A question for the NHLPA supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
tantalum said:
The whole mediocrity thing is BS. Their are dominant teams in cap leagues from year to year and their are perpetually terrible teams. Some teams have better scouting and prospect development, better management, better coaching, better chemistry and some are worse and that will continue. A cap doesn't guarantee a team can necessarily hold onto a player as the player still has a right to find employment where he wants (after all a consequence of the cap will be increased free agency) but that team will now be able to find a similar player without having to worry about excessive salary escalation.

the only major league with a hard cap is the NFL. I agree that there continues to be bad teams, but please name some of the dominant ones over the last decade.

The NBA has a soft cap, which allows teams to go over in order to retain their FA's. Its a system I endorse for the NHL.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
hockeytown9321 said:
A cap still forces economic decisons.

Of course it does. It's a business for goodness sakes. If you have 3 great D-men on your team economically you may not be able to afford all of them under your cap. But that isn't a change from the current sitaution...each team has a budget and having 3 all-star D-men is usually not an option and one would be moved anyways. But a team does have a much better chance of retaining them under a cap and finding the necessary pieces of the puzzle.
 

degroat*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
Because the calibre of play would be diminished. A game between two great teams provides the best hockey in the world. Last year the best regular season game I watched was an amazing game between Ottawa and Tampa. Under a salary cap, the chances of seeing such an amazing game are remote since there won't be any teams that will be able to have a roster with the amount of talent that Tampa and Ottawa have.

The NFL has shown over and over again that this is not the case. Every week there are great teams between great teams.

What fan doesn't want to have their team contending for a Cup each year? Are there really fans that hope their team is mediocre year after year?

I'm not saying that it's not understandable for fans to want their teams to win ever year. I'm saying that it's selfish to not want a cap in the league because you want your team to win ever year.

The question was... Why would a hard cap be bad for the league, not Why would a hard cap be good for your favorite team.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
Stich said:
As much as we all love the trade deadline, the unfortunate reality about the day is that the hecticness of the day is caused by the financial instability of the league.

Leagues typically want to limit this kind of player movement. The NBA has a rule in place that requires the salaries of the players being exchanged to be within 15% of each other.

First, I don't believe it's cause by that at all. It's caused by teams wanting to get something for players that aren't doing anything for them and are going to be gone in 2 months anyway.
Second, that trade limit is even worse. What if a team is offering me the 2nd overall pick and a towering young defencman for my unhappy, overpaid #1 centre. Now I can't even make that trade when I'm under the cap limit.



Stich said:
You could easily solve this problem by having some rule in the CBA that stated that players on the IR don't count towards the cap.

Then what happens when that player comes off IR? You have to release somebody? So many specific situations to be allowed for. This is why a hard cap is bad.
 

degroat*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
A cap still forces economic decisons.

Budgets force economic decisoins.

A cap simply sets a team's budget and it does so in a fair way, such as every team gets to spend the same amounton players.
 

Diaboli

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
1,370
0
City once voted as F
That's what farm systems are for and roster depth. It requires good management if you can't simply use your wallet to bail yourself out because you don't have anyone who can step up. It may involve more player movement yes but any cap is going to involve that anyways due to increased free agency...the logical trade off.[/QUOTE]

You didn't actually answer my question. I meant, that what would happen, if that newly purchased player would become an overload when the original player comes back. Free agency is a completely other thing, that shouldn't be mixed up with this question.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
tantalum said:
Of course it does. It's a business for goodness sakes. If you have 3 great D-men on your team economically you may not be able to afford all of them under your cap. But that isn't a change from the current sitaution...each team has a budget and having 3 all-star D-men is usually not an option and one would be moved anyways. But a team does have a much better chance of retaining them under a cap and finding the necessary pieces of the puzzle.

They have no chance to keep them under a cap. Detroit's payroll is high because they kept their good and great draft picks. there's no way they could've done it under a cap. How many All Stars did Edmonton have in the 80's? That team would've been broken up after 85.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
A cap that only affected players not developed by the team they play on seems like the best solution to me. If a player has played 10 years for the same team, or if that player has played their entire NHL career for the same team they should not count against the cap. The 10 year tenure with the team could be considered a franchise player exemption, and the entire NHL career could be considered a developmental exemption. Then of course you have to look at the total teams should be able to spend by acquiring players via trades and free agency. By limiting this, you are decreasing the cases where a player holdouts for a trade to make more money because if he is traded he would count towards a cap. You also decrease the money that can be spent on free agents, so that brings that market level down a notch as well. It still leaves an open end for the market as a whole for salaries to grow and players to make their money, but it ensures that owners spend the money in the right places, not just buying up players from poorer teams as it occurs now.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Stich said:
Budgets force economic decisoins.

