Cap Ceiling responsibility?

My question is this: What job does the cap ceiling serve more? Salary regulations or equal playing field? I know bettman wants both and feels that a salary cap will achieve both, and to some degree I do agree with that. But my beef is this. Bettman states that the 6.5 million dollar disagreement in the ceiling is all in actuality a 195 million dollar disagreement. I disagree with that. The "magnet" explaination didn't float with me. I still remain that owners who spent 30 million in salary last season will continue to spend 30 million in salary when the NHL restarts as long as it keeps them from losing money. If they generate more revenue, they can feel comfortable spending more. In this instance, the cap ceiling acts more towards creating a level playing field with a more evenly distributed talent pool. I have always felt that owners spend with their own judgement. During the season, they operate based on what's good for their own team and their own investment. They don't make decisions based on whats good for the entire league or teams that are financially struggling. Keep in mind, I am a Ranger fan so you know how I feel. I may come off as being bias but it's just how I interpret the entire situation.

 

Bettmans magnet argument is BS and he knows it. A 49 million cap would have been good enough, especially with all the other drags on salary (i.e. two way arbitration, entry level cap, etc.).

 

If payroll X is 70% as good and paid 70% as much as payroll Y, does it matter if Y is at cap max? Hell yeah. A $49m cap shifts the entire market up. What was a $30m payroll under a $42.5m cap might be a $34-35m payroll under a $53m cap (max is $54m not $49m). And that $54m hard cap which doesn't include $2m of extras Bettman's cap did ($56m cap).

 

The magnet argument is a complete joke.

The salary cap does more to regulate salaries than it does to equal the playing field. A salary cap still doesn't help teams with buffons in the front office.

 

This system shifts the entire market WAY down. The most important thing was to keep the major spenders in check and any form of cap does that, especially under 50 million. Remember, Detroit was almost at 80 million!

 

Of course it shifts it down. That's the point of it. Just like the union wants their $54m-56m to shift it up.

Goodenow's offer was not about parity or control. A team can still spend $67m on payroll under Goodenow's plan ($54m + $12m tax + $2m extras). Explain to me how the weaker clubs find $67m? Only the rich teams can do that, revenue sharing can't possibly get that high.

If you are rich he wants you to spend your way to an on ice advantage. The on ice advantage is smaller than before but still sufficiently big to encourage teams to do it. The more teams he can keep competing at the top level the more he can drive up prices.

Most teams can get towards $42.5m with a little revenue sharing and one ice success. $30-35m might be what most teams can afford, and the advantage between that and $42.5m isn't massive and will prompt rebuilds amoungst rich clubs rather than UFA frenzies. The difference between $30-35m and $56m is worth exploiting with UFAs.

 

Personally, I thought Bettman could have come up with a far stronger argument in favor of the 42.5M cap than 'a cap is a magnet'. However, the players must believe in the magnet theory. Think about it...

Gary Bettman sees the difference between a 42.5M cap and a 49M cap is 195M (6.5 x 30). That is a significant amount of money.

If you believe only 6 teams would reach the 49M cap, that would only be a difference of 39M. If Bettman is a fool for giving up the season because of a perceived 195M difference, how much more foolish is the NHLPA for giving it up for only 39M?

 

I'm happy Bettman pulled the offer off the table. In my opinion a salary cap linked to revenues is the best way to go.

 

Start calling it a $54m or $56m cap. More reflective of the true situation $49m IMHO.

 

Well, aren't teams allowed to spend up to $54M on salaries in two of the six years? You're now talking about a 80% salary premium to a $30M team, which is a very significant differential IMO.

In addition, typically all contracts are based on existing player contracts. If even just one team can spend the extra $5M, that's increasing the "comparables" that then every other team must meet. That's a big portion of what got the league in their current situation.