Why Can't Fans Understand This???

[chriss_co]

I disagree with this argument. You're assuming that Calgary can just pull money out of a hand to pay Iginla and it doesn't effect the rest of the team. I have news for you.. if they pay Iginla more, it means they have to pay someone else less. That means the overall quality of the team suffers which means that Calgary doesn't make as much revenue from outside sources (ticket sales, playoff money).

I agree with you. Its already happening. Calgary's team salary is eaten up by Iggy and Kipper. (I believe it will be about 30% when Iggy signs)

We are already handcuffed by having Iggy sign at 7-8 million. We cannot afford it. If the NHL were to continue the current CBA, the Flames would have traded Iggy already. The Flames held onto Iggy (and their own team) because they see brighter days with a new CBA.

A cap won't help the Flames? I think you mistaken a cap with a lower UFA age. I think it will decrease to 29 but I don't see it going any lower. If the NHL can learn one thing from the NFL it is to not make UFA too low.

So how does a cap help the Flames? First, it makes all the teams play at an even level. Any team that decides to sign Iggy for more than he is offered by the Flames (in a post CBA market) will be faced with the same pressures as the Flames would be by signing him at a high salary. Essentially, the cap will prevent teams from spending outrageous amounts on players that don't deserve it. A trickle-down effect will occur and players of similar stature cant 'force' their team to pay them the same outrageous amount. This will help teams like the Flames to have more salary space to either keep iggy or sign other star players.

Clubs with high salaries will be forced to dump their overpriced players. They can't afford (under a cap) to offer Iggy anymore. It will become a situation where the player more or less decides which location is better for him. (This can help out teams like Calgary and Edmonton with a loyal fan support and great hockey atmosphere)

A cap will increase parody in the league. It gives every team an equal chance of success. Yes, you probably won't see dynasties anymore and player turnover rates might be slightly higher but talk to baseball right now. Who likes having the Red Sox and the Yankees in their division?? I mean, there is no chance for smaller teams to compete. You think fans in Baltimore/Toronto/Tampa etc are ecstatic to just have a competitive regular season knowing that they will probably never challenge for the World Series? How many Florida Marlins can u have? Ultimately, big team spenders will win. Thats why you need a cap. To make it fair for everyone.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

A cap will increase parody in the league.

Finally. A sensible argument from an owner apologist.

Tom

 

[Lobstertainment]

Is 375,000 still enough for most of you to live on per year?

100,000 would be a comfy living experience.

I don't care if it'd drop from 1.8 to 1.3

I don't care if that means your fouth line guys go from 650K a year to 300K a year.

why don't I care?

because that's still a shitload of cash.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

At least those posters who talk about the implications of a cap system can point to the experiences in the NFL and NBA. There is much more player movement, not less.

Tom

Is player movement a bad thing for fans? Dr Ross says it's a good thing for fans. Have the pro-status-quo people turned against poor Dr Ross so quickly??

 

[Bruwinz37]

I think it is safe to say that the thread starter and anyone who agrees with him is terribly misinformed.

What a cap is intended to do is to stop the disparity amongst large and small market teams. Yes, teams can still sign players for 9.5 million, but what cant happen anymore is teams like the Rangers taking on salary after salary to cover for mistake after mistake. If teams are only allowed to spend a certain number the salaries for the top players will come down. It is simple supply and demand. If there are no teams that can affort to spend 9m on a player the player will take what teams can offer in relation to their cap. Once this starts happening and teams find that having 1/3 of their payroll tied up in 1-2 players will ALWAYS result in failure.

This league needs a cap or it will not survive.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What a cap is intended to do is to stop the disparity amongst large and small market teams.

There is no disparity between large and small market teams. There is a disparity between big revenue teams and small revenue teams. The big revenue teams earn their money from their fans by presenting a good product. Good. It's the way business should work.

This league needs a cap or it will not survive.

Oooh. I'm scared. "The sky is falling!" shouted Chicken Little. "The sky is falling!"

Tom

 

[Lobstertainment]

Tom

no offense but do you have to do this after every post?

we know your name, me of all people should since that is my name as well but it's very friggin annoying.

Protoman

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Protoman

gee, so is it ok for you to sign your name and not him ?

dont be so anal retentive.

dr

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

I think it is safe to say that the thread starter and anyone who agrees with him is terribly misinformed.