A cap simply sets a team's budget and it does so in a fair way, such as every team gets to spend the same amounton players.

A cap limits the budget yes, but those budgets will not be equal from year to year. Some teams will have more cap space than others, thus giving them the same unfair advantage the richer teams have now. And at $31 million, its not a question of how much a team can afford, all it is is a matter of how much cap room they have.
 

Diaboli

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
1,370
0
City once voted as F
hockeytown9321 said:
luxury tax.

NBA style soft cap.

100% revenue sharing by the owners.

Actually I've been for soft cap from the beginning. I don't think I said I was ffor hard cap, but I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, if I caused it. 100% revenue doesn't work. The NHL-teams (the richest) would never agree to this. What do you mean by luxury tax?
 

degroat*

Guest
MikeC44 said:
First, I don't believe it's cause by that at all. It's caused by teams wanting to get something for players that aren't doing anything for them and are going to be gone in 2 months anyway.

Your looking at this with tunnelvision. Obviously from the team's point of view they love getting something for a player that they're going to lose. How often would the team prefer to keep the player?

Second, that trade limit is even worse. What if a team is offering me the 2nd overall pick and a towering young defencman for my unhappy, overpaid #1 centre. Now I can't even make that trade when I'm under the cap limit.

Under the NFL's system you get to cut that unhappy, overpaid #1 center and keep your 2nd overall pick and young defenseman.

Then what happens when that player comes off IR? You have to release somebody? So many specific situations to be allowed for. This is why a hard cap is bad.

Let me get this right... teams not being able to replace injured high dollar players through a trade is bad for the NHL?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
GoCoyotes said:
A cap that only affected players not developed by the team they play on seems like the best solution to me. If a player has played 10 years for the same team, or if that player has played their entire NHL career for the same team they should not count against the cap. The 10 year tenure with the team could be considered a franchise player exemption, and the entire NHL career could be considered a developmental exemption. Then of course you have to look at the total teams should be able to spend by acquiring players via trades and free agency. By limiting this, you are decreasing the cases where a player holdouts for a trade to make more money because if he is traded he would count towards a cap. You also decrease the money that can be spent on free agents, so that brings that market level down a notch as well. It still leaves an open end for the market as a whole for salaries to grow and players to make their money, but it ensures that owners spend the money in the right places, not just buying up players from poorer teams as it occurs now.


10 years is a bit high, unless all entry level deals are 10 years. I think the Larry Bird rule is 3 years in the league and those rights get traded with a player, so I could acquire a free agent in the last year of his deal, but I can go over the cap becuase I have his Bird rights.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
GoCoyotes said:
A cap that only affected players not developed by the team they play on seems like the best solution to me. If a player has played 10 years for the same team, or if that player has played their entire NHL career for the same team they should not count against the cap. The 10 year tenure with the team could be considered a franchise player exemption, and the entire NHL career could be considered a developmental exemption. Then of course you have to look at the total teams should be able to spend by acquiring players via trades and free agency. By limiting this, you are decreasing the cases where a player holdouts for a trade to make more money because if he is traded he would count towards a cap. You also decrease the money that can be spent on free agents, so that brings that market level down a notch as well. It still leaves an open end for the market as a whole for salaries to grow and players to make their money, but it ensures that owners spend the money in the right places, not just buying up players from poorer teams as it occurs now.

So basically, it's not a hard cap. It's a cap with IR exemptions, franchise player exmeptions, development exemptions. And any other exemptions that are needed to fix anyone's answers to 'Why a hard cap is bad for the NHL'.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Diaboli said:
Actually I've been for soft cap from the beginning. I don't think I said I was ffor hard cap, but I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, if I caused it. 100% revenue doesn't work. The NHL-teams (the richest) would never agree to this. What do you mean by luxury tax?

$ for $ over $45 million. Trust me, no one (excpet maybe the Ranger's) will spend more than $55 million. If 5 teams spent that, it would generate $50 million for the poorer teams. Might not seem like a lot, but its enough to allow them to keep a 2nd tier FA for free.
 

degroat*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
A cap limits the budget yes, but those budgets will not be equal from year to year.

You're right... the amount of money teams would budget for player salaries (aka the cap) would increase every year along with revenues.

