content.

but i dont think so.

txpd is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 07:07 AM
  #3
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Yeah, it's much better right now starting every season asking yourself which one of NJ, Dallas, Colorado and Detroit will win the cup this year. /sarcasm

The NFL system is the best system. NFL teams can keep their stars throughout their prime if they want. Where NFL teams have problem is with the 2nd-teir players. If you notice even in the FA era, we've had mini-dynasties in the NFL. Patriots won 2 of the last 3. Rams and Green Bay each went to multiple SB's. Denver won two in a row. Baltimore won one and is still competitive for a SB. And many think if they had held onto Dilfer they had a good chance to repeat the following year.
The Raiders were able to consider themselves SB contenders for 4 years in a row. THe Eagles have been able to make the conference championship 3 years in a row.


How fast NFL teams have to rebuild is greatly exaggerated.

I also don't agree with most of your other supppsitions.
A cap makes drafting and building teams from your prospects MORE important.
Teams like Edmonton would actually be able to hold onto all those guys they draft. Teams like my Flyers or the Wings or the Rangers or the Av's wouldn't be able to sign every FA under the sun. These teams would have to develop more of their own players (well, really the Wings and Av's have done good both in developing and signing).

I don't know where you get off saying it's going to be a worse sport. I don't think it will be worse. I'll be happier even watching my Flyers have to build their own teams as opposed to big trades and signings. Sure, I really root for my team as is. But it's not like it used to be back in the day. Half of the Flyers haven't been on the team more then a year. How can you really identifiy with all those new players like you would with guys that had been there for many years? You can't. So I look forward to the changes that stop so many players for changing teams.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 10:22 AM
  #4
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
LOL. If anything a cap will hurt Edmonton. And who have they drafted in the last 10 years?

As for the NFL being the best sport, yeah right. A SB champ misses the playoffs the year after winning. Wow, just awesome.

Do you guys understand cause and effect?

Team gets good. Team gets expensive. Fans pay higher $$$ at a higher rate to see a good team. Team goes far in playoffs. Makes a lot of money. Then the team receives better support, TV deals etc years following doing well in the palyoffs.

A team that does well in the playoffs results in increased demand.

Its logical and the only possible explanation.

Teams that are good enough to win usually have higher payrolls. Ottawa's in 49 million this year, what rank are we in? I though small markets can't compete!

oh yeah

Quote:
I don't know where you get off saying it's going to be a worse sport. I don't think it will be worse. I'll be happier even watching my Flyers have to build their own teams as opposed to big trades and signings. Sure, I really root for my team as is. But it's not like it used to be back in the day. Half of the Flyers haven't been on the team more then a year. How can you really identifiy with all those new players like you would with guys that had been there for many years? You can't. So I look forward to the changes that stop so many players for changing teams.
If anything, a cap will increase player movement. The difference is, under this CBA, player movement are moves that WANT to be made. Under a capped NHL, movements will be made because they HAVE to.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 10:39 AM
  #5
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
As for the NFL being the best sport, yeah right. A SB champ misses the playoffs the year after winning. Wow, just awesome.
You're forgetting/ignoring/unaware that the popularity of the NFL has taken off since free agency.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 10:56 AM
  #6
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Although I think that there will be an NHL cap next year, I do not want one. I think it will destroy the league. and destroy the team I cheer for. That is obviously the worst scenario....
I agree entirely with your points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
...in the last ten years only top ten payrolls have won the stanley cup.
"Only"???????

Not everyone wishes to see a crapshoot, water-downed socialistic, equality-reigns league, whereby every team can win the championship from season to season.

And, it reasons that the top payrolls are paid by the top teams. In the summer of '01, as just one example, colorado had to re-sign free agents Blake, Roy and Sakic. They did, and spent a ton of money in the process. Under a cap, they may have been able to only sign 2 of those players, or had to let someone else go.

Salary cap = Punishing success.

Detroit, Colorado, NJ etc. have won Cups because they have the best management, coaching and player personnel. Add Dallas, Ottawa, Philly to that list and most recently Tampa and Vancouver. (Funny, both of those last two teams were lousy just a few years back.) And they have the resources to acquire and retain talent, via trade, FA and the draft.

