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

Status
Not open for further replies.

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
missK said:
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.

So instead of being worried about a handful of teams who can afford to overpay players, with a hard cap, our new worry will be every team who now can afford to pay what we can pay...

With more teams in the market for a given player, the greater the probability that the player will leave... Maybe he'll earn $6 million instead of $9 million, but he'll still likely do so on another team...

For a good player, a GM can find the cap room... GM's have proven that they believe that acquiring (not developing) good players will lead them to success... "Buying" is not the proper way to build a team, yet, many GM's constantly try to do it... When the price for players is lower, what happens is that more teams are in the market for that given player...

* Another EDM shot below *

IMO, the only reason EDM doesn't spend like the NYR is that they can't afford to spend like the NYR... IMO, Lowe would love to do it - and thus, he has ***** envy for the big market teams... When he says that he can't compete, does he mean that (1) he can't compete on the ice, or (2) he can't compete in the office - trying to snag free agents from others and having his free agents 'stolen'? IMO, he's probably referring to both 1 and 2 - and he probably truly believes both)... IMO, he has the incompetence in him to give up on young, promising players to make cap room for a great, expensive player developed by another team... If fact, I bet he'd love to make room for Lecavalier... IMO, a hard cap puts more sharks like EDM into the water - just like they want... Block out the EDM fans, missK... Be weary of fish who are trying to teach you how to fish ;) They want your Lecavalier just as bad as the Rangers do...

As a Vancouver fan, I want Lecavalier also... But I'd like to think that Nonis is competent enough as a GM to build our team the right way - to block out what us fans want, and do what is best long-term for the Canucks... Developing a young core is what matters most of all... Lecavalier is extremely tempting, but not at any cost - financially nor the opportunity cost of giving up on young core players who play a big role on our team and are full of potential (and who happen to be cheaper)...

With a hard cap, the worry doesn't go away... IMO, the worry is actually compounded... We now have 2/3 (or more) of the league in the constant "buy" mode, and now only a handful of teams (managed by the most competent GM's) still building the right way, and not ironically, still getting the most success... Small market fans will be scratching their heads, IMO...

I agree that the NHL is in the economic state it is in because of player salaries (or specifically, because owners decided to pay the salaries)... For this reason, I do believe that definite changes need to be made...

I'm an owner-supporter, and I do love your idea about a home-grown cap exemption...
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
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. 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?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
I in the Eye said:
* Another EDM shot below *

IMO, the only reason EDM doesn't spend like the NYR is that they can't afford to spend like the NYR... IMO, Lowe would love to do it - and thus, he has ***** envy for the big market teams... When he says that he can't compete, does he mean that (1) he can't compete on the ice, or (2) he can't compete in the office - trying to snag free agents from others and having his free agents 'stolen'? IMO, he's probably referring to both 1 and 2 - and he probably truly believes both)... IMO, he has the incompetence in him to give up on young, promising players to make cap room for a great, expensive player developed by another team... If fact, I bet he'd love to make room for Lecavalier... IMO, a hard cap puts more sharks like EDM into the water - just like they want... Block out the EDM fans, missK... Be weary of fish who are trying to teach you how to fish ;) They want your Lecavalier just as bad as the Rangers do...

As a Vancouver fan, I want Lecavalier also... But I'd like to think that Nonis is competent enough as a GM to build our team the right way - to block out what us fans want, and do what is best long-term for the Canucks... Developing a young core is what matters most of all... Lecavalier is extremely tempting, but not at any cost - financially nor the opportunity cost of giving up on young core players who play a big role on our team and are full of potential (and who happen to be cheaper)

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.
 
Last edited:

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
mr gib said:
yes but as in the nfl there will be those tough decision's that will result in beloved player's let go for cap reason's - the player movement will be stunning -

Name the player on the Nucks that are over 28 or 29 and have never been on another team.

These are players that I can think of off the top of my head that fit the above age group

Naslund - Moved
Bertuzzi - Moved
Linden - Moved
Morrison - Moved
Jovo - Moved
May - Moved
Keane (if he comes back) - Moved
Malik - Moved
Salo - Moved
Cloutier - Moved
Hedberg (gone) - Moved
Sanderson (gone) - Moved
Ruccinski (probably gone) - Moved
etc

There is already a lot of movement in the NHL. The number of players who stay with on team during their entire career is pretty small.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
me2 said:
Name the player on the Nucks that are over 28 or 29 and have never been on another team.