Some teams will have more cap space than others, thus giving them the same unfair advantage the richer teams have now.

This just might be the worst comparision in the history of HFBoards.com. The two situations are completely unrelated. One is rich teams that now have virtually an unlimited payroll. The other is a team having more room under the cap because they more than likely have less players signed.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
MikeC44 said:
So basically, it's not a hard cap. It's a cap with IR exemptions, franchise player exmeptions, development exemptions. And any other exemptions that are needed to fix anyone's answers to 'Why a hard cap is bad for the NHL'.

Its more or less the NBA's system, and in the end the players would agree to it. Only problem is the owners won't offer it.
 

degroat*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
$ for $ over $45 million. Trust me, no one (excpet maybe the Ranger's) will spend more than $55 million. If 5 teams spent that, it would generate $50 million for the poorer teams. Might not seem like a lot, but its enough to allow them to keep a 2nd tier FA for free.

If your goal is to make the Rangers and the Wings more powerful in terms of payroll, then you'd be successful with this plan. Given the fact that your a Wings fan, I dont doubt that your goal is to do your best to not put the Wings on an even playing field with the rest of the league.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Stich said:
You're right... the amount of money teams would budget for player salaries (aka the cap) would increase every year along with revenues.



This just might be the worst comparision in the history of HFBoards.com. The two situations are completely unrelated. One is rich teams that now have virtually an unlimited payroll. The other is a team having more room under the cap because they more than likely have less players signed.

Now: some teams have more money to spend on FA's

Cap: some teams have more money to spend on FA's
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
Stich said:
Your looking at this with tunnelvision. Obviously from the team's point of view they love getting something for a player that they're going to lose. How often would the team prefer to keep the player??

???
Are you agreeing?


Stich said:
Under the NFL's system you get to cut that unhappy, overpaid #1 center and keep your 2nd overall pick and young defenseman.??

I think you missed what I was saying. Chara & Spezza for Yashin. You can't make this deal if the salaries have to be within 15% of each other.

Stich said:
Let me get this right... teams not being able to replace injured high dollar players through a trade is bad for the NHL?

How is it good? As a GM or fan, I would like my team to at least have the option to replace injured players.
 

degroat*

Guest
hockeytown9321 said:
Now: some teams have more money to spend on FA's

Cap: some teams have more money to spend on FA's

Now: Every year the same teams have money to blow on FA's.

Cap: Every year different teams have money to blow on FA's.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
Its more or less the NBA's system, and in the end the players would agree to it. Only problem is the owners won't offer it.

Yes, a soft cap.
I think a soft cap would be good.

The question was why a hard cap is bad.
 

Diaboli

Registered User
Sep 16, 2004
1,370
0
City once voted as F
hockeytown9321 said:
$ for $ over $45 million. Trust me, no one (excpet maybe the Ranger's) will spend more than $55 million. If 5 teams spent that, it would generate $50 million for the poorer teams. Might not seem like a lot, but its enough to allow them to keep a 2nd tier FA for free.

That does help with some financial issues, but the problem is, that that would be consentraded against the rich NHL-teams. This wouldn't help that much with the growing wages of the NHLers. Even with this, the wages would still raise gradually, though not as fast as recent years. Players would want to get free earlier, if this would come true. Then they would compete the teams for the highest paycheck even younger etc. Do you see where I'm getting with this?
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Stich said:
If your goal is to make the Rangers and the Wings more powerful in terms of payroll, then you'd be successful with this plan. Given the fact that your a Wings fan, I dont doubt that your goal is to do your best to not put the Wings on an even playing field with the rest of the league.

I endorsed 100% revenue sharing, which would decrease the Wings revenue by roughly $20 million a year, so yeah, I'm only looking out for their interests.

You attack my arguments, but you don't give any examples of where I'm going wrong. All I ever hear is that the current system is unfair, so a cap makes it fair.
 

degroat*

Guest
MikeC44 said:
???
Are you agreeing?

No..

I think you missed what I was saying. Chara & Spezza for Yashin. You can't make this deal if the salaries have to be within 15% of each other.

First, allow me to point out that this isn't really related to the question at hand... Why is a hard cap bad for the league.

That said, I didn't say that the NHL should adopt the rule. I think it's quite stupid.

How is it good? As a GM or fan, I would like my team to at least have the option to replace injured players.

You would. In the NFL players in the IR don't count towards the cap. The catch, however, is that when a player is put on the IR he's done for the season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->