The "salary cap is the holy grail" crowd seeks to bring those franchises down to the level of also rans. Knowingly or unknowingly.


Last edited by Trottier: 03-20-2004 at 03:01 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 11:13 AM
  #7
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
LOL. If anything a cap will hurt Edmonton. And who have they drafted in the last 10 years?
It's not just who they drafted. It's who they've had and couldn't hold onto. Players like Guerin or Weight or Carter or Niinimaa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
As for the NFL being the best sport, yeah right. A SB champ misses the playoffs the year after winning. Wow, just awesome.
That rarely happens. And blamming something like what happened to Tampa this year on the cap is rediculous since they didn't lose anyone important after last year. I listed a whole crap load of teams that have won SB's or been close for good stretches and your response is one team that missed the playoffs that had nothing to do with a cap or losing players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Do you guys understand cause and effect?
Do you understand what you're talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Team gets good. Team gets expensive.
Fans pay higher $$$ at a higher rate to see a good team. Team goes far in playoffs. Makes a lot of money. Then the team receives better support, TV deals etc years following doing well in the palyoffs.

A team that does well in the playoffs results in increased demand.

Its logical and the only possible explanation.
So now you're complaining about a team getting better? That happens now with teams. Cap doesn't change anything here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
Teams that are good enough to win usually have higher payrolls. Ottawa's in 49 million this year, what rank are we in? I though small markets can't compete!
Ottawa's payroll ranks in the middle of the league right now. Not the bottom. And every team that's won a cup in the past decade and been in the Top 10. Teams near the bottom can compete OCCASIONALY. Some teams are better at it then others. Some teams at the top just suck like the Rangers. But to even argue that teams that can afford higher payrolls don't have an advantage is ludicrous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
oh yeah
no

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
If anything, a cap will increase player movement. The difference is, under this CBA, player movement are moves that WANT to be made. Under a capped NHL, movements will be made because they HAVE to.
A cap decreases movement of the best players. The best players hardly ever change teams in the leagues with caps. And the difference is that with a cap this happens to ALL the teams. Right now, it's only the smaller market teams that are losing their best players. Teams like my Flyers don't lose their best players often. They are able to gobble up the best players from smaller market teams.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
03-20-2004, 11:53 AM
  #8
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
As for the NFL being the best sport, yeah right. A SB champ misses the playoffs the year after winning. Wow, just awesome.
New Jersey once missed the playoffs after winning the cup, Anaheim is going to miss the cup after going to the finals, etc. It happens in the NHL too... wow just awesome?

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 08:27 AM
  #9
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
If every team that gets great is dismantled, the league will turn into a joke. Period. Just like the NFL.
What a joke it is. The NFL is laughing all the way to the bank.

Take a look around. NBA and NFL have caps. They are doing well. NHL and MLB have no cap. They are not doing well. What do you think the NHL will do?

The NHL is a joke right now. Its a joke because of the Bertuzzi incident. Its a joke because of the TV ratings. Its a joke because of its TV contract. Its a joke because of its dropping attendance.

Take a look around. One sports league is a laughing stock. Its not the NFL. Its the NHL.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 11:06 AM
  #10
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
What a joke it is. The NFL is laughing all the way to the bank.

Take a look around. NBA and NFL have caps. They are doing well. NHL and MLB have no cap. They are not doing well. What do you think the NHL will do?

The NHL is a joke right now. Its a joke because of the Bertuzzi incident. Its a joke because of the TV ratings. Its a joke because of its TV contract. Its a joke because of its dropping attendance.

Take a look around. One sports league is a laughing stock. Its not the NFL. Its the NHL.
MLB actually has a luxury tax, but it only affects 3 teams: Anaheim, Boston, New York Yankees(well for the upcoming season, last season it only affected the Yankees).