What a cap is intended to do is to stop the disparity amongst large and small market teams. Yes, teams can still sign players for 9.5 million, but what cant happen anymore is teams like the Rangers taking on salary after salary to cover for mistake after mistake. If teams are only allowed to spend a certain number the salaries for the top players will come down...

I'm well aware of what the salary cap is intended to do. But, I believe owners have shown time and time again that they will do ANYTHING to put, what they hope to be, a winning team, together. If that means paying one guy $10,000,000.00 while the rest of the roster gets to share the crumbs, then so be it. Remember, these are the same suits who continued - some right up until the very last possible second - to sign players under contracts under the old CBA, for more money than even the owners believe they can afford. A salary cap will not prevent THAT from happening again.

I understand what you're saying about league wide parity. And sure, in theory it seems like a cap is the way to go.....But, my point wasn't regarding league wide parity. It's about the NHLPA's perspective in all this - individual players, not individual teams.

 

[habitual_hab]

no offense but do you have to do this after every post?

we know your name, me of all people should since that is my name as well but it's very friggin annoying.

Protoman

I like that he signs his name. This way I know that he stands behind what he writes - not like some fraudulent Unified Report of Operations written by a cabal of crooks.

 

[oilers_guy_eddie]

I like that he signs his name. This way I know that he stands behind what he writes - not like some fraudulent Unified Report of Operations written by a cabal of crooks.

Yeah, a 3-letter first-name signature by some faceless stranger out there on the internet is deeply meaningful to me as well.

-God

 

[quat]

Until he hits age 31, he will be underpaid. They've afforded him so far and I expect they will continue afford him until he passes his prime. At that point if the team is winning, the Flames will have the money to keep him - just like Ottawa kept Alfredsson and colorado kept Sakic.



I think the intelligence - not the attitude - of the typical hockey fan really comes into question with the entire issue. That said, this comment cuts both ways. At least those posters who talk about the implications of a cap system can point to the experiences in the NFL and NBA. There is much more player movement, not less.

Tom

You haven't given any reason to believe that Calgary will be able to afford Iginla's services. Ottawa is now owned by a billionaire who doesn't mind paying what is necessary to have a winner, and Colorado is one of those deep pocket teams everyone complains about. You actually think a hockey player in the NHL (given the amount of money the league generates), making 7 million plus a year is underpaid? Well, it certainly is good to know where you're coming from.

Obviously there is unreasonable pronouncments on the future of the game by both sides, but since I refered to the future being debated in this thread, I don't feel like I'm stepping out of line.

As for the NFL and NBA comparisons... they seem to get used as examples only when they conform to your opinion. If they support something different then they are quickly dismissed as "totally different senarios".

I personally don't know if a cap is the way to go, but can at least understand why owners would want some kind of cost certainty... while your rational seems credulous at best.

 

[me2]

The oh so glorious figures of $1.8 million or $1.3 million are AVERAGES. Do we all understand what that means??

Illustration:
Player A, (a sack of crap center who USED to be good in his first 2 seasons - but has steadily declined in his attitude, production and all around general skill level), signed a groovy contract his first year in the NHL for a salary of $4,500,000.00 per year for three years. Regardless of his usefullness to the team. The owners offered him the deal 2.5 years ago and he was thrilled to accept. Who wouldn't be?

Player B, (a hard working forward who's been a suitcase in the league now for about 8 years - a good team guy with a good attitude although his skills aren't spectacular - he's still managed to actually average more points per season than Player A), has a one year contract for $750,000.00.

Player C, (a Toddler at center in the league with loads of promise - knows things are changing in the NHL and there will be no $10 million dollar contracts in his future, for sure - but he wants to play and he's happy just being able to do that), just signed a contract over the summer for a whopping total of $375,000.00.

So....we have Player A @ $4,500,000.00, Player B @ $750,000.00 and Player C @ $375,000.00. Bringing the grand total of salaries to $5,625,000.00. Now if you just read that total figure you may to think to yourself, 'WTF? Who do these people think they are making $5 million a year for a sport they love???' However, IF you looked at the entire scenario, you'd see that "those greedy players" aren't earning $5 million a year....in fact only ONE player is earning anything close to that. But, the AVERAGE salary of all THREE players is $1,875.000.00. And you may think to yourself, 'well hell, that's still more money than I'll make in my lifetime'. While that may be true, it's also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The fact of the matter is that Player B and Player C are NOT even close to the AVERAGE salary figure mark that the Bettman-ites are so hip to spew every chance they get. At which point most fans brains' seem to shut off completely, while they fail to consider exactly what that means...Because all they can see is the dollar sign $$$$$$$. And it appears that most of them are either incapable of seeing or simply refuse to see the bigger issues.

