What Is So Wrong With A Salary Cap?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by hackey, Jan 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hackey

    hackey Oh Did I Offend You

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    That's Too Bad
    Home Page:
    Other than the brainwash notion passed on by Goodenov that the players will NEVER take a salary cap, what is really wrong with it?

    The players will end up with a cap regardless - this year, next year or if there is a new league (the WHA has already instilled a cap) Why not take it now, so at least the season will be saved and the players will not miss any more pay cheques.

    Robert Esche said even if there is a $100Million Cap, the players will not accept that?

    So, what is so wrong with putting in say a $50M cap. The players will still make millions and with $50M, will most likely stay with their same teams.
    (Heard on the radio that the NHL was about to propose a $50M cap, until Linden stepped in this week).

    What are the pros/cons regarding a high ceiling cap?
     
  2. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    See post #30 on this thread for a detailed expalnation of the arguments against salary caps:
    http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=125120&page=2
     
  3. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    The WHA cap is illegal. If the league starts, and the players sue owners who abide by it, they'll win.
     
  4. Charge_Seven

    Charge_Seven Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? How so? I hadn't heard anything about it...(not to say I should have, but I'm interested to know how it's illegal...)
     
  5. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    It would be in violation of US anti-trust law and contrary to the Canadian Competiton Act if the league was in operation. The only thing insulating pro sports from the law is a CBA and there is not one since there are no players.
     
  6. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
  7. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Against? I couldn't write a more pro-cap post than that. Let's summarise:

    - Caps don't hold player salaries down.
    - Caps prevent the irresponsible trade deadline "buying of players" for Cup runs.
    - Caps don't affect league competitive balance.
    - Caps force teams to live long term with the consequences of making poor financial decisions to make a Cup run.

    All benefits, no drawbacks.
     
  8. There is nothing wrong with a cap, and the NHL will have one once is resumes. The Cap is coming wether Trevor Linden, Vinet Damphousse, Alffy like it or not.
     
  9. FanSince2014

    FanSince2014 What'd He Say?

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Good work, PecaFan.

    Deliver this info to the NHLPA pronto.
     
  10. FlyersFan10*

    FlyersFan10* Guest

    Wrong. What's going to happen when a cap gets imposed? That's right, teams over the cap are going to have to jettison talent in order to get under or face stiff penalites from the league. From there, caps are going to allow owners to dictate what the max is a star player can earn in their market.

    Why is there never a flip side to this. How about the irresponsible trade deadline "selling players" by teams that are eliminated in order to clear salary and make even more revenue.

    That one I'll agree with you on. If you have a moron running the team, then even with a salary cap, you still have a moron running the team. However, what a salary cap does is pretty much make the situation there idiot proof and allow said owner to make money while moron is running the show. And if the owner profits from that, then yeah, there is a problem with that because there isn't any incentive to fix what is wrong as long as profit is being generated.

    So, if your team has a chance to go for it all, and they have the revenue to do so, then they should be punished for that? Heaven forbid you have an owner who wants to spend because he wants to win. That should be the goal of every owner. And when you hear owners say that their goal is to just make the playoffs and anything after that is a bonus, that's OK? C'mon, out of all the people on this board, you seem to be one of the more sensible people on here, but that statement in itself lends creedence to the fact that it is more important to make as much money as possible than win.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't mind paying higher ticket prices if an owner is showing a commitment to winning, spending to win, and the product is great to watch. Right now, the problem with the NHL is that the product is terrible. Contrary to many people on here, I don't find neutered zone trap hockey fun hockey to watch. I have to admit, the one team who I really hate, the Toronto Maple Leafs, don't play that boring trap hockey. They play entertaining hockey and that's what the league needs....good old fashioned firewagon hockey made famous by the Oilers of the 80s. If anyone thinks that hockey has been as good in the 90s and in the 2000s, you need to watch some ESPN classic. As well, very seldom do you hear owners talking about winning it all. It's all about "well, we're happy to make it into the playoffs" type garbage. Cop out. Gives owners an excuse that if things don't go well, they can always point to the next season as a season of hope. I want my owner to say "we're playing to win it all" or "Stanley Cup or Bust". That's what every owner should be saying. And as I said, I don't mind paying extra if I see that my owner is allowing for the GM to add good quality players to the team. I do have a hard time though watching complete salary dumps by teams or teams that trade away talent so they can intentionally lose and rebuild.

    And that will always be the one thing about a salary cap that will always bug me. There is no motivation to win. There is nothing. As long as you make money, which is what the salary cap in the NHL is all about, then you can continue to run your franchise into the ground. It's funny you NEVER hear that addressed at all. There's no incentive to win because you'll make money no matter what. And if anyone can live with that level of complacency, then the league is going to suck even more.

    The league doesn't need a salary cap. What it needs is someone who knows HOW to marke the game. And that's the problem. Bettman doesn't have a clue how to market it. I've read how he's generated all kinds of revenue for the league, but at one time, this league had a chance to take over basketball, but Bettman blew it by going on strike when interest was at its highest. And since then, the game has gone downhill steady. Why is there no finger pointing at the owners for that? We all hear about how the PLAYERS have ruined the game, but where is the owners in all this mess?
     
  11. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Sorry, all the data posted by pro-PA folks like Wetcoaster, Tom Benjamin, Vanlady etc all say you're wrong, and caps don't work. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but that's what the studies say.

    It's "irresponsible" when you can no longer afford players because their salaries are too high and have to get rid of them, or they've reached unrestricted free agency? Give me a break. "More revenue"? They're not making anything as it is, that's why they're having to dump them.

    That's just it. They're not punished for "going for it". They're punished if they do it poorly. There's a huge difference.

    If they offer ridiculous multi year contracts for players that don't have long term benefits, etc, then ultimately they take a "cap hit" so to speak, when those players are no longer playing for them, but still counting against the cap and so forth.

    A cap doesn't change the will to win at all. First of all, a cap doesn't guarantee profits, since there's no guarantees of revenues. Under the current system, are the big market teams not trying to win? The Leafs have guaranteed profits, I don't see them being complacent.[/QUOTE]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"