These are players that I can think of off the top of my head that fit the above age group

Naslund - Moved
Bertuzzi - Moved
Linden - Moved
Morrison - Moved
Jovo - Moved
May - Moved
Keane (if he comes back) - Moved
Malik - Moved
Salo - Moved
Cloutier - Moved
Hedberg (gone) - Moved
Sanderson (gone) - Moved
Ruccinski (probably gone) - Moved
etc

There is already a lot of movement in the NHL. The number of players who stay with on team during their entire career is pretty small.
understood but theoretically should the sedin's - matt cooke - and alex auld - all have a great year or two - depending on their contract situation's - signing all of them and keep bert - jovo - morrison - and the like - some will have to go -
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
The Iconoclast said:
Right now you have half a dozen teams with almost unlimited resources and they have not really dipped into the RFA market.

There's a very simple reason for that. The right to match means it's the *other* team that decides if they sign a guy.

Ultimately, the big spending teams have no control over whether they sign an RFA. With the right to match, the best they can do is overspend so massively that they provide a huge disincentive for matching. And as we've seen, even that hasn't been enough, everyone's always matched. To snatch an Iginla, you'd probably have to offer him 20 million a season or something, but you're slitting your own throat financially to do that.

Kill the right to match, and you'd see the big RFA's being signed by the big teams. Most teams would gladly give up five first rounders for a true superstar, because when you look at it, there's usually only a couple of decent players you're giving up. (That's assuming you weren't the worst team in the league, and giving up first overalls). It's really quite amazing when you look back at most teams and look at who was drafted with that teams pick five straight years.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
me2 said:
Name the player on the Nucks that are over 28 or 29 and have never been on another team.

These are players that I can think of off the top of my head that fit the above age group

Naslund - Moved
Bertuzzi - Moved
Linden - Moved
Morrison - Moved
Jovo - Moved
May - Moved
Keane (if he comes back) - Moved
Malik - Moved
Salo - Moved
Cloutier - Moved
Hedberg (gone) - Moved
Sanderson (gone) - Moved
Ruccinski (probably gone) - Moved
etc

There is already a lot of movement in the NHL. The number of players who stay with on team during their entire career is pretty small.

Exactly. There's a ton of player movement in the NHL. If anything, a cap lessens the amount of player trades and moves. Big-name NFL stars, for example, rarely change teams in their primes.
Take just about any NHL team:
Leafs: 4 of 20 players on the official roster came up with the team.
Philly: 3 of 20
Detroit: 9 of 25
Montreal: 9 of 22

Is this the kind of stablity a cap is going to cost the league?
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
CarlRacki said:
Exactly. There's a ton of player movement in the NHL. If anything, a cap lessens the amount of player trades and moves. Big-name NFL stars, for example, rarely change teams in their primes.
Take just about any NHL team:
Leafs: 4 of 20 players on the official roster came up with the team.
Philly: 3 of 20
Detroit: 9 of 25
Montreal: 9 of 22

Is this the kind of stablity a cap is going to cost the league?
john lynch - warren sapp - there's a bunch more - it's going to happen and it's gonna hurt - that's all i'm saying - gm's will have some hard decision's - keep the young ship the old - depend's on the cap level - and when it happen's or whatever they call it the free agency age will really drop -
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,718
274
North Bay
I would definetaly favour a homegrown exception to the cap.

It would give richer teams a bit more power, however, it discourages them from hitting the FA market as hard as they have in the past.

Perhaps drop the amount a contract costs against the cap by 7.5% a year for every year a player plays with a team. You could make it more intense by saying that is only for players drafted by the same organization, or make it lighter and say it counts for every player.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
kruezer said:
I would definetaly favour a homegrown exception to the cap.

It would give richer teams a bit more power, however, it discourages them from hitting the FA market as hard as they have in the past.

Perhaps drop the amount a contract costs against the cap by 7.5% a year for every year a player plays with a team. You could make it more intense by saying that is only for players drafted by the same organization, or make it lighter and say it counts for every player.

7.5%/y discount is way, way too much. 10 years is 75% reduction, 12 years is 90%. At the end of the day its the rich teams that will keep their players and the poorer teams that won't. For example, Sakic and Forsberg would be practically cap free to the Avs. That is good for the Avs, Sakic and Forsberg, especially as it also frees up $12-20m of cap space so that the Avs can now throw that cap space at Iginla and others to try and outbid weak teams.

Teams could have a cap of $36m with $30-40m in cap exempt players.$60-70m payrolls are something we are trying to stop. We are back to same problem where low payroll teams can't afford to bid on their own players, while the rich teams can stockpile their stars and pick the eyes out of the best talent from other teams.

1.5% per year would be more than enough discount.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
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 :thumbu:

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 :joker: ... 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...
 
