Can Ottawa keep their core with a cap or without one?

[John Flyers Fan]

I don`t agree. Sure there will be alot of players who will go where they can get the best buck. But I am positive that if there is only say a $1 million difference in the offers, there are alot of players who will stay on with the contenders rather than take the money with a crappy team. Also, under the current system there are alot of players who would accept less money to stay where they are, but the union puts alot of pressure on them to take the best deal, regardless of what they want. A cap would players who wanted to stay put a reason to do so, even if it meant less money.

If it was a difference between say $7 or 8 million a year you might have a thought, but if it's between $2 & 3 million a year it just not going to happen very often. Players aren't going to give up a 50% increase in salary.

If you're so positive that players will take less money, why don't you give me some examples of players that have done that recently ... you name the sport. It does happen, very occaisionally, and it's almost always a player at the tail end of his career

 

[SENSible1*]

What if only 80% of a player's salary counts against your cap because you developed the player?

Would the Sens be able to keep everyone then?

Until we know the terms of cost certainty, it's all just wasted keystrokes.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

The thing about the 49ers is that they couldn't afford to keep their QB and WR because they have over $20 million in "dead cap money" this season. A few years ago, the Niners made the decision to "go for it" and signed a lot of players to big deals. Now, they're rebuilding and a lot of those players are gone, but they still have to pay. THAT's why Owens and Garcia are gone--also, it didn't help matters that the two didn't get along. Neither would have returned with the other around, and the team wound up losing both players.

The system acts like a credit card. Spend now, pay later. Hard to blame the system for San Fran's struggles this season: They made a decision and now they have no choice but to rebuild.

Teams like Philly, Toronto and Detroit could choose to do the same thing in the NHL, only under a cap system the spending would come to a head at some point.

I really don't see this as a bad system.

As far as players go, they USUALLY go where the money is, but again I fail to see that as a bad system. A player can choose to either: Stay with his current team in order to win a Stanley Cup, or leave as a free agent and make bigger money with a bigger role on his new, lesser franchise. It's a fork in the road. There's nothing wrong with forcing players to make such a decision. It's a part of life, as far as I'm concerned.

Either way, the Sens will have turnover regardless of the situation or system implemented. We're no longer living in the 70s, so nowadays money talks and BS walks. To think any system could keep the Sens together in this era is altruistic. However, under a cap system management would actually have to earn their salaries by making the proper decisions. Under the current system, it would all be about Melnyk's willingness to spend and lose money (as somebody above mentioned correctly).

I ask you, what's the better system?

 

[Prof_it]

I guess I've always believed that success on the ice leads to financial success. Based on that, the key as I see it for the Sens, is to advance in the playoffs- without that success fans lose interest- changes will be made (indeed, as we've already seen)

Economic systems are great- but there are markets that have definate advantages due to population, exchange rates, passion for the game, etc.

I don't know how we equilize those. Even in a hard cap world, one that puts all player salaries on a level playing field, it does nothing to address the disparaties in revenue. So instead of the emphasis on teams competing via player salaries, the emphasis will shift to an area where the team can field an advantage...hiring more/best: coaches, trainers, scouts, etc.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I could see (under a cap) Spezza staying in Ottawa for 3 million rather than heading off to Columbus for 4.5 million.

and under today's CBA, SPezza isnt entitled to more than half of either of those #'s. If you exclude potential rookie bonus's (which i dont believe he hit), how does Spezza get a contract for 3m or 4.5m without OTT agreeing to it ? WHat recourse does he have ? none, unless he doesnt want to play. OTT has already proven they are willing to let a rotten player sit rather than cave, so really what can Spezza do about it ?

He has no arbitration nor UFA rights under the old CBA, to play in the NHL he is at the mercy of his club. Under a capped CBA, he might be UFA at age 25 !

DR

 

[dawgbone]

and under today's CBA, SPezza isnt entitled to more than half of either of those #'s. If you exclude potential rookie bonus's (which i dont believe he hit), how does Spezza get a contract for 3m or 4.5m without OTT agreeing to it ? WHat recourse does he have ? none, unless he doesnt want to play. OTT has already proven they are willing to let a rotten player sit rather than cave, so really what can Spezza do about it ?

WTF do you mean by entitled? Him negotiating his next contract has nothing to do with one he is going to sign. He's going to look for money that pays him comparably to other NHL players his age, and possibly more.

