What has the cap accomplished so far?

Status
Not open for further replies.

GSC2k2*

Guest
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe said:
Detroit absolutely had good management, as did Colorado and Toronto. But, they also had money. Lots of it.
You can have the best front office in the world, but in a system where there are no limits to salary and payroll, the teams that were rolling in dough simply had to up any offer by a few million, knowing few if any could match it.
Those days are gone.


You're surprised by player movement? This has been expected all along.

Now's a time for new management strategies.

JF hit it on the head. As a Jackets fan, there will come a time when Nash, Klesla, Zherdev, Brule, etc. are going to be FAs around the same time. Assuming they all develop into quality players, the Jackets won't be able to keep some of them.
I accept that. It's a hell of a lot better than a system where the Jackets would face losing all of them.

And on the subject of Detroit -- it isn't just an issue of bringing in FAs. It's an issue of being able to keep your home grown players, something many small market teams have been unable to do under the old system (see Edmonton).
You stole my points. ;)
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe said:
And on the subject of Detroit -- it isn't just an issue of bringing in FAs. It's an issue of being able to keep your home grown players, something many small market teams have been unable to do under the old system (see Edmonton).

I agree completely. These are the points I've been making for a year, but no one wanted to listen.

Yes, Detroit was very fortunate to be able to maintain their team. They've also drafted extremely well when you consider where they've been drafting the last 10 years. They've got a core of young guys that should make them a contender for a while yet. Maybe they won't be as good as the Red Wings of the late 90's, but their competition isn't as good either. All of Detroit's advantages still don't mean Calgary or Pittsburgh couldn't have put together a contender. Calgary's current team was put together under the old system, no? Money was a very easy excuse for teams to give their fans for crap teams. It bought them time.

That said, I never said the old system was perfect or that there didn't need to be some major corrections. I hate how things work in the NFL, and I don't want to see that for my hockey team, or anybody else's. I think a lot of fans were misled by Bettman into thinking the cap would accomplish what we both want, but it will do the opposite. I think its going to be worse than the NFL, because at least they allow the signing bonuses to be prorated. That's why I think a stiff luxury tax would've been best. Every team would have the freedom and revenue to do what they want.
 

MojoJojo

Registered User
Jan 31, 2003
9,353
0
Philadelphia
Visit site
hockeytown9321 said:
OK then, explain why the cap did not deflate salaries enough so that Tampa could've kept him.

because he was an UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. Tampa was cometing with the rest of the league, and it so happens that a team wanted to pay him more than Tampa was willing to. The cap has delfated salaries, but I dont know what you are proposing the league do about unrestricted free agency. They could have brought the cap down to 20 mil dollars and Chicago would have still probably been willing to pay more for Khabibulin; only you would be complaining that he got 4 mil instead of 6.8.

OH, and under the Old CBA, not only would you not be able to sign Khabibulin, what would you do if Martin St Louis, the league scoring leader, demanded 9 mil a season? You would be shopping him and Vinny LeCavalier in order to keep some sort of team together at under 30 mil.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
MojoJojo said:
because he was an UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT. Tampa was cometing with the rest of the league, and it so happens that a team wanted to pay him more than Tampa was willing to.

Willing or able? Like I said in another thread, even if Tampa had a 1% chance to keep everyone under the old system, that's better than the 0% chance they have now.
 

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Guaranteed

hockeytown9321 said:
I agree completely. These are the points I've been making for a year, but no one wanted to listen.

Yes, Detroit was very fortunate to be able to maintain their team. They've also drafted extremely well when you consider where they've been drafting the last 10 years. They've got a core of young guys that should make them a contender for a while yet. Maybe they won't be as good as the Red Wings of the late 90's, but their competition isn't as good either. All of Detroit's advantages still don't mean Calgary or Pittsburgh couldn't have put together a contender. Calgary's current team was put together under the old system, no? Money was a very easy excuse for teams to give their fans for crap teams. It bought them time.

That said, I never said the old system was perfect or that there didn't need to be some major corrections. I hate how things work in the NFL, and I don't want to see that for my hockey team, or anybody else's. I think a lot of fans were misled by Bettman into thinking the cap would accomplish what we both want, but it will do the opposite. I think its going to be worse than the NFL, because at least they allow the signing bonuses to be prorated. That's why I think a stiff luxury tax would've been best. Every team would have the freedom and revenue to do what they want.

You're wrong on the NFL. The prorated Signing Bonuses the NFLers get is the ONLY GUARANTEED money of the contract. They could sign 6 year deals worth 42 million total and get 8 million as a signing bonus, but after year 2, if they under perform, they get cut, so they end up only keeping the 8 million signing bonus, along with their base salary for the first 2 years. Whatever base salary they would have gotten in the final 4 years is lost to the player.

In the NHL, if you sign a 6 year 42 million dollar contract, that's guaranteed money, the buyout clause (assuming it remains at 2/3 of the remainder of the contract) means that at the worse case scenario, a player would get 7 million in year 1 and 2/3 of 35 million.

The NHL could have gone with the NFL approach, but the NHLPA would be crazy to give up guaranteed contracts.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
hockeytown9321 said:
Willing or able? Like I said in another thread, even if Tampa had a 1% chance to keep everyone under the old system, that's better than the 0% chance they have now.