NFL is slightly different in that it isn't gate driven like the NHL. Most of the money a team makes is from apparel and TV contracts. So an owner can have a 2-14 season and still make money. There's that much money in the NFL. Still, caps basically don't let any of the fans cheer for a player anymore, only a team. There's some rule in the NFL CBA about dubbing a "franchise player" or something like that and that somehow saves them cap room, I'm not too sure on the details. Also, NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, which is why the signing bonuses are so ridiculously large. You could sign a 10 year contract with a team, but if they don't want you after 2 years, they just cut you and your contract is gone just like that. A cap will be very very difficult to manage with guaranteed contracts of the NHL.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 11:13 AM
  #11
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehc73
MLB actually has a luxury tax, but it only affects 3 teams: Anaheim, Boston, New York Yankees(well for the upcoming season, last season it only affected the Yankees).
It only affects the Yankees. Boston is right below the limit, Anaheim isn't that high up.

Quote:
NFL is slightly different in that it isn't gate driven like the NHL. Most of the money a team makes is from apparel and TV contracts. So an owner can have a 2-14 season and still make money. There's that much money in the NFL. Still, caps basically don't let any of the fans cheer for a player anymore, only a team. There's some rule in the NFL CBA about dubbing a "franchise player" or something like that and that somehow saves them cap room, I'm not too sure on the details. Also, NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, which is why the signing bonuses are so ridiculously large. You could sign a 10 year contract with a team, but if they don't want you after 2 years, they just cut you and your contract is gone just like that. A cap will be very very difficult to manage with guaranteed contracts of the NHL.
In the NFL "Franchise Player" doesn't give you any cap room. What franchising a player does is when you have a player who is a free agent and you haven't reached an agreement yet, you slap the "franchise" tag on them and they are paid a one year contract worth the average of the top 5 salaries at their position. Generally a team does that just to buy more time to work out a long term deal, such as the Colts did this year with Peyton Manning. There is also a "transistion" tag which is similar but not as costly. But the salary still counts against the cap.

You're probably thinking of the "Larry Bird Rule" in the NBA where you can resign your own players for more money than any team can pay, and the excess money doesn't count against the cap.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 11:18 AM
  #12
kyle
Registered User
 
kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
In the NFL "Franchise Player" doesn't give you any cap room. What franchising a player does is when you have a player who is a free agent and you haven't reached an agreement yet, you slap the "franchise" tag on them and they are paid a one year contract worth the average of the top 5 salaries at their position. Generally a team does that just to buy more time to work out a long term deal, such as the Colts did this year with Peyton Manning. There is also a "transistion" tag which is similar but not as costly. But the salary still counts against the cap.
Transition Tag is the exact same thing as a Franchise Tag except it's the top 10, not top 5. The number becomes slightly lower. It's a tool to keep them off of the free agent market. You can either re-negotiate, sign him to the 1-year deal, or trade him.

kyle is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 11:20 AM
  #13
kyle
Registered User
 
kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehc73
Also, NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, which is why the signing bonuses are so ridiculously large. You could sign a 10 year contract with a team, but if they don't want you after 2 years, they just cut you and your contract is gone just like that.
Yes, and no.

Signing bonuses are guaranteed. Roster bonuses are not. If you sign a $30 million signing bonus on a 6 year contract, it is pro-rated over the number of years on the contract (to a maximum of 6 years I think but I could be wrong). The problem here, is that if you are cut (since they are one-way contracts) after 2 years, the team still takes a $5 million hit on the cap for the remaining 4 years.

kyle is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 12:47 PM
  #14
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle
Transition Tag is the exact same thing as a Franchise Tag except it's the top 10, not top 5. The number becomes slightly lower. It's a tool to keep them off of the free agent market. You can either re-negotiate, sign him to the 1-year deal, or trade him.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was top 10 or top 15, and I really didn't feel like looking it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle
The problem here, is that if you are cut (since they are one-way contracts) after 2 years, the team still takes a $5 million hit on the cap for the remaining 4 years.
Not quite. If you get cut, the cap hit accelerates and the remaining guaranteed signing bonus counts against the upcoming year's cap. If they're cut after June 1st then it's spread over 2 years. It's a bit complicated, but it boils down to that the cap hit is taken immediately if a player is cut, it is not spread out.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 01:09 PM
  #15
Frenzy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,797
vCash: 500
If an owner wants to spend big $$ on their team, then imo, they should be able to do so. Most every owner is losing money (according to them); however, how many would lose money if they used some form of judgment. Noone is forcing owners to pay players X, 7-8 mill per season. They are choosing to do so.