So the Senators are going to let him sit, then what trade him? Spezza isn't going to lose anything other than money in a holdout... especially if he thinks he'll get his payday in the end.

Great, now you've just emphasized the whole problem with the CBA.

He has no arbitration nor UFA rights under the old CBA, to play in the NHL he is at the mercy of his club. Under a capped CBA, he might be UFA at age 25 !

DR

Just like he might get a contract for $3mil?

If you are dumb enough to beleive the UFA age will be 25, that's your option... but either way, at 25, Spezza will get his payday.

He's either going to get it as a UFA in a capped market, or in an arbitration in a "free market".

 

[Guest]

( Broken Record )

This is precisely why I am against a hard cap. It just creates a complete mediocrity across the league as suggested above. Every team will have the same number of elite players and the same number of good players because the best teams will lose their surplus of the best players to the worst teams. I think teams should be able to build a great team and reap the fruits of their labor. If you are a team that wants to go the cheap route, you just wait for the talent to become available and sign them to a contract, or trade for them at a reduced price.

That's why I say the only true solution to such a situation is the homegrown exemption to a cap. Let the teams build their rosters, keep their roster, and limit the free agency market enough so that teams have a shot at keeping their rosters intact. The Sens would have a huge advantage in negotiating contracts with Hossa, Spezza, and Alfie compared to the other teams in the league because they wouldn't be working with a cap of those players, only their overall budget and payroll.

( Broken Record )

 

[degroat*]

( Broken Record )

This is precisely why I am against a hard cap. It just creates a complete mediocrity across the league as suggested above. Every team will have the same number of elite players and the same number of good players because the best teams will lose their surplus of the best players to the worst teams. I think teams should be able to build a great team and reap the fruits of their labor. If you are a team that wants to go the cheap route, you just wait for the talent to become available and sign them to a contract, or trade for them at a reduced price.

That's why I say the only true solution to such a situation is the homegrown exemption to a cap. Let the teams build their rosters, keep their roster, and limit the free agency market enough so that teams have a shot at keeping their rosters intact. The Sens would have a huge advantage in negotiating contracts with Hossa, Spezza, and Alfie compared to the other teams in the league because they wouldn't be working with a cap of those players, only their overall budget and payroll.

( Broken Record )

As I've said in the past, I'm all for an exemption that helps to retain players, but nothing close to the blanket exception that you proposed.

That said, you're not at all right about the 'complete mediocrity' that you mentioned above. The NFL is proof of this.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If you are dumb enough to beleive the UFA age will be 25, that's your option... but either way, at 25, Spezza will get his payday.

Stan KAsten was on a panel debate in Sunday night that featured JP Barry and Mike Gillis as well, and KAsten told the two agents that if they went to the table to negotiate a hard cap, the owners would be likely incline to give them any UFA age they asked for. so why wouldnt they be just as demanding with their request for a low UFA age as the owners are with their demand for a low salary cap ? its called "quid pro quo".

WTF do you mean by entitled? Him negotiating his next contract has nothing to do with one he is going to sign. He's going to look for money that pays him comparably to other NHL players his age, and possibly more..

Well, he can ask for whatever he wants, but to keep his rights, the SENS only need offer a min 10% increase. Entitled means that they shouldnt offer him a penny more and there is nothing he can do about it. The current system was designed to keep salaries down in a few stages and they only go up for a few players once arbitration comes and then up again for those good enough to play in the NHL for 10-13 years. Any increase outside of those parameters is completly the fault of the NHL club.

DR

 

[copperandblue]

Just to change the direction a bit here, maybe the question to ask isn't CAN they keep their core together under a cap but SHOULD they keep their core together (irregardless of a cap)?

This a 100 + pt team for 4 or the last 6 years without even getting a sniff at the cup. At what point do you recognize that despite the talent, the formula simply isn't there?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

This a 100 + pt team for 4 or the last 6 years without even getting a sniff at the cup. At what point do you recognize that despite the talent, the formula simply isn't there?

They did get to a game 7 of the ECF two seasons ago. They did just change the coach, which IMO was necessary if they ever want to beat the Leafs.

 

[dawgbone]

Stan KAsten was on a panel debate in Sunday night that featured JP Barry and Mike Gillis as well, and KAsten told the two agents that if they went to the table to negotiate a hard cap, the owners would be likely incline to give them any UFA age they asked for. so why wouldnt they be just as demanding with their request for a low UFA age as the owners are with their demand for a low salary cap ? its called "quid pro quo".

