The Iconoclast said:
I don't get your reasoning. Right now you have half a dozen teams with almost unlimited resources and they have not really dipped into the RFA market. But you say that with a hard cap, everyone being pressed into a salary band, that every team will become hawkish and start stealing players, even though no one will have room to make an offer another team couldn't easily match and teams will not likely be able to afford anything more than what is on their own team for the next decade as salaries adjust.
You assume that free agency rules will remain the same under a hard cap... I assume that they won't...
I see two main ends of the spectrum being negotiated, the terms of a cap vs. the terms of free agency...
IMO, the more 'cost certainty' favours the owners, the more free agency will favour the players... To get a hard cap, IMO, will result in a low UFA age and other RFA rules that used to benefit the teams being taken away... IMO, if the players give the owners what they want in terms of cost certainty to a hard cap degree, the owners are going to have to give the players what they want in terms of where they will like to play to an 'approaching free' degree... The owners can't have it all - not in a
negotiation... IMO, the owners won't get away with
both artificially controlling player costs,
and artificially controlling where the player plays - at least not
nowhere near the level that's being controlled now... Admirable goal, IMO, but not likely to happen... The benefit to the owners for the old system was that they could own the player's rights for as long as they liked (until an old UFA - if the players liked it or not)... The benefit to the players was that their salaries weren't controlled artificially...
Now the owners want the opposite end - to control salaries... I imagine that when the owners gave up on their stance in '94, the players had to give on the other end (player rights)... The only consolation prize that the players have for control on salaries is
much more control over his rights...
IMO, it's a balancing act between
control of rights vs.
control of salary... IMO, there is a middle ground here that works... IMO, a hard cap isn't a middle ground, but rather an extreme end... And as such, IMO, control of rights will also be at the other extreme - in favour of the players...
IMO, PecaFan made a good point below about the right to match... It's a little thing on paper, but it can have a big impact in terms of RFA signings... IMO, that would go (at least, if I was the players I'd
require it to go in accepting a hard cap - that and become a RFA after the rookie contract, 1 first round draft pick compensation for signing a RFA, and at age 25 or 26, UFA)... If a player entering his prime signs a deal with the NYR (because he and his agent feel he can get higher endorsements than in Edmonton), EDM is out of luck... But at least they have cost certainty
IMO, the GMs didn't use the old CBA to their advantage (in terms of using the 'I control the player rights' leverage), and that is a sign of incompetence... Very few GMs used the tools of the old CBA to squeeze players into accepting their demands (i.e. you will sit until you either agree to my terms or you have arbitration rights - two years from now)... IMO, too many GMs didn't have the stomach to withstand fan and media scrutiny to do what's best long term for the team (and the league)... Fans are shortsighted and impatient... The media is unforgiving and unfair... An NHL GM should be prepared to make unpopular and difficult decisions... This is a business, and players are assets... It's inhumane, but such is life in the food chain, IMO... and if the fans and media don't like you, too bad... a GM is in the business of doing what they can to make their hockey team as competitive (and profitable) as possible... a GM is not in the business of being a nice guy... Fair, but firm...
The Iconoclast said:
Seriously, there is nothing to worry about as teams will not have the $5-6 million available under the new system to snatch a player. Plus, under the new system, growing your own talent will be more important than buying it. No team will want to risk the five first round picks it will take to get a top end talent. If you want one, you're going to have to trade for it or develop it yourself. You're going to have to explain how teams are going to be able to afford these spending sprees?
We don't know how much teams will or will not have to snatch a player... It's an unknown, and I think that's something we can both agree on - given that the new system doesn't even exist yet
... We are both only making educated guesses... IMO, I think that teams will creatively find ways to get the players they really want
that are available to them... I think it's very realistic to assume that free agency will be a shadow of it's former self in a hard cap 'cost certain' environment... Even uncreative things, like trading existing roster players for draft picks, can be done to make cap room... It's the GM
desire to 'cheat' the cap that I find telling at this point - not
actually how much they will have or not have extra to spend...
Jon Spoelstra (respected sports marketer and insider) writes in Ice to Eskimos, pg. 243, "In fact, the professional sports leagues have some sort of team salary cap to keep the product costs down. However,
almost every general manager of a team stays up nights trying to figure out ways of circumventing the salary cap so that they can spend
more on the product"...
If there are holes (and there surely will be - as there is no
perfect manmade system since man is incapable of developing anything to
infinite degrees of certainty), the GMs will eventually find and exploit the holes to gain 'competitive advantage' on other teams (assuming that you agree that humans are adaptable to their environments)... The
desire to find the holes and cheat the system is there... and that's already 1/4 of the battle...
kerrly said:
So let me get this straight. You think Lowe has the incompetence in him to give up on young players and spend follishly on free agents, for no reason whatsoever. And you think Nonis is competent enough not do that, eventhough he hasn't run the team for a whole season yet. There is an obvious amount of bias here. I would still like to hear your reasons for Lowe's so called incompetence that you speak of. Nonis has not run the team yet, so I cannot comment on his competence or lack there of. I know your earlier post stated that we are not going to change each others minds, but now I'm very curious of your reasoning.
Yup... I think that... and I am biased against the Oilers, I admit it... I don't like the Oilers very much and that likely shows... I don't think Lowe is a very good GM, IMO... I don't think that Vancouver is
so much more special than EDM that EDM couldn't have matched the same success as us... and yet, Lowe blames the $... What were Lowe's prerequisites for being a GM? I've got a post on here somewhere that explains my thoughts on competence being more important than $ in determining success or failure (I am
very confident that I can back up my claim)... I'm going to write an essay here one day that explains my thoughts on this fully -
if the season is actually cancelled... If it's not cancelled, I'll spend my hockey enjoyment actually watching the games
But I doubt even if I take the time to layout my thoughts (supported by physical evidence) that you'd change your belief... We're talking about opinions and beliefs, and what physical evidence could I possibly provide you to change your belief? For example, Jesus himself could come down from the heavens to the middle of downtown Edmonton... He could look just like Jesus... perform grand miracles... recite the Bible... but that
still isn't good enough to prove that he's Jesus... It could, after all, be an alien with a sense of humour... An alien, or an Edmonton Oilers prospect in the eyes of an Oilers fan ;-) My point is, we'll
both believe whatever we want - even with the 'facts' logically presented to us...
Your an EDM fan, so I expect a certain level of bias towards your team... I'm a Canucks fan, so obviously, my points and thoughts favour the Canucks over EDM...
But for what it's worth...
Nonis was mentored by Brian Burke... He's expected to follow his philosophy... Also, Nonis was the one who actually negotiated the player contracts... He's expected (at least by me) to be like Brian Burke, only cheaper...
Perhaps I'm a blind homer... I accept the possibility... But just because the examples I used may be biased and flawed, doesn't
necessarily mean that the theory is...