Yes, this may hurt small market teams to a point, but not that badly. Many teams trade their UFAs (who don't fit into future plans) during or twords the end of the season. So they aren't not getting compensated for the players.

Further, most teams that are successful, season in - season out, have built the core from within. Teams like NY have had little success signing the big name UFAs -and as a consequence most teams are no longer going the highend route. (Granted this past offseason may be a mirage as teams were worried about the CBA, I think a good portion was due to owners practicing constaint).

The elite players, Modano's, Sakics, etc.. will always get their money, but I think the league has started a trend away from paying the LaPointes and Holiks of the NHL over 5 mill. They can lower the bottem end players 1st and then work to lower the $$ of the big name players.

I have another idea, instead of a CAP. Why not move the UFA age back to 31 or 32? IMO, this means most teams will have a player though the majority of their prime (28-32) and those chosing the get good quick routine will be building w/ even older players. Players will still get the big $$, but the team and owners will hold the rights to a player longer.

I hate the NFL cap because there is way to much movement.

Frenzy1 is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:08 PM
  #16
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
It only affects the Yankees. Boston is right below the limit, Anaheim isn't that high up.
Sweet mother of crap, they increased the limit?? Why in the blazes would they do that?? I know those 3 teams are over $100 million in salary each(maybe not the Angels, I might be thinking of another team, but I know tehre are 3).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Love
In the NFL "Franchise Player" doesn't give you any cap room. What franchising a player does is when you have a player who is a free agent and you haven't reached an agreement yet, you slap the "franchise" tag on them and they are paid a one year contract worth the average of the top 5 salaries at their position. Generally a team does that just to buy more time to work out a long term deal, such as the Colts did this year with Peyton Manning. There is also a "transistion" tag which is similar but not as costly. But the salary still counts against the cap.

You're probably thinking of the "Larry Bird Rule" in the NBA where you can resign your own players for more money than any team can pay, and the excess money doesn't count against the cap.
Yeah, something like that. In any case, doesn't the NBA have a luxury tax and not a hard cap? I remember a story on how Mark Cuban said he didn't care how much luxury tax he had to pay on his payroll if he could improve the team and get a championship.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:36 PM
  #17
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
I think one work around to this whole cap debate is to not count homegrown players towards the cap. In other words, Ottawa drafted Alfredsson & Hossa, they are not part of the cap. However they did not draft Lalime & Redden, so they would count as part of the cap. Even this concept could be worked differently, because I would consider Redden homegrown talent even though he was traded from the Islanders. Maybe if they play their first NHL game with you they are considered homegrown.

Then you would be rewarded by drafting and developing your own players.

I'd like to hear some rebut's to that.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:57 PM
  #18
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCoyotes
I think one work around to this whole cap debate is to not count homegrown players towards the cap. In other words, Ottawa drafted Alfredsson & Hossa, they are not part of the cap. However they did not draft Lalime & Redden, so they would count as part of the cap. Even this concept could be worked differently, because I would consider Redden homegrown talent even though he was traded from the Islanders. Maybe if they play their first NHL game with you they are considered homegrown.

Then you would be rewarded by drafting and developing your own players.

I'd like to hear some rebut's to that.
The issues here are that there has to be a precise definition of what a homegrown player is. Does Wade Redden or Peter Forsberg count as a homegrown player? Both have played games with only one NHL franchise, but neither were originally drafted by that franchise. How about somebody like Markus Naslund or Roberto Luongo who played for a few seasons with a previous franchise but clearly developed into top NHL players with their current franchise? How about players like Brendan Shanahan or Al MacInnis who were devloped by other franchises but have been with their current franchise for a long time?

Is this a total salary cap or only a cap on the salaries of players who are not homegrown. If this is a total cap, what is to prevent a team from signing a UFA to put them at the cap limit and then re-sign several homegrown players putting them far above cap?

