One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

[Timmy]

No but it will be up to the owners to decide if they want that slice of the luxury pie or not. And apparently since most of the teams spend over the tax there will be a lot of money going to those under the penalty.

It has to be one or the other regarding who gets paid luxury money, and common sense would dictate that its those who didn't hit the luxury window. If teams over the luxury window got it then what would be the point in paying it if they are just getting it back again?

That's kind of what I've been saying.

 

[Mess]

None of the above will happen. The luxury tax (if there is one) will be at threshold each team will decide to go over or not on a voluntary basis. Nobody's going to go to Nashville and say, "You're small market, you spend this."

Their fans would be rioting in the streets.

Actually I don't think they will be allowed to as it would make no sense ..

Here they are receiving money in one hand and then incurring Luxury tax fines in the other ..

To make it worse even .. Luxury tax at $1 for $1 dollar starting at 29 mil .. Would mean that for every dollar you spend IF ALLOWED above that level actually costs you $2 in fact ..

If you received $2 mil in revenue sharing money and your team salary went for $29 mil to $30 mil (into the luxury tax range)..You would have spent the full $2 mil you just received .. NOT in player contract but in lux tax fines ..!!!!

If you are going to receive money from the league and big markets ..Does giving it right back as luxury tax makes sense for the team..

They still have to pay the UFA player they signed and they just gave away the money in fines they got to do it.

Its almost like they received nothing then ..because they have nothing to show for it.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

Excuse me, but aren't you and newsguyone two of the "folks" who were whining earlier this year that a cap would kill the dynasty? So which is it? The cap is bad because it promotes parity and puts an end to the dynasties of years gone by, or its bad because it will hurt parity and lead to more dynasties? You pro-PA folk change your stories more often than you change your underwear so I'm just trying to keep the score card straight and understand how come its bad this week?

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Luxury tax of $1 for $1 starting at $29 mil??

 

[GSC2k2*]

Luxury tax of $1 for $1 starting at $29 mil??

That has been the word for quite some time now...

 

[Boltsfan2029]

That is absurd. It's really quite easy:

small market - you collect luxury tax revenue

big market - you don't

As I've said before, "small market" is just a euphemism for "cheap owner".

OK -- how is the small market v. larget market distinction going to be determined for 2005-2006, since there has been no distribution of luxury tax revenue?

 

[Mess]

What, another big market fan deluding himself that this new CBA will make the Toronto's of the world king of the world is 'exactly the kind of conversation is was intended to bring out?'

I wonder why all the fans of teams who you are saying will be killed by this new CBA are not all up in arms as you, the big market fan all worried for us, are in this thread though?

That's not it at all ..

Is this new Cba really not almost like the old one just with smaller player numbers ..

The smaller numbers allow the league to be healthier as a whole ..which is good AND THE GOAL of the CBA ,but the whole issue that a hard cap even at $36 mil still seperates the NHL into have and have nots ..

I don't think any teams will be killed .. that's nonsense .. I am saying the issue of parity is not really going to be what it was promised by Bettman to smaller market owners that need additional funds to turn a profit ..

While the range of the run away teams is certainly restricted which helps from that standpoint .. there are other issues that still may come out as a result of this new one ..

Would a big UFA take a 1l or 2 mil less to join a Stanley Cup contender for example .. Which would imply that teams that spend to the Hard cap ceiling consistently will be considered those teams ..

The point of the thread is to dispell the notion that people have that this new CBA promotes 30 equal teams and winning opportunities ..

That is not the case at all, hoever there will always be remaining an competitive advantage between the teams the collect Revenue Sharing money and pay Revenue Sharing money.!!!!

 

[CMUMike]

Is this new Cba really not almost like the old one just with smaller player numbers ..

You have to be kidding me. Just like the old one? If that were the case we would not have heard "philosophical differences" for six months. The whole point of the lockout from the owner's standpoint was to change the economic model for the game, not just lower salaries. If it was just about lowering salaries, then the league would have likely negotiated off of the 24% deal in December.

 

[Mess]

OK -- how is the small market v. larget market distinction going to be determined for 2005-2006, since there has been no distribution of luxury tax revenue?

Thats a great question ..

We don't really know or at least its not disussed very often or at all ..

Will it be equal for all receiving it, or based on need for profitability determine who gets more ??

Who are these teams that collect and who pays ??

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Thats a great question ..

We don't really know or at least its not disussed very often or at all ..

Will it be equal for all receiving it, or based on need for profitability determine who gets more ??

Who are these teams that collect and who pays ??

Revenue: Thems that have above a certain amount pays, thems that has less than a certain amount gets.

 

[Mess]

You have to be kidding me. Just like the old one? If that were the case we would not have heard "philosophical differences" for six months. The whole point of the lockout from the owner's standpoint was to change the economic model for the game, not just lower salaries. If it was just about lowering salaries, then the league would have likely negotiated off of the 24% deal in December.