Why? Because the players wouldn't ask for a younger UFA limit. Especially in the first couple of years where there would be an utter flood of players. It makes no sense for the players to ask for a 25 year old UFA age, because anyone in that 29+ age group won't be as coveted as the younger kids. They are already capping themselves, why would they go further along and shoot themselves in the foot? And those are the guys who are in control of the NHLPA right now. They'll probably see a decrease to 29, 27 at the lowest. It doesn't make sense for them to make it any lower.

Well, he can ask for whatever he wants, but to keep his rights, the SENS only need offer a min 10% increase. Entitled means that they shouldnt offer him a penny more and there is nothing he can do about it. The current system was designed to keep salaries down in a few stages and they only go up for a few players once arbitration comes and then up again for those good enough to play in the NHL for 10-13 years. Any increase outside of those parameters is completly the fault of the NHL club.

DR

Yes there is something he can do about it... he can hold out. Sure it hurts him financially, but it hurts the team on the ice. It's the standard story in a hold out. Besides, he's 2 years away from arbitration, where he will cash in. The problem is, you'll have a team bite the bullet and sit a guy out, while most of his competetion signs their players and competes with a full team. So you have a couple of teams who aren't doing anything but hurting themsleves on the ice waiting to get the player to knock his demands down.

And it doesn't go up once arbitration hits, and then again after 10-13 years... a player can file for arbitration numerous times.

Letting a player sit out does nothing for the team, other than saving some money. However, it could affect the on-ice product they put out, and their ability to win. A player will get the money they want, it just depends on how long they have to wait.

 

[I in the Eye]

This a 100 + pt team for 4 or the last 6 years without even getting a sniff at the cup. At what point do you recognize that despite the talent, the formula simply isn't there?

When yearly team expenses becomes > than yearly team revenue...

Or in other words, when the cost of the assembled team becomes greater than the success (and therefore revenue) that assembled team is able to achieve... This is a wake up call that it's time to take some steps back and 're-tinker' with the team... The team is getting older (and thus, more expensive), yet the success isn't keeping pace...

 

[copperandblue]

They did get to a game 7 of the ECF two seasons ago. They did just change the coach, which IMO was necessary if they ever want to beat the Leafs.

They have yet to play for the cup though.

Toronto went to game 6 of the ECF a coupel years ago and yet outside of Toronto there aren't too many people suggesting that they should keep their core together any longer.

Carolina went to the final a couple years ago as well but no one figured that they were going to become a juggernaut.....

Point is, you can look at as many positives as you want but at some time you gotta deliver. Something that the Sens haven't done in their 6 years near the top of the standings.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

They have yet to play for the cup though.

Toronto went to game 6 of the ECF a coupel years ago and yet outside of Toronto there aren't too many people suggesting that they should keep their core together any longer.

Carolina went to the final a couple years ago as well but no one figured that they were going to become a juggernaut.....

Point is, you can look at as many positives as you want but at some time you gotta deliver. Something that the Sens haven't done in their 6 years near the top of the standings.

IMO the Sens became a different team after the Yashin-Chara/Spezza deal.

They haven't kept the same core. IMO if they avoided the Leafs last year they would have won the Cup. I still think they need to make one deal ... move either Havlat or Hossa for a big time centerman.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Just to change the direction a bit here, maybe the question to ask isn't CAN they keep their core together under a cap but SHOULD they keep their core together (irregardless of a cap)?

This a 100 + pt team for 4 or the last 6 years without even getting a sniff at the cup. At what point do you recognize that despite the talent, the formula simply isn't there?

I think this is a good point. To answer the original question, the answer is definitely "no" under either system. They have too much talent and like other teams with too much talent, they end up losing lots of it. I'd wager New Jersey and Colorado have traded and allowed more talent to go into free agency than any other of the teams over the past decade. Everybody has to make choices and so will Ottawa. Since they have far above average talent, they have far more difficult choices to make. Their system produces at least one player every year. Where do they put him without unloading a quality player?

The correct question is "Will the Ottawa Senators be a better team with a cap or without one?" I don't think there is any doubt they will be better without a cap. The objective is to tighten the talent gap top to bottom and you can't do that without pulling the most talented teams back to the pack.

