Why only the cap on the maximum?

[MarkZackKarl]

Im only talking relatively. If the new powerhouses are Tampa, LA and Ottawa, then so be it. 3 years from now, the big matchups will be these teams... The cycle (changing of the guard) is natural.

A hard cap is not natural, it is detrimental.

I am mostly pro-PA because they best represent what I (and I think most fans) want.

Good management and drafting is key. Players stay with teams for a long time. There is name brand recognition. Teams transform over several years to the pinnacle.

Whats funny is the fans think that a hard cap will allow the building of an elite team. Dont you understand, a hard cap is there to PREVENT it.

The league said it wants to distribute talent more equally. THis means = punish the talent rich clubs).

The argument that Ottawa would lose the players we developped is ignorant and not based on reality. Do you think we're worse off for having Spezza and Chara than Yashin? What about Bonk and Lalime, they arent elite players are they? MacEachern? Kravchuck? Dackell? Who cares that these role players are gone. The team is gradually tweaking its roster appropriately. Thats good.

 

[Alfie#11]

I am shocked that you as a sens fan are such a vocal supporter of the NHLPA. Do you not remember your team going into bankruptcy a few years back? Yeah you have a rich owner know but do you really think you'll be able to pay all your superstars the contract's they would get under the NHLPA's proposal? he won't want to lose THAT much money

Alfredson, Hossa, Havlat, Spezza, Chara, Redden.

These are all 5+ milloin dollar players under the current CBA

And the rest of your guys aren't chopped liver.

4 years from now you'll likely be looking at
Alfredson - 7+
Hossa - 7+
Havlat - 6+
Spezza - 4+
Chara - 6+
Redden 5+

And what happens if you guys actually get a goalie? these salaries are not a far reach by any stretch. They are actually conservative

35 million for 6 players? Assuming the average salary stays the same and doesn't go up (1.8) - that is 30.6 for the other 17 players. you really think ottawa can handle a 65+ million salary in the next few years?

The reason this CBA battle is being fought right now is specifically to keep teams like yours together and not have you have to sell off your best players in a few years for picks and prospects.

Can you please explain why you are so behind the NHLPA?

I don't think most of us are behind the PA. I think most of us - myself at least - think the owners are full of it.

Owners - especially in Canada - have fed fans of small market teams a load of half truths to benefit themselves. Ottawa fans have been through small market drama more than any team as far as I can tell.

We've heard from owners " fans have to come to the rink to show they want hockey in Ottawa". Where are they going to move an NHL franchise? Nobody wants these teams. Try finding a better market for hockey than Ottawa that doesn't already have a team. I don't buy the threat that my team may move for money reasons.

Would anyone fold the Sens? It's more likely than a move but not by much. The Corel Centre, which is owned by Melynk, makes money with the Sens as it's major tenant. Without the Sens that arena doesn't do nearly as well. I'm not worried about anyone folding the team.

Ottawa went bankrupt because the first group of owners and then Bryden had no money. The team and arena were financed and the were the source of a massive debt load. When the team went bankrupt that debt went away. That's why Bryden wanted the team back. Sens without the debt = big bucks.

I don't want to hear about the owners needs at all. It's their business. All this lockout is about is guarenteeing profits for franchises. The current system doesn't prevent them from doing that at all. They sign the cheques and agree to contracts.

As for keeping the team together - it ain't happening with or without a cap. In this debate, Ottawa fans maybe amongst the most unbiased around. The upper end of the salary cap numbers being floated is $38 million which is less the Sens payroll for last year. But Ottawa has to be close to it's limit so a cap wouldn't hurt the Sens much.

Elite players get elite level contracts. In the current system that will mean that Ottawa will lose players. Under a cap, they will still lose guys. Once you hit the cap level, players have to go. At least in the current system, in theory, the Sens could keep all their players. Fans would have to pony up massively on ticket prices but it could be done.

I'm missing a year of hockey for what? My team is a Cup contender. It has done well under the old system. The owner proposed new system does nothing to help my team. My ticket prices won't be lower and my team is going to lose players for salary reasons just the same. Let's not even think about any lowering of the UFA age that seems to go along with hard caps.

So the owners are good guys looking to benefit me and the players are driving up costs through the roof and that makes them bad guys?

In my city, owners have threatened fans with moving the team. They scammed for tax breaks. They tried to get the federal government to give them tax dollars to line their pockets. Nice guys. Of all the rich people in the world, I'm least inclined to see these guys get guarenteed profits.

At least the players make public appearances at hospitals. I'd much rather share a beer with Wade Redden than with John Spanos or that crook that owned the Sabres.

Why exactly am I supposed to support this owner lockout? So rich guys get a bigger share of the pie? If they are losing money they can stick to a budget. I'd rather watch hockey.