I don't mean that in direct comparison from old to new CBA.. We all understand the massive difference in the systems.

I am speaking in terms of competitive balance here and parity on the ice ??

If Colorado now is basically able to keep their team together particularly its star players and the only difference now is that they all just make less money as a result of the rollback and lower expectations in contracts in the future.

When Nashville or Carolina come to town do they have an EQUAL chance to win the game?? This whole parity was intended to increase fans in smaller markets by giving their home team better chances to win against the big spenders of old ..

Has this rumoured CBA addressed that ??

Or will that always remain to some point, and the only difference is that the smaller market team can make and living and compete in the NHL while still making a profit .. These teams will still need more then ever to have strong drafting and scouting to field talented inexpensive teams ..

Yet with the Cap system big markets can now afford to put even more money into scouting and training and development as a result on not paying it in on ice salary as a result of the cap ..

Will they always remain the underdogs in the NHL regardless of the CBA ??

I am suggesting in order to fully shake that label they will have to grow their market to the point that they no longer require assistance financially from others so that they can freely cross the luxury tax line and spend among the top teams ..

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Revenue: Thems that have above a certain amount pays, thems that has less than a certain amount gets.

So this will be based on 2003-2004?

 

[Mess]

So this will be based on 2003-2004?

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/07/03/1115614-sun.html

A hard cap set at 54% of league revenues -- projected to drop by $300 million to $1.8 billion (all terms US) next season -- that will include all player salaries, signing bonuses and performance bonuses. The $2.2 million teams allot for insurance and pension plan contributions won't be included in that figure. The cap could be in the $39 million range, with a floor of about $24 million. There's talk of a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax starting around the $30 million mark, with that money redistributed to lower revenue teams.

 

[Pepper]

Let's get one thing straight here:

There will *NOT* be a team-by-team salary caps, all teams have the same limitations set by league so even if Toronto gets $200M in revenues, they can still pay only $36M in salaries + tax.

Secondly, I still have to wonder how some of you people STILL come up with ridiculous examples how for example Flames will lose Iginla because of salary cap or paying him will compromise the team. Newsflash, under the old CBA the same problem existed, it was only much, much more severe problem back then.

All the top teams will be maxed at $36M for the whole time, that's certain. If Flames are sitting at $29M and Iginla demands $7M, they can tell him to stuff it and Iginla has no leverage because those teams willing to spend $43M (cap+taxes) are already maxed out or atleast so close to cap that they can't sign Iginla. Even if they do sign him, they will owe Flames 5 1st rounders which will be a HUGE return under the new CBA where drafting & player developement will have much bigger role in building a contending team.

So read my lips: smaller teams like Flames are better off in EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO POSSIBLE under the new CBA, there's no way you pro-PA yahoos can spin around this fact.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

So this will be based on 2003-2004?

It will be settled in the new CBA. I have no clue nor does anyone not involved, but if forced to guess then I suppose that I would guess so . . . to be adjusted by real figures next year like the player's 54% will be. The war chest could 'loan' the difference until real numbers come in.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Let's get one thing straight here:

There will *NOT* be a team-by-team salary caps, all teams have the same limitations set by league so even if Toronto gets $200M in revenues, they can still pay only $36M in salaries + tax.

Secondly, I still have to wonder how some of you people STILL come up with ridiculous examples how for example Flames will lose Iginla because of salary cap or paying him will compromise the team. Newsflash, under the old CBA the same problem existed, it was only much, much more severe problem back then.

All the top teams will be maxed at $36M for the whole time, that's certain. If Flames are sitting at $29M and Iginla demands $7M, they can tell him to stuff it and Iginla has no leverage because those teams willing to spend $43M (cap+taxes) are already maxed out or atleast so close to cap that they can't sign Iginla. Even if they do sign him, they will owe Flames 5 1st rounders which will be a HUGE return under the new CBA where drafting & player developement will have much bigger role in building a contending team.

So read my lips: smaller teams like Flames are better off in EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO POSSIBLE under the new CBA, there's no way you pro-PA yahoos can spin around this fact.

Not with the age of UFA dropping to 29. Iginla will be a free agent in a year or two so the Flames can't tell anyone to stuff anything.

 

[CMUMike]

I don't mean that in direct comparison from old to new CBA.. We all understand the massive difference in the systems.

I am speaking in terms of competitive balance here and parity on the ice ??

As a small market fan, the biggest differences are going to be realized in July and March. In July, when free agency begins, it's not unreasonable to expect my team to plug some holes with something other than AHL re-treads. Maybe my team won't sign Peter Forsberg, but there is a good shot at picking up some decent talent. In March, as the trade deadline looms, my team can consider making that deadline deal that just might get them in the playoffs. For the past few years, it's been about selling off whoever makes the most and getting little in return.

Most of all, I can feel like the team I root for is actually part of the NHL and not just a black and gold version of the Washington Generals.