As far as when the core is dismantled as a failure, hockey people have far more patience than the fans. They know that luck plays a large role. They know that it is very easy for an outstanding team to go several years without winning. The best teasm in the league these days probably doesn't have a one in four chance of winning a cup before the season starts. Why should anybody who understands this be surprised if a Stanley Cup quality team doesn't win for four years or even eight years? There is no magic formula. All an organization can do is put together a team they think can win and cross their fingers.

The fans give up before the hockey people do and force change. I think Muckler would have been okay with Lalime in nets again next year, but the fans would not have been okay with it at all. So he made the change. I think the decision to sign Smolinski long term was another one that was driven with an eye to the fanbase rather than the smartest hockey decision. Melnyk made the move to show the fans he was a different guy than Bryden.

But John Muckler is not stupid. He has a five year spreadsheet going forward. He could see then the shape of the team now. He knew he was choosing between Smolinski and Bonk when he gave Brian the long term deal. There isn't room for more than six good forwards on a team. If you have seven or eight good forwards, you convert one or two of them into mediocre because they can't be better than mediocre without top six ice time. (Witness Selanne and Turgeon).

That's okay if the number seven forward is a kid who isn't making much money. It is not okay if you are paying that guy what Bonk or Smolinski is paid. Neither could earn their money without playing a central role on the team. With the Ottawa talent up front, one of them had to go and Bonk could be unloaded. So he was.

I think the Sens made the wrong choice, but it isn't a very big deal because there is very little difference between the players and this choice forces an opening for Spezza.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

The correct question is "Will the Ottawa Senators be a better team with a cap or without one?" I don't think there is any doubt they will be better without a cap. The objective is to tighten the talent gap top to bottom and you can't do that without pulling the most talented teams back to the pack.

I think there is a lot of doubt... depending on the system in which the cap is agreed to. If free agency is reduced to 28, are the Senators losing any players?

No.

Is there a tonne of cap room for the Senators top talent to go to?

No. Most teams will be in cutting mode, not adding mode. The Senators may very well be able to keep their entire team under the cap for the time being, especially with a guy like Hasek ready to retire. Besides, they're more likely be able to do what they have been doing, which is get rid of the lower tier guys to keep financially viable.

 

[copperandblue]

To answer the original question, the answer is definitely "no" under either system.

The correct question is "Will the Ottawa Senators be a better team with a cap or without one?" I don't think there is any doubt they will be better without a cap.

These two statements seem to contradict each other in my opinion.

To say that the team would be "better" without a cap, suggests that the team must still be improving.

To say that they shouldn't be kept together under either system suggests that they have already peaked.

Atleast that is how I am interpreting it...

Just to throw my opinion out there on the state of the Senators, I would say that at best they have reached their plateau as a team. They are not likely to improve and this means that although they still have an outside shot at the cup, the window is starting to close on them.

Why should anybody who understands this be surprised if a Stanley Cup quality team doesn't win for four years or even eight years? There is no magic formula. All an organization can do is put together a team they think can win and cross their fingers.

The difference is that if you win after 4 years of assembling your core, your chances at repeating are greately increased imo. If you win after 8 years then by the time your in that 8th year, your basically relegated to accepting that your down to your last shot.

The 8 year thing is great for most teams but considering that Ottawa was being pegged as the next best chance at a dynasty it shouldn't be considered a success. I am also not convinced that a cap would have any effect on how this team will be remembered in 10 years.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I think there is a lot of doubt... depending on the system in which the cap is agreed to. If free agency is reduced to 28, are the Senators losing any players?

1) If a salary cap is not supposed to give the teams at the bottom of the standings a better chance to win, why do you favour it?

2) How can you give the teams at the bottom a better chance to win if you don't improve their talent and where do they get it, if not from the Ottawa's of the league?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

To say that they shouldn't be kept together under either system suggests that they have already peaked.

I did not say shouldn't. I said wouldn't. Under a cap system they will shed talent because they are forced to shed it whether they hasve suitable replacement talent or not. Under a non-cap system they will shed talent because they produce so much talent they will have cheaper options that produce every bit as good of a team.

The Senators may very well have peaked. It is very easy to get better if you are the pittsburgh Penguins. It is very hard to get better when you are the Ottawa Senators. That doesn't mean they won't win. All it means is that they have reached the point they are outstanding and very difficult to improve.

They don't have to get better to win. All they have to do is play better at the right time.

Tom

 

[Sting]

If they can't keep the core together, they simply trade for a high draft pick. That draft pick matures and they can't keep him, so they either lose him or trade for a pick. This is basically what it'll be like for a lot of teams with a cap.

