Since support for a cap seems to be such a "Canadian" thing..

Status
Not open for further replies.

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
missK said:
You're preaching to the choir, I never said I don't believe in some sort of a cap or revenue sharing. I happen to think the Lightning GM has built our team the right way, and hopefully will be able to keep our core team together for a long time. But I worry that Khabibulin will ask for $8-9 Million Cujo/Hasek money for next season (he will be UFA) and our team won't be able to pay it. Under a new system, hopefully that will not happen.
yes but with all that talent needing $$$ some will have to go
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
kerrly said:
I totally agree with that.....but I'm not even sure what we're trying to argue about anymore? This prevents the league from needing a cap? I don't think so.

Is the league better off having these contracts, absolutely not. These are the contracts that have helped create such an inflationary system.

Well I don't seethe inflationary system where you saw a ton of Leclair's type of contract, Holik's type of contract. You said it yourself, you need smart managerial system.

Some things need to be fix , no doubt about it but like I said in another thread, a strong luxury tax would prevent salaries to escalate again. That's my opinion of course.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
EndBoards said:
.. If a cap is implemented I'm going to laugh my tail off when we see these headlines and the collective whining that will undoubtedly follow..

"No room for Bertuzzi under cap"
"Nashville inks Bertuzzi"

"Cap too tight for Flames"
"Iginla signs in Carolina, Kiprusoff to Florida"

"Sens cap woes force Chara, Hossa to hit market"
"Phoenix bolsters blueline, signs Chara"
"Columbus wraps up Hossa deal"

"Souray to test market"
"Souray to Atlanta"

:lol:

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it..

First of all you don't see any of those guys ending up ending up Detroit and NYR and Toronto and two or three of them on the same team. Second, Iginla is not going to be a cap casualty. Third, why would Florida want Kiprosoff?? they have Luongo...right? How is Atlanta going to afford to raid top players off other teams when they have Heatley and Kovulchuk...or have you forgotten?
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
kerrly said:
Sorry, I misunderstood your response. And teams like Tampa are exactly why we need a new system. Went to great lengths to build an outstanding team, and I think they deserve the chance to keep their competitiveness alive.

No problem, I totally agree. Hopefully the new system will help us keep the core team together for a long time.
 

alecfromtherock

Registered User
Feb 2, 2004
507
0
Canadian thing?

Look at the teams that should not be effected by a 32 million cap:

Nashville, Pittsburgh, Florida, Minnesota, Atlanta and Chicago.

Correct if my geography is wrong, but not one of those teams are Canadian.

Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will benefit from a cap as they can keep their key players from present to future.

Unless the players on Toronto are willing to basically half their current salaries, Toronto does not gain anything from a cap.

Vancouver needs to cut $10,074,500 in salary in order to make the cap. However there is still the possibility that Bertuzzi will never play in the NHL again, thus saving his team millions in the process.

10 million dollar players having only 4-5 million, what ever will they do?

Strike pay is $10,000 per month, with a $4,000,000 yearly salary that works out to $333,333.33 per month. Cap pay for the top players that will make 4 million + is 33 times(minimum) what they are currently making.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
txpd said:
First of all you don't see any of those guys ending up ending up Detroit and NYR and Toronto and two or three of them on the same team. Second, Iginla is not going to be a cap casualty. Third, why would Florida want Kiprosoff?? they have Luongo...right? How is Atlanta going to afford to raid top players off other teams when they have Heatley and Kovulchuk...or have you forgotten?
<sigh>.... :shakehead those examples are illustrative..

I picked fan favorites that are currently on Canadian teams and put them on teams in non-traditional, small markets. I'm not predicting which movements would happen, but what kind of movements would happen. If you have to mix/match players & teams to understand then be my guest. The point is the same..
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,088
38,141
EndBoards said:
<sigh>.... :shakehead those examples are illustrative..

I picked fan favorites that are currently on Canadian teams and put them on teams in non-traditional, small markets. I'm not predicting which movements would happen, but what kind of movements would happen. If you have to mix/match players & teams to understand then be my guest. The point is the same..

why would this be exclusive to Canadian teams???
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
missK said:
No problem, I totally agree. Hopefully the new system will help us keep the core team together for a long time.

