SImple Question for the Pro-owner crowd

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Of course they don't. But thats 6.5 million extra dollars that a team can spend more than them. Lets say Calgary can afford 35 million dollars. If the cap is 42.5 that is 7.5 million which is basically either one superstar or 2-3 solid players. If the cap is 49 million thats 14 million. Which could be 2 huge superstars or 3-5 solid players. That difference is HUGE.

So you want exact parity.
I understand, I guess.

I just figured that given where we're coming from, we've seen a lot of progress. Teams have been helped immensely. Teams like the Wings, Rags and Avs won't be able to raid other teams. Salaries are down and will stay down.

But what you want is exact parity.
Every team should have the same set of rules.

I can see where you;re coming from.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Tell me, what is the difference between $42.5 and $49Million?
How much does this effect Calgary and Edmonton?
They don't have to max out the salary cap, do they?

I cant believe your a stuff at HF, or just a moderator or something?

You do not seem to have any idea how this CBA fight is about, from start to finish.

What is the difference and what is the effect?
There is NO difference, and there is NO effect on the flames and oilers, and this is exactly the problem.

cap at 42.5 and cap at 49 makes no difference and effect to teasm, which by around half of the 30 teams, who are operating at 35-40M range.


If you offer 49, why not offer 80M cap? Is there a difference? Any team can still offer Heatley 10M/year if a team like say, Oiler who suddenly got rich and they were at 39M in cap (which is about normal).

So, tell me how is this CBA changed from last one, with the price ceiling virtually non-existent.

 

[CarlRacki]

It's kind of a moot point, because the cap alone does nothing to salvage the state of the economically despaired franchises. It just limits the capabilities of the rich ones.

Yes and no.
The cap won't give Edmonton an extra $20 million to buy players with, but it will give the Oilers more bang for the bucks they do have because it acts as a depressant on salaries. Suddenly Detroit can only pay $5 million to a player they could otherwise buy for $9 million. At a price of $5 million, that player is much more affordable for revenue-deficient teams like the Oilers.
The second thing the cap does is limit the number of high-priced players a team can afford. No longer will the Flyers (my team, FWIW) be able to pay a guy who could be a second-line player in Edmonton $3 million to play on their third line. The cap won't allow it.

 

[nedved93]

So you want exact parity.
I understand, I guess.

I just figured that given where we're coming from, we've seen a lot of progress. Teams have been helped immensely. Teams like the Wings, Rags and Avs won't be able to raid other teams. Salaries are down and will stay down.

But what you want is exact parity.
Every team should have the same set of rules.

I can see where you;re coming from.

could someone better define parity?

 

[Licentia]

I understand that you guys think the players are a bunch of greedy SOBs lead by a guy you think is stupid, greedy and evil.

But seriously. Let's take a look at where we were a year ago and where we are today.

Now assume that the NHL quickly decided to adopt the PA's most recent proposal, in its entirety. (I am not saying the league should adopt it, I am just selecting it for arguments' sake)

Is your favorite team, and the league, much better off than it was a year ago?

Could your franchise not survive? WHy or why not?
Explain how a $49 Mill cap would put your team out of business.

Finally, logically explain to me why it is worth it for your team to completely cancel the season based on a $6M difference in cap levels.

Please, keep the thread free of sarcasm and insults.
I'd just like to see some thought-out opinions from the other side.

Calgary and Edmonton still can't compete under that cap. Some teams could reach the max, other teams couldn't. Same old same old.

 

[Trottier]

Oh for the good ole days in the 80's when if someone signed for more the 300 000 a year, it made front page hockey news!!

Yeah, and we both wish we were 18 years old again!

Bossy and Trottier each signed for ~$800,000, circa 1981. The hockey world shook. The Dynasty Isles team payroll was $8 mil. Go figure.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

It's kind of a moot point, because the cap alone does nothing to salvage the state of the economically despaired franchises. It just limits the capabilities of the rich ones.

I'm getting off topic, but that is exactly the reason why I've been saying a dollar for dollar luxury tax, at $40 Million, would be best for the game.
It basically says, hey rich owners, spend on a winner. But it's going to cost you BIG.
(For example, last year's Red WIngs would have cost Illitch $120 Million, sending 40 Million to small market teams while reducing demand for players. But I digress,)

 

[serum114]

I haven't read any of the responses, so I apologize if I'm repeating things, I just thought my answer would be most honest if I wrote it to the initiator of the thread. I will answer each of your questions below...

