- Status
hockeytown9321 said:
You're the one that keeps bringing up that current system in a horribly failed attempt to say that the same problems that exist now would exist under a cap.
Stich said:
But those different teams are still going to rob the teams with no cap room of their players.
hockeytown9321 said:
You're assuming that salaries would continue to increase with the same inflationary things such as rookie contracts with silly bonus clauses, arbitration, qualifiers, moronic contracts etc.. under a cap system. Loopholes from the last CBA that resulted in much of the escalation. It is doubtful that would be the case. Under a Cap system does Doug Weight make $8 mil? perhaps but doubtful. But there is no way in hell Todd Marchant makes $3 million.
Under the current CBA if the only difference to a new one was that there was a cap of $45-50 mil no Detroit still wouldn't be able to keep the players they did. but that's the whole thing...the new CBA should be drastically different and the internal inflationary pressures eliminated. The only inflationary pressure will become revenue growth. GMs will have to manage the roster and construct a team. There is nothing wrong with that.
To address a rpevious question...teams remain at the top of the standings for several years. Indinapolis, Green Bay, MIami, tennessee, St. Louis, Philly, Tampa Bay, New England all teams that have made the playoffs in ATLEAST 3 of the past 5 years. No dynasties but dynasties are done in the NHL as well. Plenty of teams have been abyssmal in 3 or more of the past 5 years. The NFL teams go through rebuild and success cycles.
Stich said:
No, I repeat what I'm told the major problem with the current sytem is, and then show you why a cap does not solve those problems.
hockeytown9321 said:
I guess I'll just concede in this debate because there is no logical way to respond to such an absurd comment. If you have actually convinced yourself that each team being able to spend the same $X on players every year is bad for the league, then there is no changing your mind.
hockeytown9321 said:
You haven't shown that at all. There is absolutely no comparison between the New York Rangers and other big market teams spending a lot of money on free agents every year and the teams with the highest cap room available spending money on free agents every year. No logical thinking person could conclude there is any comparison what-so-ever.
tantalum said:
Some NFL teams like the Lions go through continuous rebuilding. I don't see Miami being near the top this year. Nor St. Louis or Tampa. New England has already lost key players off their team due to a cap. Philly's remaining time is short. GB has rebulit pretty well, but they are nowhere near as good as they were in the mid 90's. Tennesee was forced to get rid of a player who had played his entire career for the franchise due to the cap.
I'm sure NHL contracts will go down under a cap. But I think its totally within reason to assume one team will be able to offer $1-2 million more for a star than your team can, and he's gone.
Stich said:
They can't spend the same amount every year. I'll break it down very simply: There is a $31 million cap. I have $30 million in salary committed, thus I have $1 million in cap space. You have $29 million in salary committed, thus you have $2 million in cap space. Since 1 does not equal 2, we are not operating on the same budget.
hockeytown9321 said:
First of all, learn the definition of the word budget. Your budget would be the same as mine: $31M.
Secondly, why in the hell are you trying to argue that all teams should get to spend the same amount every offseason? :lol
Stich said:
The idea is being put forward by Gary Bettman. Can you name one thing he has done that has been good for the NHL? I hate cap systems. I like great teams. I don't like tons of player movement and cap systems have tons of player movement.
Give me the choice that Bettman pretends we have:
a) A cap system and 30 teams
b) Status quo and teams fold.
Goodbye Mickey Mouse markets. This is a no-brainer. I cannot understand anyone who would suggest otherwise. You are asking me to give up hockey for a year or two to keep Edmonton and Pittsburgh and Buffalo and Florida in the NHL? In another life. Hockey has been priced out of Edmonton? Who cares outside Edmonton?
They can pony up more money or the fans can lose their team. Why should the rest of us pay to keep them around? The result would be a stronger league.
I am really getting angry about whining fans in small markets who expect to get the best hockey in the world without paying for it. They want someone else to pay for it via revenue sharing or the players to pay for it by taking less than they would if the Mickey Mouse markets did not exist.
Why should we? Why should the players? Why should these markets drag the league down? I'll be a lot happier listening to Oiler fans whine about the team they lost - I will ignore them like everyone ignores Winnipeg fans today - than listening to them whine about how bad the NHL is as a sports league.
Fans who don't like what they see - fans who don't care whether there is hockey this season or next - aren't really hockey fans. Who needs them? Who wants a system that subsidizes markets that aren't good enough for big time hockey?
Why isn't contraction - by bankruptcy - the best option if the league is in such big trouble? If Edmonton can't afford a payroll that is higher than it is today, tough. Either live with it or fold the team.
Tom
MikeC44 said:
My proposal has no IR exemptions, not any other exemptions other than the two I listed. If you wish to summarize it with other posts in the thread, that is your proposal then
hockeytown9321 said:
I personally like the conservative 10 year limit rather than a liberal 3 year limit. Guys like Pronger & Stevens are franchise players, and have played on their existing teams for like 10 years. I think players of this level deserve the exemption more than players who have played 1/3 that tenure with the same team. If you look at players like Shanahan for Detroit, I don't see why he would deserve an exemption from the cap, nor do I see a reason for Pierre Turgeon in Dallas or Alex Yashin in New York. That's totally debateable though, as are the developmental exemption requirements, I just told you my opinion on the matter. I would agree to 7-9 years as well frankly (Naslund 9 years, Stevens 13, Pronger 9, Iginla 9, Sundin 10, Demitra 8, Satan 8, etc). I would also say that the expansion teams could keep their expansion picks as exempt as well. It would make a difference if you look at the overall numbers, and if you can find a good number to cap out at.