But only if it's a 'great' core, right (like TB has)? If the GM wasn't able to assemble a core that generates success (i.e. go far into the playoffs), then they should be able to to dismantle that core and start again... I assume you agree...

I also assume you agree that the only way to develop a 'great' core is to slowly and inexpensively develop that core through the draft and young players... and to allow them to grow and develop chemistry together... To allow them to learn to win together (and how to overcome diversity together)...

IMHO, TB will be just fine even without Khabibulin... IMO, in TB, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts... Just like Colorodo is still a great team without Roy, IMO, TB will still be a great team without Khabi (if that happens)... He is replaceable, and a suitable (and cheaper) replacement can be found...

You've got a great, properly grown team in TB... You've got the opportunity to go far in the playoffs (IMO, year-after-year, thus, giving you playoff $ year-after-year - and giving you the chance to challenge for the Stanley Cup on several occasions)... With this $ you earn, you should be able to keep your 'core' together as they get older (assuming that your GM saves and invests this money for the future - instead of going after UFAs)...
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
I in the Eye said:
But only if it's a 'great' core, right (like TB has)? If the GM wasn't able to assemble a core that generates success (i.e. go far into the playoffs), then they should be able to to dismantle that core and start again... I assume you agree...

I also assume you agree that the only way to develop a 'great' core is to slowly and inexpensively develop that core through the draft and young players... and to allow them to grow and develop chemistry together... To allow them to learn to win together (and how to overcome diversity together)...

IMHO, TB will be just fine even without Khabibulin... IMO, in TB, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts... Just like Colorodo is still a great team without Roy, IMO, TB will still be a great team without Khabi (if that happens)... He is replaceable, and a suitable (and cheaper) replacement can be found...

You've got a great, properly grown team in TB... You've got the opportunity to go far in the playoffs (IMO, year-after-year, thus, giving you playoff $ year-after-year - and giving you the chance to challenge for the Stanley Cup on several occasions)... With this $ you earn, you should be able to keep your 'core' together as they get older (assuming that your GM saves and invests this money for the future - instead of going after UFAs)...

Yes, I agree, if your core is good you should hopefully be able to keep them together under a new system. If not, you can also start over again. And yes, I agree that GM's need to grow the core from drafting and obtaining young players inexpensively. The Lightning are proof that it can work. Now we just have to keep the core together, which can get tough. Lecavalier's contract is up 2005 along Khabi's and many others so we desperately need a new system to ensure we don't lose our core players to the handful of teams who have continued to overpay players because they can. That's why the NHL is in the state it is in today.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
missK said:
I happen to think the Lightning GM has built our team the right way, and hopefully will be able to keep our core team together for a long time. But I worry that Khabibulin will ask for $8-9 Million Cujo/Hasek money for next season (he will be UFA) and our team won't be able to pay it. Under a new system, hopefully that will not happen.

As one who is not a Lightning a fan, but an NHL fan first and foremost (and envious of the superb way in which your current team has been built), here is what I worry about, under a "new system", should that system include a hardcap.

Per your scenario above, Khabibulin asks for $8-9M next season. (To think that he won't have very high demands simply because a new system is in place, is, respectfully, naive.)

TB is then going to have to let him go (as you express concern). Or, just as detrimentally, IMO, they do re-sign him...and in order to make cap space, have to let go of Darryl Sydor and Chris Dingman's contracts (for example).

The end of roster continuity, the forced exodus of players off of successful teams in order to adhere to an artificial economic barrier. That's my concern.

Only good thing here is that an overly restrictive (hardcap) is likely not going to happen, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Sammy*

Guest
Trottier said:
As one who is not Lightning a fan, but an NHL fan first and foremost (and envious of the superb way in which your current team has been built), here is what I worry about, under a "new system", should that system include a hardcap.

Per your scenario above, Khabibulin asks for $8-9M next season. (To think that he won't have very high demands simply because a new system is in place, is, respectfully, naive.)

TB is then going to have to let him go (as you express concern). Or, just as detrimentally, IMO, they do re-sign him...and in order to make cap space, have to let go of Darryl Sydor and Chris Dingman's contracts (for example).

The end of roster continuity, the forced exodus of players off of successful teams in order to adhere to an artificial economic barrier. That's my concern.

Only good thing here is that an overly restrictive (hardcap) is likely not going to happen, IMO.