The team that signs Mr Sack O'Crap to the $4.5m under $31m deserves what they get. Meanwhile the teams that signed Mr Prospect & Mr Suitcase now have $3.5m-$4m to spend on Mr Demitra or Mr Palffy or Mr Sakic.

Its the Mr Sack O'Craps of the NHL that are going to find the cap a cold hard case of reality.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You haven't given any reason to believe that Calgary will be able to afford Iginla's services. Ottawa is now owned by a billionaire who doesn't mind paying what is necessary to have a winner, and Colorado is one of those deep pocket teams everyone complains about.

Calgary's ownership group is among the wealthiest in the league. If they want to pay someone, they will.

However a cap might mean they have no choice in the matter. Unlike today, where they can choose to pay Iginla 7.5m and no other team can do anything about it. Under a cap, they may want to pay him, but other teams will also be able to sign him too.

DR

 

[joepeps]

What?

Is 375,000 still enough for most of you to live on per year?

Thats the most stupidiest remark i've heard in my life....

If you work, and you work at a place which is the best place to work in your field. ie) the NHL.
And you should be getting paid for what your doing.

It makes no difference wha tu can live off...

You go to your boss who's paying you X ammount of dollars and tell him.. no thats too much i'm okay with X ammount less then what your paying me...

It's not a matter of money you can live off a year.. it's the matter of principle and how much these guys should get paid to play a sport that only a few players are privaldged to play. If they made the NHL then they deserve the money that is offered.. ie) 1 mill and over, and not "WHAT THEY CAN LIVE OFF"!

 

[Lobstertainment]

gee, so is it ok for you to sign your name and not him ?

dont be so anal retentive.

dr

Yes because I officialy have the best video game theme ever *whistles*

Protoman

 

[Lobstertainment]

Thats the most stupidiest remark i've heard in my life....

If you work, and you work at a place which is the best place to work in your field. ie) the NHL.
And you should be getting paid for what your doing.

It makes no difference wha tu can live off...

You go to your boss who's paying you X ammount of dollars and tell him.. no thats too much i'm okay with X ammount less then what your paying me...

It's not a matter of money you can live off a year.. it's the matter of principle and how much these guys should get paid to play a sport that only a few players are privaldged to play. If they made the NHL then they deserve the money that is offered.. ie) 1 mill and over, and not "WHAT THEY CAN LIVE OFF"!

So Trevor Kidd was worth 650,000 last year?

he's in the NHL so he should make millions?

we're not talking your Sundins or Koivu's or Jagr's or what have you whether they are deemed overpaid or not, we're talking your marginal NHL'ers who already make less then 1 million.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yes because I officialy have the best video game theme ever *whistles*

Protoman

well, that was the sound of something going way over my head.

huh ??

dr

 

[quat]

Calgary's ownership group is among the wealthiest in the league. If they want to pay someone, they will.

However a cap might mean they have no choice in the matter. Unlike today, where they can choose to pay Iginla 7.5m and no other team can do anything about it. Under a cap, they may want to pay him, but other teams will also be able to sign him too.

DR

Well, they may be wealthy, but they aren't willing to throw away $ just for the sake of keeping overpaid talent. So what if Iginla has to leave under a cap senario... chances are there will be other good players available as well. If he leaves under a system like the current one, there are no players equal in talent to replace him, because they are also asking for top dollar.

When costs escalate past revenue, then businesses usually fold. If player costs grow beyond what your market can afford then you simply cannot compete. I suppose many don't care if franchises fold, but when players are talking about their love for the game, it seems extremely two faced to allow franchises to collapse so they can continue to earn wages that have grown beyond what their league can in reality afford to pay.

Personally, I'd like to see a healthy NHL, where players and owners are both able to make decent money and fans have a great "product" to watch. Parity in the league doesn not equate to an average product. There is no mystery (except here it seems), where the term "an even playing field" came from. Any agreement relating to tieing salary to revenue would likely be fazed in over several years... and like it has pointed out already, many of the trades and contracts this season were a result of some teams preparing for this lockout.

I am hockey fan, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that players are in the wrong this time.