There won't be a cap, but if there was there's a slim chance any team in this league could hold onto a core of more than 2-3 players. This wouldn't only affect Ottawa. Tampa Bay, Vancouver, Calgary, etc etc will all suffer. Any team with several quality young players won't be as good. What happens to a team like Washington or Pittsburgh? Ovechkin or Fleury will want the big bucks in 3-4 years, so that limits the teams other players.

I don't think you can necessarily single out one team on this, but if a cap was implemented, Ottawa would have to get rid of one or two 'core' players. The same goes for every team.

 

[thinkwild]

Under a cap, we lose our core at regular intervals
Under the status quo, we are getting too expensive too fast and will have to make painful decisions soon.
If the players tweaks came into play, we could probably have a great shot at a 5 yr window with our core and prospects coming up.

Havlat, Hossa, Spezza, Volchenkov, Vermette, Fisher, Redden, Chara none have peaked yet. Alfie has. Once a few of our players have peaked, then we can think of retooling, but now, we have only better times ahead.

Sens do have to make some changes, and Muckler will make them.

 

[thinkwild]

yes i agree but over time it will equal itself out. once all teams have at least 4 good players[6 mil each =24 mil] they won't be able to take on more without going over the cap.

4 players get $6mil each, and the other 16-18split $7mil for what, im too tired for math. Dagenais and Commodore benefit from this how?

To me the most important aspect of a cap is that every team is on the same financial level. When every team is on the same level financially it will be the teams that manage their players the best that will come out on top

Calgary and Detroit werent on an even financial playing field. Part of managing your players best is managing the long term dollars, growth, and cost. What does it matter if the financial playing field is even if Calgary can beat Detroit anyway. If Vancouver can beat St Louis anyway. If Colorado loses to Minnesota anyway. If Nashville will be better than Dallas with a lesser payroll anyway. Theres no need for fear of the financial uneven playing field, because young players are cheaper and can be better. More expensive teams are simply older not necessarily better. Management makes the difference now. Even more critically.

The system acts like a credit card. Spend now, pay later

I really don't see this as a bad system.

I ask you, what's the better system?

NHL is far better for fans and players. NFL is better for owners. I ask you, which is more important? A toady will choose the latter.
.

So how long does Tampa get to Kepp Lecavalier, Richards, Khabibulin, St Louis? If they win for three years is that enough? Should we break them up them because obviously allowing great teams in the league by definition is unfair?

WTF do you mean by entitled? Him negotiating his next contract has nothing to do with one he is going to sign. He's going to look for money that pays him comparably to other NHL players his age, and possibly more.

So the Senators are going to let him sit, then what trade him? Spezza isn't going to lose anything other than money in a holdout... especially if he thinks he'll get his payday in the end.

Great, now you've just emphasized the whole problem with the CBA

An important thing you said was that Spezza will look to be paid comparably. He doesnt want $4mil because he thinks he is entitled to that, its because the owners have established that by paying other players that. That wont change in a cap. All that happens is we get no choice to keep him if we are doing well and can afford to keep him. We have to let someone go like it or not.

This "whole problem with the CBA" doesnt change with a cap. Would Detroit re-sign Shanny and Yzerman if they get could get Spezza? And then Shanny and Yzerman can see which team has enough cap room to sign them and they can decide if they want to play for what the teams cap room says they are worth to them. NOT WHat their true value is to a team.


And the big feature of free agency is getting to choose where you want to apply to work, not getting the big payday. If you have a hard cap, what on earth would you need to restrict free agency for. It could only be a hindrance.

 

[PecaFan]

1) If a salary cap is not supposed to give the teams at the bottom of the standings a better chance to win, why do you favour it?

Simple. A salary cap isn't supposed to give some teams a better chance at winning. All it's supposed to do is lower and hold costs down. Turn teams from losing money into making money, makes them more stable, makes the league more stable as a whole.

 

[sportysensfan]

i would hope we could keep as many of our guys as possible, but in the very first post Havlat and Spezza as examples. Havlat is a good player but he want the big dollars too much, he's not that much of a team player but a selfish one, i know its not all about the attitude of the player but as good as he is i could do without him. And Spezza........well he can still develop into a good player........but i don't think he is as great as some say he's got alot of growing to do!i still find him defensivley unstable and well i could live without him too i think.