Well , as an Edmonton fan, the alternative is losing virtually each & every star that you have can the economics dont permit you to keep any of them.
Make no mistake, the Lightning are way better off with a cap, & way more likely to be able to keep a number of their top players under a cap than they are without one.
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
Trottier said:
As one who is not Lightning a fan, but an NHL fan first and foremost (and envious of the superb way in which your current team has been built), here is what I worry about, under a "new system", should that system include a hardcap.

Per your scenario above, Khabibulin asks for $8-9M next season. (To think that he won't have very high demands simply because a new system is in place, is, respectfully, naive.)

TB is then going to have to let him go (as you express concern). Or, just as detrimentally, IMO, they do re-sign him...and in order to make cap space, have to let go of Darryl Sydor and Chris Dingman's contracts (for example).

The end of roster continuity, the forced exodus of players off of successful teams in order to adhere to an artificial economic barrier. That's my concern.

Only good thing here is that an overly restrictive (hardcap) is likely not going to happen, IMO.
I agree there will be forced player movement, but thats not really a problem IMO.

So Khabi leaves seeking 8 or 9 mil, but a cap would restrict the teams chasing him, making his value depressed and giving Tampa a better chance at him. This is the primary difference from the current system IMO. Right now, if Detroit or NYR came along and offered Khabi 8 or 9 mil he would be gone anyway. At least having a cap gives Tampa a chance.

However I would like some sort of Homegrown exemption.
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
kruezer said:
I agree there will be forced player movement, but thats not really a problem IMO.

So Khabi leaves seeking 8 or 9 mil, but a cap would restrict the teams chasing him, making his value depressed and giving Tampa a better chance at him. This is the primary difference from the current system IMO. Right now, if Detroit or NYR came along and offered Khabi 8 or 9 mil he would be gone anyway. At least having a cap gives Tampa a chance.

However I would like some sort of Homegrown exemption.

I have heard talk of something along the lines of a "homegrown exemption" before and I like the concept for sure, but I'm not sure how it could be structured into a cap or luxury tax environment.
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
HF2002 said:
Ahhh...it seems you've been listening to yet another factually incorrect report from the Toronto media.

There was a game played, but it was played in Ottawa. Turns out the reporter didn't know of any other rink, so he just wrote the ACC. It's not your fault you got it wrong.

But don't worry, only Vince Carter was trapped. He was there looking for some quarters he dropped behind his locker. Right now rescue workers are teasing him, saying they could try harder to get him out quicker, but they just don't want to.

Domi, Tucker and McCabe barely escaped with their lives and are now afraid of big buildings, while some flying debris caught Bob Cole, Harry Neale and Holy Mackinaw precisely in their voice boxes. These events are most pleasing.

Well, as long as that's all that happened...
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Sammy said:
Well , as an Edmonton fan, the alternative is losing virtually each & every star that you have can the economics dont permit you to keep any of them.

No disagreement here. That is a very real problem. My concern is with the solution.

Make no mistake, the Lightning are...way more likely to be able to keep a number of their top players under a cap than they are without one.

I cannot disagree with that assessment, if the NFL is any indicator. I just would not sell short the negative impact that TB (and all other teams) having to constantly re-shuffle their non-core players (which constitutes the majority of a team's roster), in order to meet the cap, will have.

:)
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
ACC1224 said:
why would this be exclusive to Canadian teams???
It wouldn't. But many Canadian fans have linked their support for Betteman with their desire to see Canadian teams do well.

Cawz said:
You missed Edmonton. Gawd, miss the playoffs for 1 year and we're forgotten aboot.
Edmon-who? :joker: Seriously - My brain went blank & I couldn't think of a marquee player on Edm's roster when I was typing out the post.. Here ya go.. "Smyth to Pittsburgh" :dunno: ooohh.. or "Laraque hangs up skates, takes up pro-wrestling" :D
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
thats right

EndBoards said:
It wouldn't. But many Canadian fans have linked their support for Betteman with their desire to see Canadian teams do well.