The biggest problem however is what does this solve in the first place? The NHL will have instituted a salary cap that is not actually a cap. Teams can continue to go about spending big bucks if they see fit just as long as the bucks are spent on homegrown talent. *IF* spending is so out of control that a salary cap is needed (I dont think this is true), does this actually accomplish anything or have we just established a cap that is so leaky that it wont have any real effect? By seeking a compromise between two very different positions it is far to easy to wind up with a result that accomplishes nobody's goals. Its very possible that a cap like this could do little to prevent spending and also force players who are not considered homegrown (Forsberg, Pronger, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Iginla etc) to be moved between teams with higher frequency.

This is a compromise but is it better than the current CBA? If so how?

We still have no answered the most fundamental question about salary caps. If there are teams that are barely staying afloat with payrolls around $35 mill a year as the NHL claims, how does instituting a leaky cap that would likely allow most teams to pay more than $35 mill for their team's salary help them to make money?


Last edited by CH: 03-22-2004 at 04:04 PM.
CH is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 03:54 PM
  #19
jairadballerina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: C-Town
Posts: 86
vCash: 500
Quote:
The issues here are that there has to be a precise defintion of what a homegrown player is.
Isn't there criteria setup to establish a player's rookie season? I think something was established to determine the official "rookie" year for a player for the hockey card manufacturers.

This is a great idea because it enforces the idea of drafting and developing players. Maybe refine it a bit to today's NHL:

Your "homegrown" stars (who laced up since day 1) salaries count toward x% (x being a low number).

Players that have been with your club for 1 year count toward y% (y being higher of course).

Players that have been with the club for 2 - 3 years count toward z% (z being lower than y but higher than x).

Continue on this scale dropping the % inversely with years on the club. One problem I do see is shipping players back and forth to the AHL clubs and NHL clubs. I am not an expert on to how those players are paid or what team they "officially" play for. Maybe someone who knows more about this could possibly have a solution that fits into this idea.

jairadballerina is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 04:02 PM
  #20
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
The issues here are that there has to be a precise defintion of what a homegrown player is. Does Wade Redden or Peter Forsberg count as a homegrown player? Both have played games with only one NHL franchise, but neither were originally drafted by that franchise. How about somebody like Markus Naslund or Roberto Luongo who played for a few seasons with a previous franchise but clearly developed into top NHL players weith their current franchise? How about players like Brendan Shanahan or Al MacInnis who were devloped by other franchises but have been with their current franchise for a long time?

Is this a total salary cap or only a cap on the salaries of players who are not homegrown. If this is a total cap, what is to prevent a team from signing a UFA to put them at the cap limit and then re-sign several homegrown players putting them far above cap?

The biggest problem however is what does this solve in the first place? The NHL will have instituted a salary cap that is not actually a cap. Teams can continue to go about spending big bucks if they see fit just as long as the bucks are spent on homegrown talent. *IF* spending is so out of control that a salary cap is needed (I dont think this is true), does this actually accomplish anything or have we just established a cap that is so leaky that it wont have any real effect? By seeking a compromise between two very different positions it is far to easy to wind up with a result that accomplishes nobody's goals. Its very possible that a cap like this could do little to prevent spending and also force players who are not considered homegrown (Forsberg, Pronger, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Iginla etc) to be moved between teams with higher frequency.

This is a compromise but is it better than the current CBA? If so how?

We still have no answered the most fundamental question about salary caps. If there are teams that are barely staying afloat with payrolls around $35 mill a year as the NHL claims, how does instituting a leaky cap that would likely allow most teams to pay more than $35 mill for their team's salary help them to make money?
I think the best definition to use for the homegrown players concept is either someone who played their first NHL game for that franchise (and hasn't played elsewhere either in the NHL), or possibly something that states players who have played X number of years on the same team could be an addendum to the rule, because I agree that something should help teams keep players as well.

All homegrown players would not count against a cap of any kind. Of course under this concept, a $35 million cap would be generous in most cases, so it's something that would have to be thought of as a new entity.

What does it solve? Well it discourages teams from spending soley to build their teams. A team like the Rangers (of past) or take the Leafs, would not be able to add all of these high payroll players, the best players in the league, because they wouldn't be able to meet the cap. By not being able to suck up the talent in the league, you'd see more quality talent spread out around the league. It'd also give a lot of teams an advantage in negotiating with the UFA-to-be players because the competition would have to consider the cap.