I understand that you guys think the players are a bunch of greedy SOBs lead by a guy you think is stupid, greedy and evil.

But seriously. Let's take a look at where we were a year ago and where we are today.

Now assume that the NHL quickly decided to adopt the PA's most recent proposal, in its entirety. (I am not saying the league should adopt it, I am just selecting it for arguments' sake)

Is your favorite team, and the league, much better off than it was a year ago?

Could your franchise not survive? WHy or why not?
Explain how a $49 Mill cap would put your team out of business.

First off, I have no beef with the players or Goodenow. They can irritate me, but so can Bettman. Business is business and that's where I stand, I'll still stand and cheer when they're back on the ice.

If the NHL decided to adpot the PAs proposal I don't think anything would change for a pair of reasons:

1 - a 49 million dollar cap (ignoring the ridiculous point #7 which would be thrown out in any event) would still leave a significant gap between the 10-12 who could afford to bump up against it, but the teams in the $25-35 million range would still lose their marquee free agents as the market would be set assuming a $49 mil max, and not the lower amount they could afford. And the LT wouldn't be enough to go around to balance that out...

2 - When taking a likely 25% drop in league revenues into consideration, it wholly nullifies the effectiveness of that roll back.

For the record, I am an Oilers fan who lives in Calgary (and *gasp* also cheers for the Flames) and I think we'd be better off in any scenario since the fan base wouldn't take as long to bounce back. As soon as the salaries started climbing again however, as soon as teams regularly bumped up against the cap, we'd be in a world of hurt.

Finally, logically explain to me why it is worth it for your team to completely cancel the season based on a $6M difference in cap levels.

This is one misconception that bothers me a lot. It's not a $6 million difference. It's $6 million PER TEAM PER YEAR.

6 x 30 = 180

180 x 5 = 900

Over the term of the deal, the difference the season was cancelled over was almost $1 billion, and that is the difference of surviving and not for many franchises.

------------------------

Personally, I think any solution needs two key elements: a link between revenue and salaries and significant revenue sharing. Neither side is willing to move on those, which is a shame.

On the bright side, this panic deal (which wasn't what either side wanted, or the league needed) didn't get signed.

My two cents...

 

[sunb]

So you want exact parity.
I understand, I guess.

I just figured that given where we're coming from, we've seen a lot of progress. Teams have been helped immensely. Teams like the Wings, Rags and Avs won't be able to raid other teams. Salaries are down and will stay down.

But what you want is exact parity.
Every team should have the same set of rules.

I can see where you;re coming from.

You can't guarentee that. Just because no teams will be spending 70 million dollars on salary, salaries will be down and stay down? By allowing a 49 million dollar cap, all it needs to happen is for Detroit to trade Shannahan and Cujo to Minnesota and for Toronto to trade Belfour and Nieuwendyke to Florida for the salaries to stay consistent.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

Fair enough, so explain how the long term health of the league is more secure if the league cancels the entire season (and drags it into next season) because of a six million difference in salary caps (which perhaps 6 or 7 teams will even use)

Huh? It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself, because that 6 million difference is exactly the reason why, and those 6 or 7 teams are exactly the reasons why the average salary in the NHL is going up.

I dont understand your question?!

How the long term health will be more secure if it drags to the next season? You are putting the entire focus on the wrong foot to begin with in order to "favour" your standpoint, but guess what? The point is to get a much lower cap in, not to see how many seasons we can cancel to get it down.

Get that straight. Cancelling the season is not helping either said and both sides are playing with fire here, but your take of things here is just completely off IMO.

 

[Other Dave]

This season has been an utter disaster for the Senators, but the cancellation is even worse: if hockey ever resumes, the Sens will be in the unenviable position of having to negotiate with both Havlat and Hossa as free agents, while close to the upper limit of a salary cap and shorn of revenues by the labor dispute.

Things couldn't have worked out worse for the Sens if it were deliberate.

 

[kmad]

Yes and no.