Edmon-who? :joker: Seriously - My brain went blank & I couldn't think of a marquee player on Edm's roster when I was typing out the post.. Here ya go.. "Smyth to Pittsburgh" :dunno: ooohh.. or "Laraque hangs up skates, takes up pro-wrestling" :D

Edmonton has already traded away all of its marquee players, except for Ryan who decided not to go to arbitration.
 

myrocketsgotcracked

Guest
EndBoards said:
.. If a cap is implemented I'm going to laugh my tail off when we see these headlines and the collective whining that will undoubtedly follow..

"No room for Bertuzzi under cap"
"Nashville inks Bertuzzi"

"Cap too tight for Flames"
"Iginla signs in Carolina, Kiprusoff to Florida"

"Sens cap woes force Chara, Hossa to hit market"
"Phoenix bolsters blueline, signs Chara"
"Columbus wraps up Hossa deal"

"Souray to test market"
"Souray to Atlanta"

:lol:

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it..

from what i remember, the owners proposal involve a payroll floor too (@ $34M i believe). so each teams have payrolls in the range of $34M-$38M. so if nashville want bertuzzi, they'll have to trade legwand and vokoun to free up the necessary money. if carolina wants iginla, they'll have to trade o'neill and weekes. if phoenix wants chara, they'll have to trade nagy and doan. if columbus wants hossa, they'll have to trade nash. and so on...
under the current cba, you worry about the rich teams coming along and "stealing" your players. under a cap cba (with a floor) its hard for any team to "steal" players unless they can somehow dump a bunch of salary.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
EndBoards said:
Ismellofhockey - My statement that support for the cap is a "canadian" thing is based on the general feel I get visiting message boards, results of polls, comments on TSN's your call, and the words of GB himself.. (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106456)

This isn't rocket science. Most fans support the owners, and a cap. Most fans are Canadian. Therefore, most fans that support the cap are Canadian. It doesn't mean that the relative percentages are any different from country to country.

Trottier said:
Per your scenario above, Khabibulin asks for $8-9M next season. (To think that he won't have very high demands simply because a new system is in place, is, respectfully, naive.)

TB is then going to have to let him go (as you express concern). Or, just as detrimentally, IMO, they do re-sign him...and in order to make cap space, have to let go of Darryl Sydor and Chris Dingman's contracts (for example).

Ah, but you're assuming he can *get* $8 or $9 million. That's the key behind a cap. If no one around the league has the cap room or is willing to spend that much of it on one player, then he's outpriced himself out of the market. He then has to scale back his demands to the $6 million mark or so, and now Tampa has a shot to re-sign him.

And that's how a cap helps. Without the cap, he can ask for the $8 or $9 million and he'll probably get it, and Tampa has *no* shot at retaining him. With the cap, they have the chance. No guarantees of course, but they have a far better chance at holding their team together with the cap, than without in my opinion.
 

se7en*

Guest
EndBoards said:
Edmon-who? :joker: Seriously - My brain went blank & I couldn't think of a marquee player on Edm's roster when I was typing out the post.. Here ya go.. "Smyth to Pittsburgh" :dunno: ooohh.. or "Laraque hangs up skates, takes up pro-wrestling" :D

This was pretty unnecessary.

I thought I could take you seriously, but thanks for proving me wrong.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
PecaFan said:
This isn't rocket science. Most fans support the owners, and a cap. Most fans are Canadian. Therefore, most fans that support the cap are Canadian. It doesn't mean that the relative percentages are any different from country to country.
True... The difference is that many Canadian fans are saying "The Oil/Flames/Sens will benefit.." They're approaching it from a 'what's in it for my team' perspective. US fans in support of the league tend to give more league-wide responses without regard to how it will affect their favorite team.. Again, just my observations..

Hootchie Cootchie said:
This was pretty unnecessary.

I thought I could take you seriously, but thanks for proving me wrong.
Relax. It was a joke. I really have a great deal of respect for Edmonton. Some of the best games I've seen are between them & the Stars - especially in the playoffs..
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Trottier said:
As one who is not a Lightning a fan, but an NHL fan first and foremost (and envious of the superb way in which your current team has been built), here is what I worry about, under a "new system", should that system include a hardcap.

Per your scenario above, Khabibulin asks for $8-9M next season. (To think that he won't have very high demands simply because a new system is in place, is, respectfully, naive.)