Last edited:

Da McBomb

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 9, 2004
7,977
10,992
I in the Eye said:
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 :thumbu:

Well you can argue it that way but I can also say that if there is a cap, at least the salary part of it won't factor as much into a players decision in leaving. Endorsements aren't everything either.. especially with the NHL. Hockey is not huge in the states so you're not gauranteed these large endorsements anyway. Therefore if you take away the money factor, Edmonton can all of a sudden be a VERY attractive place for a hockey player to play. Almost every player who's played for the Oilers enjoyed their time tremendously.. and they just loved playing in such a hockey mad city. "Theres no better hockey fans in the world than Edmonton" - The Great One himself :teach:
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
kruezer said:
I would definetaly favour a homegrown exception to the cap.

Not me. A homegrown exception is like favouring an open window in a jet airplane. It's non-conducive to your general well-being. :)

An exception takes all the air out of the cap balloon. It no longer has the ability to hold down salaries. Teams hold on to their guys, and their salaries rise massively, far beyond what they would normally. See Basketball, NBA. And if there's any sort of arbitration still around? It's going to get ugly, and quick.

Yes, it sounds attractive from the outside, being able to keep your guys. But as has been pointed out, there's always movement in the NHL anyways, it's not going to change much with a cap. I don't think they're be any more movement under it.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,999
2,075
Duncan
I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread, but I find I disagree on several points. This post I'm taking bits from was a response to Iconoclast's response to you... and I find I agree with most of what he wrote.


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...

In this senario, the Owners have given up far to much to get a cap. They certainly would be well aware of the negative effects of losing star players they just finished developing for nothing, so I find it very unlikely they would sign anything like this. I think you may underestimate the postition of strength the Owners are negotiating from this time.

I do agree that they will accept something different than they have offered to date, but it will be nothing like this.

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...

I don't think you are being very reasonable here. You expect a GM to stand up to a star player for years at a time, pretty much regardless of what other GM's are doing around the league? Khabibulin didn't seem to suffer too much, and I recall he was out for over a year... and he ended up getting his money, and a Stanley Cup. Burke draws the line at overpaying a couple of players, and he's still getting huge grief over it on the Canucks board. Likely Burke would be the kind of GM one could point to that has been willing to sit a guy and not overpay what he felt the player was worth... and yet he's now out of a job.

The grief a GM would receive for letting his star players sit for that kind of time would simply cost him his job. His team wouldn't be as good without the player, and ultimately that's how the GM get's judged isn't it? By their success on the ice... no one is more popular than a winner! Add to that, the constant offers he would be getting by wealthier teams who aren't affected by the same fiscal constraints...

Although a disertation on the fundamentals of organizing and running a good team would be an interesting read, I can't help but hope we don't get to read it anytime soon :D
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
"GM's would have hard decisions under a cap system"

Good. GM's would have to be competent. They won't be able to bail themselves out for bad contracts as easily. They'll have to develop players properly. Draft well. Trade well. I for one would welcome that.
 

zenator

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
1,859
0
I don't think this is a Canadian / American thing.

Southern US teams (Carolina, Florida, Anaheim) need a cap more than even Calgary and Edmonton. C & E get steady fan support, but their somewhat small revenues put them in danger of losing marquee players every year. Somewhere like Car or Atl with 8000 fans per game puts the team in danger of not surviving at all. A cap saves these teams.

The reason the cap is needed is the lack of TV revenues the NHL has.

The 6 Canadian teams get a decent chunk of change from their local TV, plus TSN, and especially CBC national broadcasts.

While NYR, Boston, Detroit, Philly, Colorado have good TV viewership, I doubt Atlanta, Florida, Carolina, Anaheim, Phoenix have a lot of fans watching on TV, so get very little TV money. And the US has pretty much no national TV deal.
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
mr gib said:
john lynch - warren sapp - there's a bunch more - it's going to happen and it's gonna hurt - that's all i'm saying - gm's will have some hard decision's - keep the young ship the old - depend's on the cap level - and when it happen's or whatever they call it the free agency age will really drop -

When you talk about Lynch and Sapp you're talking about past-prime players in their 30s (which is much older in football than it is in hockey). Players in their prime rarely go anywhere as free agents in the NFL.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
CarlRacki said:
When you talk about Lynch and Sapp you're talking about past-prime players in their 30s (which is much older in football than it is in hockey). Players in their prime rarely go anywhere as free agents in the NFL.