These are the payrolls for teams when you take out the homegrown talent, assuming homegrown talent are players who have only played for that franchise in the NHL.

EDM $22.3 million
NJD $24.0 million
OTT $24.7 million
TB $25.1 million
VAN $37.6 million
COL $39.1 million
STL $60.7 million
DET $66.0 million
PHI $69.7 million
TOR $71.9 million

Take it for what it's worth, because I know the highest teams are also the highest overall payroll. If you look at the lower end teams, it says something to me.

Guest is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 04:09 PM
  #21
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
We still have no answered the most fundamental question about salary caps. If there are teams that are barely staying afloat with payrolls around $35 mill a year as the NHL claims, how does instituting a leaky cap that would likely allow most teams to pay more than $35 mill for their team's salary help them to make money?
I often see this question asked. I'm not sure if it's because people do not see a connection between a cap and the general player salary market, or if it's just that people don't see it as having enough impact to sway salaries enough to have a material impact.

A salary cap puts downward pressure on the labour market, making the cost of players as a whole cheaper, thus allowing teams that are under the cap to maintain their team at a lower price. The hope to the lower payroll teams, is that the larger-market teams don't have the cap room to outbid the smaller teams for players. This takes out a number of "buyers", allowing the smaller teams to sign those same players at a lower rate.

Example:

Minnessotta is currently under the cap, and is looking to retain one of its players that's on the verge of becoming a UFA, say Wes Walz. Without a cap, there would be enough demand for such a player that he could demand, say, $4 million per season, which let's say, is too expensive for the Wild. The team that gets him, let's say, is the Detroit Red Wings.

Now, if Detroit is dealing with a cap, they will not be able to sign Wes Walz to such a contract. That's takes out at least one buyer for his services. Some of the other potential buyers might be facing a similar situation. The result is that Minnessota will be able to sign Walz to a contract at, let's say $2 million per season.

Now people may tell you that a cap will lead to a host of other problems such as team parity, which will sink the NHL, or they will tell you that it won't have enough impact, and the NHL will bleed red forever, or they may tell you something in between. Either way, the underlining principle that a cap does put downward pressure on player salaries across the NHL remains.

discostu is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 04:10 PM
  #22
Frenzy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jairadballerina
Isn't there criteria setup to establish a player's rookie season? I think something was established to determine the official "rookie" year for a player for the hockey card manufacturers.

This is a great idea because it enforces the idea of drafting and developing players. Maybe refine it a bit to today's NHL:

Your "homegrown" stars (who laced up since day 1) salaries count toward x% (x being a low number).

Players that have been with your club for 1 year count toward y% (y being higher of course).

Players that have been with the club for 2 - 3 years count toward z% (z being lower than y but higher than x).

Continue on this scale dropping the % inversely with years on the club. One problem I do see is shipping players back and forth to the AHL clubs and NHL clubs. I am not an expert on to how those players are paid or what team they "officially" play for. Maybe someone who knows more about this could possibly have a solution that fits into this idea.
I don't like this because it will make trading players far more difficult. Granted many trades are salary dumps (as of late), but many trades are legit tallent for tallent trades. (Morriss for Drury, Primeiu(sp) for Shanny, Blake for Miller/Deadmarsh, Pronger for Shanny, Freezen, Sykora....).

Fans act liking like their teams are losing players to the UFA market, however, most of the big names are actually traded to another team prior to becoming a UFA. Now, do they get equal tallent going back - not always, but that is a team's choice and often the market value of that player. When a team is getting prospects and picks in return, it is their hope that they will get the value of that player back in development of the picks and prospects. It doesn't always work out, but that is the chance you take.

If you believe the Owners, most teams are losing money and that will drive the prices of the players down.

If an owner wants to try to buy the cup, let him. We all know that it doesn't work. NHL, owners are not dealing w/ 1 year contracts (NFL = not guarenteed). Decisions today will affect the team for 3-5 years (Financial impct).