Just to clarify, I am saying that a guy like Wade Redden would be exempt from the cap for the Sens because he started his NHL career with the team. You could even give a little and say that as long as among their first 82 games are played with that team, they get the exemption.
weren't Tampa and Ottawa both modest payroll teams last year? they would have both been under any sort of reasonable cap figureBlackRedGold said:
now I agree with you, keeping these teams intact year after year in a hard cap world might be a different story
for the record I'm not necessarily a hard cap proponent, I'm just not seeing how a hard cap (of say 40M) would have prevented the 03-04 Senators from playing an exciting game against the 03-04 Lightning
Stich said:
Because otherwise its not "fair".
And here's the definition of the word budget for you: "the sum of money allocated for a particular purpose or time period". If I have allocated $30 million for a season (a particular time period) and you have allocated $29 million for the same time period, we have different budgets. Looking at it from a different angle, I can allocate an additional $1 million for the next season, while you can allocate $2 million.
Let me put in terms you can understand. If I have 1 apple and you have 2 apples, you have 1 more apple than me. We don't have an "equal" number of apples. If someone comes along and asks for an apple, I can give him a portion of mine, or you can give him your entire additional apple. Depedning on hungry he is, he has to choose between 1\2 an apple or a full apple. If he is hungry, or really likes apples, he is going to choose the full apple. You have an advantage over me.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Amen.
Why should we have a system that rewards ineptitude and punishes greatness. Instead of trying to figure out a way to drag the entire league to down its lowest member's level, why not try and bring all teams up to the level of the best.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Not one single thing you said came close to answering my question.
Last edited by a moderator:
hockeytown9321 said:
You mean like how we'd both have $31M to use for players over the period of one season?
Let me put it in terms you can understand. We're roommates. We both start with 31 apples. You eat all of yours and now have 0 left. I eat 30 of mine and now have 1 left. Now you want an apple, but you're SOL because you already ate all of yours.
According to your logic even though I have one apple remaining because I didn't eat that last apple you should get another apple simply because I still have one more left.
Stich said:
Then you are asking the wrong questions.
If Calgary and Tampa Bay had no options in the market to use to their advantage to build a great team, you might have a case for unfairness.
But if Ottawa and Toronto can both compete using 2 different strategies, neither guaranteed to win you a Cup faster, then the problem is solved.
Dont prevent the spending, prevent its effectiveness in giving an unfair advantage.
Teams must build a champ. No one could buy a team to beat the great teams Colorado and Detroit built. Except NJ. And now Tampa Bay. THis is a good thing. Calgary cant buy the players needed to beat a team that has developed, they must develop their own Forsberg Sakic from scratch. The hard way. Like everyone else. Regardless of money.
Team building this way is fun and creates a great bond with fans. It takes time too. But is fair.
You dont make everyone equal, you give everyone equal opportunity to become great.
And remember people around the NFL are questioning the parity monster they have created. Fans are. And certainly all players are. Their next negotiation seems destined for contensiousness.
How do you respond to the concerns of this NFL fan.
The downside of parity
Stich said:
I explained exactly why I hate caps. The intent is to eliminate great teams. It creates tons of player movement. It punishes the fans in places where there money is being invested wisely.
It would be bad for the NHL because everything Gary Bettman has ever done is bad for the NHL. He wants a cap, so a cap is obviously bad.
Bettman himself lays out the choice for us. If the incompetent boob is right and that is the choice - this move is necessary to prevent teams from folding - then the best answer for the NHL is clearly to fold some teams. According to Bettman, the weak links are dragging the league to oblivion. It is pointless to invent a system to prevent it. Let the market has speak. Get rid of the non-performing divisions. Any good CEO would do exactly that. Take from the performers and give to the inept? That's business heresy. How can you justify that in any industry?
Give me one good reason why contraction by attrition is not the best answer all the way around. The top teams extract the huge dollars from their fanbase. Those fans have a right to see the money on the ice. Punish them because Oiler fans are mewling about how they can't (or won't) pay the arm and a leg Red Wing fans do?
Why? I need a business reason. I need a reason that does not defy common sense. Let the teams that want to continue carry on and fold the ones that don't. Don't subsidize them, not with money from fans in other cities and not with money from the players. If Buffalo is big league, they play. If not, not.
Wouldn't the league be stronger without these financial bottom feeders? Explain why not.
Tom
thinkwild said:
LOL!! I asked the question that I wanted the answer to.
As I said in the very first post in this thread, I don't want to know why there shouldn't be a cap.
I want to know why a cap would be bad for the NHL.
Nothing he said answered that question.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Let's assume for a second that anything that Bettman has ever done has been bad for the NHL... do you realize how ridiculous your logic is?
Now, let's talk about what Gary Bettman has done for the league:
1. National TV deal increased from $17M per year to the $60M per year the league would have gotten this upcoming season.
2. Average attendance increased from around 14,000 per game to 16,500 per game despite the fact that many of the teams that have been added since then are below average.
3. Total revenue the league generates has increased from $500M to $2 Billion and even more if you trust the players, as you clearly do.
There is absolutely no denying that under Bettman the sport has grown considerably in terms of revenue production.
If everything Bettman had done for the NHL had been bad, the owners would have fired him a long time ago. There's a reason why he not only still has a job but has the backing of the owners during these labor negotations... because he has performed his job very well.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Signing(s): Chiefs extend Andy Reid and GM Brett Veach through 2029- Latest: Blackhawkswincup
-
-
