Gary Bettman-No team by team caps

[Sotnos]

I'll contend they had a better chance under the old system of keeping all 4 than they do now.

Put it this way, it was generally acknowledged that to keep both St. Louis and Khabi, the money would have had to come out of Mr. Davidson's pockets once again. Feaster is somehow able to talk him into these things (thank god), but there's no way the team could continue like this into the forseeable future. We were looking at around a $10mil increase in payroll when the team had a profit of $3mil last year.

Someone posted these numbers on another board I'm on - with the reported/rumored cap including a rollback, Tampa's payroll would stand at around $31mil without St. Louis signed. Plenty of room. (This is if they consider last years contracts not served) Tampa's chances of keeping the team together will increase considerably under the proposed system, period.

 

[blamebettman*]

the other proposal was also based on team by team revenues, so I guess we should throw the league wide 36 mil figure out the window too.

 

[Spungo*]

I'll contend they had a better chance under the old system of keeping all 4 than they do now.

They also had a better chance of losing all 4 under the old system than they do now.

 

[Chaos]

Regardless of which way around it is, money helps win the Cup. To suggest otherwise is simply stupid.

Certainly having money helps...but you get that money by first being successful with what you 'start' with. Why do you think expansion franchises always have really low payrolls to begin with?

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

I doubt any meaningful agreements have been made in these meetings. Maybe some starting points are being agreed upon, but nothing meaningful that is clearing the way for the easy stuff.

You don't know what you're talking about!!! Everyone who is connected to the world of hockey says a deal will get done by early July at the latest. You don't meet 30 hours / week for the past 5 weeks and don't make progress.

NO DOUBT A DEAL WILL GET DONE BY JULY.

 

[HSHS]

Wow, do you have any clue about cause and effect relationships?

Its not 'spend 60 million and you have a good chance at the Cup'... its more like

'If you draft, trade and develop properly over several seasons and establish an elite core that begins to make the playoffs consistently and wins their fair share of playoff games, it is possible with the increased revenues to keep them together which will lead to a higher payroll. Most winning teams (not their first win but consecutive seasons afterwards) will have higher payrolls than average because they have better players.

Winning comes first, then your payroll increases accordingly.

Its actually quite easy and logical to understand, its kinda funny how the vast majority of people cannot grasp such a simple concept.

Too bad theory never equals experience...

over the past 4 years, 30 payrolls have increased. I haven't seen 120 cups awarded during that timeframe.

 

[HSHS]

Certainly having money helps...but you get that money by first being successful with what you 'start' with. Why do you think expansion franchises always have really low payrolls to begin with?

Because they start off with expansion drafted players left unprotected... and the only "stars" (I can hear you yelling that right now) left unprotected are overpaid underachievers or from teams looking to rebuild.

 

[RangerBoy]

What is 54% of $2 billion which was the NHL's revenue in 2003-04?Divide by 30.$36 million.That figure sounds familiar Figure the NHL revenue for 2005-06 is $1.6 billion.What is 54% of $1.6 billion.Divide by 30.$28.8 million.The potential tax would kick in at $29 million.Higher revenue teams will be allowed to be spend over the 54% of the league revenue up to $36 million.Salary range of $12-14 million between the floor and ceiling.The NHLPA wanted a $20 million gap while the NHL wanted a $10 million gap

 

[King_Brown]

What the hell is this luxury tax crap. Take taht out of the deal, if there is a cap with linkage thats good enough, no need to make it even more difficult to spend money by taxing teams.

Glad Bettman didn't agree to that stupid team by team cap. League wide linkage is what the fans want.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

They also had a better chance of losing all 4 under the old system than they do now.

Not with the UFA age at 31.

 

[HSHS]

Not with the UFA age at 31.

UFA is not the only way to lose players...

Maybe it is for larger market teams like Philly, but smaller teams also trade players prior to UFA if their projected arbitration awards are too large.

 

[s7ark]

Not with the UFA age at 31.

As a flyers fan you don't understand his point. his point was they wouldn't have the money to resign all 4 under the old CBA, not that the UFA was gonna kick in.

EDIT: Ahhhh heshootshescores beat me to it

 

[MarkZackKarl]

dumb

UFA is not the only way to lose players...

Maybe it is for larger market teams like Philly, but smaller teams also trade players prior to UFA if their projected arbitration awards are too large.

And an example of this would be?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

UFA is not the only way to lose players...

Maybe it is for larger market teams like Philly, but smaller teams also trade players prior to UFA if their projected arbitration awards are too large.

The difference being if you make a trade you can command something very nice in return. If St. Louis is a UFA, and someone like say the Bruins have a ton a cap room available, they can make an offer you can't match .. and you get zilch.

 

[vadardog]

money matters

Some have suggested on this thread that payroll size doesn't matter if you develop good talent, I suggest looking at the Oilers as an eye opener.

Niinimaa - lousey d-man before he came to edm, and pretty inconsistant for his first few years. Edm developed him into an all-star d. Then they traded him to alleiviate salary.