The Lightning were able. They offered Khabibulin $6 mil a year. They could have gone up another $750k if they decided he was worth the money.

Also, they did not have even a 1% chance under the old system.

Even with 18,000 fans on average, they needed three full rounds of playoffs to break even on a $33 million payroll. That had already ballooned up to $45 million for 04-05, with Khabibulin (UFA), St. Louis, Richards and Lecavalier (RFA) needing new contracts within two-three years of eachother.

The costs were going to rip the Lightning apart regardless.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeytown9321 said:
Willing or able? Like I said in another thread, even if Tampa had a 1% chance to keep everyone under the old system, that's better than the 0% chance they have now.


A bit of a reality check. Under the old system TB and 80% of the teams in the NHL would be less likely to keep an all star laden team together than under this system, not more likely. The price of players when they hit their prime would become prohibitive to all but a handful of clubs. And what a coincidence, one of them is the one you support. We would not see Khabby signing with another team. No, we would instead see him being 'traded' for a bag of pucks.
 

Original6

Guest
In the Cap era realistically every team should get 1 or 2 big names. The teams that have more than 2 with large salaries will be in heavy cap problems in the future.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Too Funny.

Just keep complaining about Khabibulin leaving Tampa. Everyone knows your just whining because Detroit has been pushed away from the free agent trough.

If the cap does nothing else, the *****ing and moaning from the big market fans who've had the silver spoon pulled out of their mouths makes it worthwhile.

Brains over bucks is the new order. Let's see how well managed teams really are.

As a Sens fan I have no problem with putting our management team up against the rest of the NHL, even if it means the team loses some of its core. We'd have lost core members under either system, at least now they won't go to the same teams that were spending their partners into bankruptcy.

Welcome to the other side, hope you enjoy your stay.
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
As the only top list goalie UFA this year, god only knows how much money Khabibulin would have been commanding with a no-cap CBA the oft-clueless OP obviously is still crying for.

10 million per year? 12?

Of course, *his* team could afford that. Funny that, eh? Nice to see some people so completely unable to see past their biases the reality of why today is so much better just passes them right by...
 

AM

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

hockeytown9321 said:
I could care less about Tampa, you're right. Just wanted to point out that the cap has failed already, not in what it was designed for by the league(profitability), but in what many fans thought it would do. Its an example of be careful what you wish for. Every well managed team will feel the consequences of the cap at one point or another.

the conventional wisdom in Edmonton!
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
hockeytown9321 said:
I could find a lot more than one or two. I don't feel like searching for them now. If you want to find some, my philosophical argument phase was between Spetember and January, you'd probably find some of these statements there.

You will find a few posts saying what happend to Tampa would happen. Many of them were written by me. Since that was my argument, I was obviously wrong since I am only concerned with the Red Wings being able to continue bying championships, and the opposite must've been true.

Just for the sake of history (thread in January):
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=124631&page=6&pp=15

I'm probably shooting myself in the foot, but oh well ;)
 

ClosetOilersFan

Registered User
Aug 4, 2005
1,202
0
Toronto, ON
Crazy_Ike said:
As the only top list goalie UFA this year, god only knows how much money Khabibulin would have been commanding with a no-cap CBA the oft-clueless OP obviously is still crying for.

10 million per year? 12?

Of course, *his* team could afford that. Funny that, eh? Nice to see some people so completely unable to see past their biases the reality of why today is so much better just passes them right by...

Someone else who understands :)
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Funny just a few weeks ago so many thought Crosby had to go to Manhattan for the good of the league. Looks like Sid already did what no Ranger has ever done and that's get on Leno as a Pittsbugh Penguin who now have Zigmund Palffy to go with Gonchar.

Looks like the league now has some franchise stars that will define some of these expansion markets that were in neutral for so long. All of a sudden people are going to take a look at Nashville because Paul Kariya is there, they are going to look at Florida with Gary Roberts. There's Bobby Holik in Atlanta.

Chris Pronger is in Edmonton, Michael Peca is there also. Ignila resigned and Amonte is there now. Satan is in New York with the Isles.

All of a sudden Jeremy Roenick is in Los Angeles so folks will be following the Kings more, that cloud of dust rising from Bill Wirtz wallet is drawing attention.

The cap is serving it's purpose and drawing attention to every market making this product stronger. That trend will only continue in the future and it only serves to help all thirty markets in the end.
 

skippyx

Registered User
Jun 24, 2005
27
0
You can't compare this system to the old system. There was no old system. The LOCKOUT was your precious old system.

Don't feed the dodos!

The Salary Cap is about the NHL making money which is the point.

Tampa is unfortunate that 3 of their big 4 all came up at the same time. I fell so bad for "THE DEFENDING STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS". It must be a terrible burden to have to go to a parade.

The rules are the same for everyone now. That is why you give LA Roenick AND a 3rd for a bag of hockey pucks.

Pittsburgh will face this problem in the future, Philly could too (Nitty, Richards, Carter) and Atlanta is facing it now with Kovalchuk and Heatly. The NBA and NFL have dealt with this for years. Be the Redskins or be the Patriots. It is up to your GM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->