You're also taklking about players who were done in Tampa Bay. Lynch was a health risk and Sapp's act had played itself out. I felt Lynch could have been dealt with differently, but I understand why the team did what it did. Sapp was handled perfectly. They guy was a huge problem for the Bucs and they couldn't get rid of him quick enough. If you're looking for a hockey equivalent, Lynch would have been comparable to Kevin Stevens and Sapp would have been comparable to Alexei Yashin.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
CarlRacki said:
When you talk about Lynch and Sapp you're talking about past-prime players in their 30s (which is much older in football than it is in hockey). Players in their prime rarely go anywhere as free agents in the NFL.
c'mon humour me here - you here about this in the nfl all the time - not the greatest examples but lynch is the kingpin in the bronco's defense and the buc's have been done since he left and the fan's are pissed - that's all i'm saying - the upper payroll nhl teams are gonna lose some star's
 

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
mr gib said:
c'mon humour me here - you here about this in the nfl all the time - not the greatest examples but lynch is the kingpin in the bronco's defense and the buc's have been done since he left and the fan's are pissed - that's all i'm saying - the upper payroll nhl teams are gonna lose some star's

1. Lynch was far from the kingpin of the Broncos defense. In fact, he arguably the most overrated player in the league.
2. Of course upper payroll teams are going to lose some starts. Isn't that the whole idea, to spread talent more evenly around the league and put a premium on player development?
 

Pred303

Registered User
Oct 8, 2004
7,881
2,895
Murfreesboro, Tn.
i don't buy the argument that a cap is a "Canadian vs US" issue at all. It's more a small market vs big market thing. Or a fiscally responsible vs irresponsible thing. Or everybody else against "about 6 owners who are ruining the NHL" type thing. I think i speak for 99% of Predator fans when i say we support a cap, and think it's needed to achieve competitive balance.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
CarlRacki said:
Of course upper payroll teams are going to lose some starts. Isn't that the whole idea, to spread talent more evenly around the league and put a premium on player development?

Yep, that's why the two sides are debating this CBA. :speechles

Let me guess: fan of an also-ran?

Find a shrewd GM, draft well, develop players, make wise deals...and EARN a trip to the Finals, eh? Instead of looking for handouts from superior teams.

Funny (sad, actually) how it is ONLY fans of some inferior teams who even bring this concept up.
 
Last edited:

Marconius

Registered User
Jan 27, 2003
1,520
0
Visit site
I in the Eye said:
So instead of being worried about a handful of teams who can afford to overpay players, with a hard cap, our new worry will be every team who now can afford to pay what we can pay...

With more teams in the market for a given player, the greater the probability that the player will leave... Maybe he'll earn $6 million instead of $9 million, but he'll still likely do so on another team...

Instead of worrying that some team will swing by and offer an outrageous contract, TB only has to worry about matching a REASONABLE offer. If Vinny's contract is up and TB offers 5 million, while NYI offers 5.5 million, Vinny gets to decide if moving to a perenial non-contender is worth the extra 500K, or he could just sty with TB, the cup winning team and try to build a dynasty.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, why would a marquee player move if his current team FINALLY has the financial system in place to match an offer. If Smyth is up for a contract and someone offers him 5 mil/year, the Oilers at least have the ability to match the contract after they decide how important Smyth is to the team. This is the exact opposite of what happened with Weight, the Oilers basically had no part in that decision. Weight was in line for a huge raise and there was no way the Oilers could even pretend to consider keeping him. As someone else mentioned, the cap places the burden of developing a quality team on the shoulders of the organization, instead of the shoulders of a bank account.
 

Marconius

Registered User
Jan 27, 2003
1,520
0
Visit site
Dabomb said:
Well you can argue it that way but I can also say that if there is a cap, at least the salary part of it won't factor as much into a players decision in leaving. Endorsements aren't everything either.. especially with the NHL. Hockey is not huge in the states so you're not gauranteed these large endorsements anyway. Therefore if you take away the money factor, Edmonton can all of a sudden be a VERY attractive place for a hockey player to play. Almost every player who's played for the Oilers enjoyed their time tremendously.. and they just loved playing in such a hockey mad city. "Theres no better hockey fans in the world than Edmonton" - The Great One himself :teach:

I agree with most of what you said. Since endorsments are not likely to be huge anyways due to low popularity, players may just decide to stay in Canada where they are at least treated like sports idols.

The part about Gretzky though......Tell me if you haven't heard the following from every musical performer to play in Rexall/Skyreach etc:

"No one rocks like Edmonton woooooooooooooooooo!!"
*crowd goes insane under the pretense that no one, anywhere, rocks like Edmonton*
 

se7en*

Guest
Marconius said:
I agree with most of what you said. Since endorsments are not likely to be huge anyways due to low popularity, players may just decide to stay in Canada where they are at least treated like sports idols.

The part about Gretzky though......Tell me if you haven't heard the following from every musical performer to play in Rexall/Skyreach etc:

"No one rocks like Edmonton woooooooooooooooooo!!"
*crowd goes insane under the pretense that no one, anywhere, rocks like Edmonton*

I remember when Aerosmith was here, at one point Tyler said, "So, this is Edmonton, where Gretzky won all those Cups eh?" and I just wanted everyone to give a sarcastic "NOOOOOO!" but they ate it up! :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->