I completely understand what you mean, but that market deflation will happen as gradually as the inflation did to get us to this point. Ten years from now, (possibly even as soon as five) the cap will have that effect. It's not an instantaneous thing. Since a cap in this regard leads to long-term stability of financial health, it all comes down to getting the cap low enough so that it's sustainable for each franchise and their individual revenue totals exceed their payrolls.

 

[likea]

my team is the Pittsburgh Penguins

the Penguins along with other small market teams can afford a payroll between 30 and 34 million dollars without revenue sharing and without the chance to make even the slightest profit. with a 34 million dollar payroll the teams would HAVE TO make the playoffs to break even.

The Penguins could live with a 42.5 million dollar cap because it would only be an 8-12 million dollar difference each year.

That difference is 2-3 players.

If a 49.5 soft cap is adopted, the teams spending 49.5 can get 4-5 better players on the ice than I can and when the go up 10% add one more player. 20 million can buy a better entire first line and defense than any small market team can afford.

While hockey is a team game and in a series of seven anything can happen, over the season the better teams and teams with more money usually make the playoffs because they have more depth because they can afford that depth.

The Penguins can afford to compete with teams having 1 or two or even three player advantage...when the numbers start to get to 5,6,7 players...your just outmatched

also, the league wants to grow as a whole...thats how you get a national TV contract. Competitive balance allows fans in every market to be excited each and every year for their team, when fans care and are excited they come out and support the game on the ice and they watch it on TV.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

I'm getting off topic, but that is exactly the reason why I've been saying a dollar for dollar luxury tax, at $40 Million, would be best for the game.
It basically says, hey rich owners, spend on a winner. But it's going to cost you BIG.
(For example, last year's Red WIngs would have cost Illitch $120 Million, sending 40 Million to small market teams while reducing demand for players. But I digress,)

dollar for dollar doesnt work, why? because do u think the owners care about this extra 10M he spent by going 10M over cap?

10M out of billions that he is making?

How does this help any of the lower market team exactly?
Rich teams still going to spend richly regardless of 1:1 over tax, players salaries are still going up, and what is the point?

 

[txomisc]

So you want exact parity.
I understand, I guess.

I just figured that given where we're coming from, we've seen a lot of progress. Teams have been helped immensely. Teams like the Wings, Rags and Avs won't be able to raid other teams. Salaries are down and will stay down.

But what you want is exact parity.
Every team should have the same set of rules.

I can see where you;re coming from.

No no no no, I don't want exact parity. Exact parity is boring. I want reasonable parity. 14+ million is way too much of a gap to bridge. 7 million is fairly reasonable.

 

[txomisc]

could someone better define parity?

equality

 

[CarlRacki]

At the risk of being mocked, I'd suggest we don't forget the NHL's offer of revenue sharing. I think we'd all like it to be more substantial, but $90 million is nothing to sneeze at. Assuming half the teams pay and half the teams receive, that's about $6 million per receiving team. Now the Oilers can afford perhaps $37-$38 million instead of $33-34 million. With the likely deflation of salaries brought on by the cap, that'll get the Oilers at least a few of quality players or give them extra cash to retain some of their high-priced talent.

 

[nedved93]

my team is the Pittsburgh Penguins

the Penguins along with other small market teams can afford a payroll between 30 and 34 million dollars without revenue sharing and without the chance to make even the slightest profit. with a 34 million dollar payroll the teams would HAVE TO make the playoffs to break even.

The Penguins could live with a 42.5 million dollar cap because it would only be an 8-12 million dollar difference each year.

That difference is 2-3 players.

If a 49.5 soft cap is adopted, the teams spending 49.5 can get 4-5 better players on the ice than I can and when the go up 10% add one more player. 20 million can buy a better entire first line and defense than any small market team can afford.

While hockey is a team game and in a series of seven anything can happen, over the season the better teams and teams with more money usually make the playoffs because they have more depth because they can afford that depth.

The Penguins can afford to compete with teams having 1 or two or even three player advantage...when the numbers start to get to 5,6,7 players...your just outmatched

also, the league wants to grow as a whole...thats how you get a national TV contract. Competitive balance allows fans in every market to be excited each and every year for their team, when fans care and are excited they come out and support the game on the ice and they watch it on TV.

so then the obvious solution is to have all teams spend let's say $30 million - this is what those in the pro-owner camp must mean by the term "parity"?