Naive? Really? Well how about you explain it to me how Khabibulin is going to demand $8-9 million dollars? Who is going to pay it? Who is going to fit a $8-9 million dollar goaltender into their payroll? Who is going to cough up 25% of the salary structure on a goaltender? No one. No one is going to be that foolish. Well, Mike Milbury might, but that's a different story all together. Khabibulin will have to adjust his exprectations dramatically, as will all players with delusions of grandeur and being bigger than anyone else on the team.

TB is then going to have to let him go (as you express concern). Or, just as detrimentally, IMO, they do re-sign him...and in order to make cap space, have to let go of Darryl Sydor and Chris Dingman's contracts (for example).

There's the choice that every team in the league will have to make. Do you keep expensive players that maybe on the downside of the career, or do you keep the guys that actually mean something to your success and harder to replace? You make the decisions which best support your success. Those teams that make wise decisions will be the ones that are successful. Those teams that don't will be the New York Rangers.

The end of roster continuity, the forced exodus of players off of successful teams in order to adhere to an artificial economic barrier. That's my concern.

And that is no concern. Where do these players go to get their big time pay day? All teams will have a window to deal with and will have to work within a window themselves. Expectations will have to be adjusted. The players are going to have some adjusting to do and will have to get it through their heads that the opportunity to force hands will be that much tougher. The nice thing is that there will be more players out there willing to sell their services cheap and get on a roster before all the money is gone. The stars will have to decide how badly they want to play, how badly they want to be the team, and make their decisions accordingly.


Only good thing here is that an overly restrictive (hardcap) is likely not going to happen, IMO.

We'll see. If the NHL wants to survive they are going to need a restrictive hard cap, or at least measures that act as a hard cap. A soft cap with punative taxes must be accompanied with other mechanisms to prevent players from holding teams hostage and starting escalation all over again. I think that if the NHL goes with the tax system they better incorporate a non-disclosure system in conjunction with a definite restrictive drop dead date. If they can manage something like that, they can probably come up with a viable solution to a hard cap.
 

Strazzobosco

Registered User
Dec 6, 2004
344
1
Fairfax, VA
The two concerns from the players and owners are inflationary contracts (which leads to high salaries) vs garanteed contracts (hey; we all want at least what we made last year!). We all want our team to keep its own players and make a profit!
This whole thing could be solved with a cap on raises (ie say 30%), with a garanteed offer (say 100%). That should make everone happy!! So no more Giguère style raises, and no lowballing! And yet, no caps, no luxury taxes, and no rollbacks! The system would heal itself in a matter of 10 years (ok ok ok... maybe a slight rollback
:) )
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Ah, but you're assuming he can *get* $8 or $9 million. That's the key behind a cap. If no one around the league has the cap room or is willing to spend that much of it on one player, then he's outpriced himself out of the market. He then has to scale back his demands to the $6 million mark or so, and now Tampa has a shot to re-sign him.

And that's how a cap helps. Without the cap, he can ask for the $8 or $9 million and he'll probably get it, and Tampa has *no* shot at retaining him. With the cap, they have the chance. No guarantees of course, but they have a far better chance at holding their team together with the cap, than without in my opinion.

I can't disagree with the scenario you describe here...except that, if the NFL and MLB are any indicator (and I believe they are) guys who get to the UFA threshold will typically "jump ship" more often than not, even if they do not get what they are asking for. It's the old, "I've been dissed, so screw you, I'm going elsewhere." menatality. Heck, I'd bet (though do not possess the data) that the percentages of UFA players who switch teams at age 31 (as opposed to staying put) in the current NHL is high. That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, should a team have that player's rights for a good long time prior, for the team likely traded for, or drafted the player, developed him and has compensated him accordingly. That is, they have gotten ROI. What is troubling is if that player has his UFA rights at a younger age (e.g., after 4 NFL seasons). Then the annual swapmeet approach to roster changes will come to fruition, and rapidly, even though all teams are under the same cap. For younger players are cheaper, and have more promise...and teams will find a way to make cap space for them. The result, I fear: diminished roster continuity, even less player loyalty than exists today, forced, leaguewide mediocrity and play. (Not suggeting that overall league play today is dynamic.)

This all assumes, of course, that a (significant) lowering of UFA age would be exchanged for a hardcap. I could not fathom how it would not be.

(Concludes with Messier-like-Charlie-Chan bow. :joker: )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->