It will be nice to look at the TSN free agent rumors and see more than NYR,PHI,TOR,DET

 

[Epsilon]

It will be settled in the new CBA. I have no clue nor does anyone not involved, but if forced to guess then I suppose that I would guess so . . . to be adjusted by real figures next year like the player's 54% will be. The war chest could 'loan' the difference until real numbers come in.

The best way to do it would be simply to wait every season until the end of the summer. At the begining of the season, everyone who is over the tax threshold pays the tax. Everyone below it is given a choice: you can take tax money, in which case your salary cap is locked in at the tax number for the season. Or you can decline the tax money, in which case you are permitted to go up to the top cap number at any point you want. So if every team spends 36 million before the season starts, no one pays any tax.

 

[Tiki]

Parity Close but no Cigar

Well its better than no parity at all in the world of UFA spending, big market teams making absurd offers to mid level talent like Chris Gratton, or front loading contracts to people like Joe Sakic. (or offering ten year contracts for big money )

 

[Pepper]

When Nashville or Carolina come to town do they have an EQUAL chance to win the game?? This whole parity was intended to increase fans in smaller markets by giving their home team better chances to win against the big spenders of old ..

Has this rumoured CBA addressed that ??

Seriously, I really have to wonder how old you are dude, it shouldn't be that hard.

This has been explained to you like a million times already.

Under old CBA:
Nashville has player X who's their best player. X turns 30 and will a UFA next summer, he knows that Maple Leafs (for example) can and wants to pay him say $8M per year when he will become an UFA. Nashville can afford to pay him say $6M at max. X tells Nashville "sorry, I won't resign for $6M because I can get $8M from big teams". Nashville is close to making the play-offs so they have to make the choice whether to trade X before deadline to a big team and get something for him or make a play-off run and lose X for nothing in the summer. Big teams don't have to make that choice, they can give him the $8M he wants and keep him next year too. Result: very uneven playing field, no parity whatsoever for financial reasons.

New CBA:
Nashville has the same player X, he knows that all top teams are close to or at the cap and can't afford to give him the $8M he wants. Nashville is well below the cap and can afford to him $6M. X sees that as the best option and signs with NAshville. Nashville can try to make a real playoff run without losing their best player next summer to big teams. Result: much more even playing field, lots of parity.

Now there will be times when some big team has payroll low enough to pay X more than Nashville can afford but those situations will be much more rare and the big team has little reason to do it because they will compromise the rest of the team by giving one player too much of the capped payroll.

Clearer now?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

The best way to do it would be simply to wait every season until the end of the summer. At the begining of the season, everyone who is over the tax threshold pays the tax. Everyone below it is given a choice: you can take tax money, in which case your salary cap is locked in at the tax number for the season. Or you can decline the tax money, in which case you are permitted to go up to the top cap number at any point you want. So if every team spends 36 million before the season starts, no one pays any tax.

Agreed, of course. But I was just trying to figure out how they will start it out for the first year *if* the cap is to be different for "small" and "large" market teams, since there was no season upon which to base the distinction. They would have to make a determination somehow of who falls where, or waive the rumored cap difference for the first year.

 

[davemess]

So this will be based on 2003-2004?

I would assume that teams will get zero revenue sharing money to spend this year. A Luxury tax should work with a years lag time anyway.

The revenue figures from 05/06 will define the luxury tax money each team gets to spend in the following year.

 

[tmg]

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

But the ".500" record no longer means league-average. When every game awarded 2 and exactly 2 points, a point-a-game season meant you were an absolutely middle-of-the-road team - you won as much as you lost and you tied the rest.

For the past few seasons, of course there have been 16+ teams finishing more than a few points above the point-a-game pace. There have been more 'bonus points' to go around. Before the overtime-loss-point was introduced, the average points-per-team was locked-in as equal to the number of games in a season. In 2003-2004, the average points per team was 86.83 points in an 82 game schedule.

If you're using a point-a-game as a parity bar, you have to account for the fact that a point-a-game season is now below the league average.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I would assume that teams will get zero revenue sharing money to spend this year. A Luxury tax should work with a years lag time anyway.

The revenue figures from 05/06 will define the luxury tax money each team gets to spend in the following year.

But that's not what I'm asking... I guess I'm not making myself clear.

Rumor is big market cap is $36M, small market cap is $29M. For the 2005-2006 season, how will it be determined which teams get $36M and which get $29M?

 

[Timmy]

But that's not what I'm asking... I guess I'm not making myself clear.

Rumor is big market cap is $36M, small market cap is $29M. For the 2005-2006 season, how will it be determined which teams get $36M and which get $29M?

It won't be "determined." A team will either be spending over 29m, and therefore paying tax and not receiving rev sharing, or they will be under 29m, in which case they'll get the rev sharing.

Epsilon's post (7 up) summarizes a possible scenario nicely.