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

At the risk of being mocked, I'd suggest we don't forget the NHL's offer of revenue sharing. I think we'd all like it to be more substantial, but $90 million is nothing to sneeze at. Assuming half the teams pay and half the teams receive, that's about $6 million per receiving team. Now the Oilers can afford perhaps $37-$38 million instead of $33-34 million. With the likely deflation of salaries brought on by the cap, that'll get the Oilers at least a few of quality players or give them extra cash to retain some of their high-priced talent.

this is only a short term solution and probably not sustainable too.

 

[jcab2000]

This isn't about parity. This is about small market teams being forced to overpay for players because large market teams drive up the price of every player.

You have to contain the salaries of players. That's what this deal is about more than anything.

Hell, they could go to no team cap but a $4 million individual salary cap and I think the owners would be fine with it.

 

[nedved93]

equality

in what terms though, financial?

 

[CarlRacki]

No no no no, I don't want exact parity. Exact parity is boring. I want reasonable parity. 14+ million is way too much of a gap to bridge. 7 million is fairly reasonable.

Yep. And keep in mind, what we're discussing here is only economic parity. That doesn't guarantee parity on the ice, it only means the disparity won't be the result primarily of economic factors.

Good management, coaching, player development will only matter more under a cap because it prevents the big revenue teams from spending their way out of mistakes and allows the well-managed small revenue teams to reap the rewards of good decison-making.

 

[Other Dave]

This isn't about parity. This is about small market teams being forced to overpay for players because large market teams drive up the price of every player.

Restricted. Free. Agency.

 

[PhillyNucksFan]

so then the obvious solution is to have all teams spend let's say $30 million - this is what those in the pro-owner camp must mean by the term "parity"?

there isnt any straight cut answers in business.

Owners only want relative parity, not just parity. there is a difference.

Owners wants cost certainty, not the power to force all teams spending 30M only.

 

[me2]

But neither does a $42.5 Million cap.
Sure, it gets you closer to exact parity.
But is it worth the cancellation of the season.

I mean, given where we've come from, and what your Bluejackets were up against up until now, isn't a $49 Million cap considered major progress? Not to mention the rollback.

I'm not saying the league should accept it.
I'd like to have seen the sides negotiate more and bring it to $45 Million, or whatever, with some of those loopholes closed.

What I worry about is the long term health of the league if this lockout does wipe out the season and if this does stretch into next season.

I was shocked to see the players give in on the cap, despite all the criticisms levied at the PA's proposal. I thought it would enable the two sides to actually get a deal done.

It just seems so damn petty to cancel the season when at long last, the two sides were actually talking the same language, at least somewhat.

Progress yes, solution no.

Based on last years starting payrolls, rolled back by 24%, the total salary difference between a $42.5m cap and a $49m cap is about $38m in player salary. Factor in those over budget players get shuffled to other under cap teams via a draft and its likely 0% of players are worse off next season. 6 teams over by the full $6.5m is just $45m, not much for either side to fight over.

So why are we fighting over cap max if its not going to make that much difference to total paid by adding the extra from players paid in $42.5m-$49m bracket?

IMHO its leverage and linkage. Leverage to use the top spending teams to drive up salaries via arbitration. Under linkage this won't work, you drive up salaries then you lose it via escrow. No linkage and you can try and force the weaker clubs into paying $2m-3m more for the same roster they would have gotten for a $42.5m cap. League wide that's quite a bit of money. Scratch linkage from the CBA and Goodenow is trying to get extra blood from the stone.

Goodenow wants the rich clubs to keep trying to spend their way to cups, if you give them enough incentive they will. At $42.5m they'll likely rebuild, at $49m they'd buy another star or two. Keeping the rich teams in the player market creates shortages. Flood the market with playoff teams and drive up prices of players. Smart thinking. Would the Wings or Leafs rebuild when they run out of steam at $42.5m and the team is old or do they hold one for one more run. The answer is one more run, history keeps showing us that. Under the $42.5m cap they back off and rebuild again, this keeps the natural balance of teams rebuilding, making the playoffs, challenging, aging and rebuilding again.