Last edited by Frenzy1: 03-22-2004 at 04:17 PM.
Frenzy1 is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 05:54 PM
  #23
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
I often see this question asked. I'm not sure if it's because people do not see a connection between a cap and the general player salary market, or if it's just that people don't see it as having enough impact to sway salaries enough to have a material impact.

A salary cap puts downward pressure on the labour market, making the cost of players as a whole cheaper, thus allowing teams that are under the cap to maintain their team at a lower price. The hope to the lower payroll teams, is that the larger-market teams don't have the cap room to outbid the smaller teams for players. This takes out a number of "buyers", allowing the smaller teams to sign those same players at a lower rate.

You are proposing that the hypothetical team that is not making a go of things not attempt to have a $35 million payroll even though the hypothetical cap is $35 mill. Because it wont increase revenue with a salary cap. So you are proposing that this team still doesn't compete under a cap. You are proposing that they now ice a team with a payroll of $15-20 mill. Then, they would make money likely. But not compete.

A salary cap would be brought in and still teams cannot compete.

Wouldn't it be a smarter move to fold or move these hypothetical teams instead of removing all the good teams in the NHL, increasing movement of players (reducing fans attachment to favorite players) because clearly these markets cannot possibly complete. You propose that they dont try to compete under a cap.

I dont think there is any team close to as bad off as this. But if it is, instead of reducing the quality of the NHL for the weak team, it makes more sense to kill the weak team.

CH is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 08:02 AM
  #24
discostu
Registered User
 
discostu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nomadville
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH
You are proposing that the hypothetical team that is not making a go of things not attempt to have a $35 million payroll even though the hypothetical cap is $35 mill. Because it wont increase revenue with a salary cap. So you are proposing that this team still doesn't compete under a cap. You are proposing that they now ice a team with a payroll of $15-20 mill. Then, they would make money likely. But not compete.

A salary cap would be brought in and still teams cannot compete.

Wouldn't it be a smarter move to fold or move these hypothetical teams instead of removing all the good teams in the NHL, increasing movement of players (reducing fans attachment to favorite players) because clearly these markets cannot possibly complete. You propose that they dont try to compete under a cap.

I dont think there is any team close to as bad off as this. But if it is, instead of reducing the quality of the NHL for the weak team, it makes more sense to kill the weak team.
I wasn't proposing any specific action for the hypothetical team to take. In the example I provided, Minnessotta could re-sign Walz, where without a cap, they would likely not be able to do so competing with the Rangers pocket book.

The original point of my post though was to identify how a cap impacts salaries. Under the hypothetical scenario, that $35 million team can take several different courses of action. They can choose to remain as they are, non-competitive, but their payroll will be reduced to $15-20. The other option is to maintain their payroll at $35 million, with the money going towards re-signing and obtaining more players, hopefully making them more competitive, and thus, more revenue. The likely course of action would be somewhere in between though. The net result with either scenario is more profit for the smaller team.

Would the NHL be better killing off that team? Perhaps, but that's an entirely different issue altogether, and one that neither owners of smaller-market "at-risk" teams want, nor what the NHLPA would want because of reduced jobs, so it's a hard sell.

discostu is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 08:23 AM
  #25
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu
Example:

Minnessotta is currently under the cap, and is looking to retain one of its players that's on the verge of becoming a UFA, say Wes Walz. Without a cap, there would be enough demand for such a player that he could demand, say, $4 million per season, which let's say, is too expensive for the Wild. The team that gets him, let's say, is the Detroit Red Wings.

Now, if Detroit is dealing with a cap, they will not be able to sign Wes Walz to such a contract. That's takes out at least one buyer for his services. Some of the other potential buyers might be facing a similar situation. The result is that Minnessota will be able to sign Walz to a contract at, let's say $2 million per season.
small problem with your example. We Walz did sign a contract for around 2m per season and there is no cap.

Are you suggesting he would have signed for 1m if a cap was in place ?

Any team with a 30m payroll today wont see it decreased enough under a cap to make them from money losers to money makers. A cap will only help the big market teams make more money, it wont help the teams currently losing money one bit.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud 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 04:23 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.