Weight - developed into all-star #1 center by Edm, then traded because they couldn't afford him

Guerin - wasn't bad when he came to Edm, but he was the top goal scorer in the league and top 3 in points (if my memory is correct) when he was traded because they could no longer afford him.

Hamrlik - looked like a washed out #1 pick when Edm traded for him, but they revived his career and he was very good which made him unaffordable.

Richardson - Tor gave up on him, but Edm developed him into a reliable stay at home d. Then Phi decided to give him what allstars at the time were making.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, using one team which isn't the worst off financially. Sure teams like Cal, Tam, Ana, Car etc can become one year wonders, but it doesn't validate the arguement that higher payrolls doesn't create better teams.

 

[Pepper]

Add Mironov to that list, he developed in to a top20 d-man in the league during his Oilers days. Traded because Oilers couldn't afford him.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, using one team which isn't the worst off financially. Sure teams like Cal, Tam, Ana, Car etc can become one year wonders, but it doesn't validate the arguement that higher payrolls doesn't create better teams.

Of course better teams, on average, will have higher payrolls. Thats obvious. What is important is how these teams become 'good'. the obvious answer is through several years of development, good trades, some luck and lots of young players maturing at or around the same time in their prime.

Its difficult to make an argument if your premise is faulty, which it obviously is.

 

[mackdogs*]

Of course better teams, on average, will have higher payrolls. Thats obvious. What is important is how these teams become 'good'. the obvious answer is through several years of development, good trades, some luck and lots of young players maturing at or around the same time in their prime.

Its difficult to make an argument if your premise is faulty, which it obviously is.

And your premise is that the new CBA, whatever it is, will dismantle Ottawa and ruin their franchise. Pretty dumb and faulty. I hope the Sens win the cup in the first year back just so you shut the hell up.

 

[EJsens1]

And your premise is that the new CBA, whatever it is, will dismantle Ottawa and ruin their franchise. Pretty dumb and faulty. I hope the Sens win the cup in the first year back just so you shut the hell up.

Somehow, I think if that were to happen, he/she would would gladly keep their mouths shut!!

 

[Pepper]

Of course better teams, on average, will have higher payrolls. Thats obvious. What is important is how these teams become 'good'. the obvious answer is through several years of development, good trades, some luck and lots of young players maturing at or around the same time in their prime.

Its difficult to make an argument if your premise is faulty, which it obviously is.

How many times you will repeat that broken argument of yours?? You have been proved wrong several times, when will you start paying attention??

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Put it this way, it was generally acknowledged that to keep both St. Louis and Khabi, the money would have had to come out of Mr. Davidson's pockets once again. Feaster is somehow able to talk him into these things (thank god), but there's no way the team could continue like this into the forseeable future. We were looking at around a $10mil increase in payroll when the team had a profit of $3mil last year.

Someone posted these numbers on another board I'm on - with the reported/rumored cap including a rollback, Tampa's payroll would stand at around $31mil without St. Louis signed. Plenty of room. (This is if they consider last years contracts not served) Tampa's chances of keeping the team together will increase considerably under the proposed system, period.

Great post!

I think it comes down to that most big spending teams have owners that are willing to dip into their own pocket to fund the payroll growth, and then hope that play-off revenues gets the $'s back.

Example:
How have the revenue streams improved for the Senators (besides moving into the Corel Centre) from when they were bad into developing one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference? Attendance and corporate support always was strong (as far as I know), and I doubt that ticket increases have kept up with the rate of salary increases for the team. Short of winning the Stanley Cup, how much better do they have to get to be able to support a $60M payroll?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Of course better teams, on average, will have higher payrolls. Thats obvious. What is important is how these teams become 'good'. the obvious answer is through several years of development, good trades, some luck and lots of young players maturing at or around the same time in their prime.

Its difficult to make an argument if your premise is faulty, which it obviously is.

How good do the Sens have to get to be able to support a $60-70M payroll? They have been one of the best regular season teams in the EC for 4-5 years. One extra round of play-off revenue might get them and extra $5M, but you can't bank on that every year.

 

[SENSible1*]

Somehow, I think if that were to happen, he/she would would gladly keep their mouths shut!!

No he won't, he'll complain even louder that the Sens won't be able to keep their cup championship team together under a cap.

Anyone expecting SSF to stop complaining haven't been regulars on the Sens forums over the past 4+ years.

 

[Montrealer]

And an example of this would be?

So, you're going to go full steam ahead with that avatar until someone invents a time machine that will allow you to make it's missive come true?

 

[txomisc]

And why do you think they could afford 39.8? Because they had success the previous year, and were a damn good team already. Its not the other way around.

The thing with dallas is they had drafted well and built a nice nucleus, but it was the shelling out huge UFA contracts to Verbeek, Ed Belfour, and Brett Hull that really put them over the top. Also the acquisition of Nieuwendyk who the flames had to give up because they couldnt afford him. That is why Dallas was among the highest payrolls when they wont the cup, they had already started their UFA spending spree.