Goulet17 said:
So how does a team that already operates at or under the proposed hard cap level improve their revenues? We already now that many of these teams are still losing significant amounts of money while operating at or near the hard cap level. So how does profit increase for these teams?
These teams have to build from a young, inexpensive 'core'... Over time, if their respective GMs have done a good job in assembling a good young core, these teams will make the playoffs - and reap the rewards of playoff revenue... If the GM has done a very good job in assembling a good young core, this team will make the playoffs year-after-year... The more success a team has, the more paying fans, the more $ fans are willing to pay for tickets, etc... This revenue-generating opportunity is the same for both the big and small market teams...
If the GM has
not done a good job in assembling a good young core, over time, this team will not have success- and thus, the GM will
not have significantly increased revenues, and thus, the team will not be able to afford to keep his team together... The GM will have to trade their expensive core for young players/draft picks to try and build a good young core again...
This is not the same for big and small market teams... Rich teams have another strategy at their disposal... Rich teams can afford to keep their expensive, aging players - even though the team doesn't have success... Rich teams can afford to try and 'skip team development/re-development steps' by replacing their expensive, aging players with other expensive, aging players, where rich teams do not want to take the necessary steps back to re-build properly again... Poorer teams cannot do this... Neither team
should be doing this -
if team success does not increase as the players become older and more expensive... Every team has to 'take steps back' to re-build their teams if success doesn't come...
Goulet17 said:
Revenue disparity is a huge problem facing the league, regardless of the level of spending by the "big-market" teams. The New York Rangers make over $25 million per year from their television contracts, while a team like Nashville makes $2 million or less. Even if a "big-market" team is restricted from spending based on their revenue advantage, the fact is that a team like Nashville will always have a difficult time remaining economically viable given its respective revenue generation.
I'm all for revenue sharing... But what is Nashville going to do with their increased revenue? Invest it for a rainy day - to keep their young, inexpensive core together one day? Use it to sign their stud 1st rounder?... Or are they going to try and sign (or trade for) Sergei Fedorov - i.e. are they going to try and 'skip developmental steps' while inflating the market for Fedorov (if he's an UFA), or trade one, two, or three of their young, promising core players in order to get him via a trade? If Nashville uses the money to get Fedorov (or any expensive, aging player), this disrupts (increases) their team salary structure, as well as hampers the proper, natural development of Nashville's team (a young, promising player should be gaining valuable experience playing in the role Fedorov is currently occupying)...
Goulet17 said:
Many on these boards want to believe that a hard cap is the magical elixir for all of the league's woes, but at a certain point economic reality has to be a part of the discussion.
I personally don't want a hard cap... and I'm all for a revenue sharing component... It's not spending per say that I'm against... It's what teams (regardless if they're rich or poor) spend their revenue on (given where they are in the 'franchise life cycle')... There should be
a lot more proper team re-building going on in the NHL... When desired success and team milestones aren't achieved (given where the team is in the 'franchise life cycle'), GM's should be taking steps back to
properly (and inexpensively) fix the problem - not looking for expensive bandaid solutions that do nothing but escalate player salaries... If every team tried to build and re-build their teams properly, the majority of the league's problems would naturally solve themselves... IMHO, a hard cap isn't needed (nor is it an attractive alternative)... Have the
proper team building strategy guide the CBA rules and solution - not how much money the owners or the players will make... How teams are built shouldn't be based around how much money owners and players should make... How much money owners and players make should be based on how teams should be built...