 

[shakes]

Using capitals is not going to make your argument any more correct.
The fact remains that the NFL and NBA experience with salary caps proves much of what you say wrong.
Are there not marquee matchups in the NFL every weekend despite its cap? Does the same not go for the NBA?
Likewise, smart, well-managed teams can remain contenders year after year. Perhaps the era of the 10-year dynasty is over, but that's actually a good thing for those leagues. Powerhouses, however, remain (see 1990s Chicago Bulls, 1990s Dallas Cowboys, 2000s New England Patriots, 2000s LA Lakers).
It's funny that you use Detroit-New Jersey as a premiere matchup that must be saved. A couple of decades ago, those two teams were the laughingstocks of the league.

First of all the NHL does not care about parity, they care about making money. Second of all, people south of the border actually watch those sports and because of that have excellent tv contracts.

 

[CarlRacki]

Im only talking relatively. If the new powerhouses are Tampa, LA and Ottawa, then so be it. 3 years from now, the big matchups will be these teams... The cycle (changing of the guard) is natural.

A hard cap is not natural, it is detrimental.

I am mostly pro-PA because they best represent what I (and I think most fans) want.

Good management and drafting is key. Players stay with teams for a long time. There is name brand recognition. Teams transform over several years to the pinnacle.

Whats funny is the fans think that a hard cap will allow the building of an elite team. Dont you understand, a hard cap is there to PREVENT it.

The league said it wants to distribute talent more equally. THis means = punish the talent rich clubs).

The argument that Ottawa would lose the players we developped is ignorant and not based on reality. Do you think we're worse off for having Spezza and Chara than Yashin? What about Bonk and Lalime, they arent elite players are they? MacEachern? Kravchuck? Dackell? Who cares that these role players are gone. The team is gradually tweaking its roster appropriately. Thats good.

First, I disagree that hard caps prohibit the building of an elite team. Look no further than the New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles for proof to the contrary.
That said, I lean against a hard cap as wel. But l believe in a soft cap that allows an exemption for a team to keep its own players and perhaps a mid-level exemption for veteran players. To keep things under control, ban NBA-style sign-and-trades and install a maximum salary. If you do that, I think you'd find a system under which both sides could work and flourish.

 

[likea]

I love when people use Ottawa as an example of a club that is run so properly and that the salary cap is bad for the sport. Riddle me this Ottawa fans, how many top 5 picks did your team need to get all this talent....teams cannot lose for years and years before they become good...they will lose to much money, they will do exactly what Ottawa had to do just one year ago

teams like the Rangers and Wings are not giving up grade A prospects anymore for top players that are making alot of money, they aquire an advantage in trading with teams

 

[PecaFan]

Are you a wall? The CAP is DESIGNED TO DESTROY TEAMS WITH ELITE LEVEL TALENT.... I just cannot understand why peolpe think the COMPLETE OPPOSITE will happen.

No, a cap is designed to keep player costs down, and to prevent teams from using money as a replacement for normal hockey development, ie drafting, developing young talent, etc.

You've bought into the "cap = mediocrity" crap. Look around, leagues with caps have elite teams.

 

[shakes]

I love when people use Ottawa as an example of a club that is run so properly and that the salary cap is bad for the sport. Riddle me this Ottawa fans, how many top 5 picks did your team need to get all this talent....teams cannot lose for years and years before they become good...they will lose to much money, they will do exactly what Ottawa had to do just one year ago

teams like the Rangers and Wings are not giving up grade A prospects anymore for top players that are making alot of money, they aquire an advantage in trading with teams

Funny, by reading these boards at trade deadlines you would think that rich teams are giving up future Wayne Gretzky's for top players who are making a lot of money.

 

[shakes]

First, I disagree that hard caps prohibit the building of an elite team. Look no further than the New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles for proof to the contrary.

The salary cap for the NFL in 2004 is $80.5 M. If you can't put together a dynasty with that kind of cash, a GM should just resign. This is why people (not you necessarily) who use the NFL for comparison shouldn't.

 

[CarlRacki]

First of all the NHL does not care about parity, they care about making money. Second of all, people south of the border actually watch those sports and because of that have excellent tv contracts.

First of all, what's wrong with making money? Are you suggesting people should invest millions and millions of dollars into the NHL with the expectation of losing money or substandard returns upon their investment? If so, good luck finding quality ownership.
Second of all, the size of the TV contract is irrelevant. All that determines is the amount of revenue distributed, not how it's distributed. The league is offering the players a percentage of revenues, not a flat number.

 

[PecaFan]

I am mostly pro-PA because they best represent what I (and I think most fans) want.

Good management and drafting is key. Players stay with teams for a long time. There is name brand recognition. Teams transform over several years to the pinnacle.

Eh? It's the players that are pro-movement. If it was up to the owners, they'd have the rights to every player for perpetuity.

The league said it wants to distribute talent more equally. THis means = punish the talent rich clubs).

Where are you getting this stuff from? The league has said no such thing. The league wants to *prevent* teams from having to move players for money reasons. Just like what happened to Ottawa in the past.

It's only because the deals worked out for you that you're in favour of them. If all Ottawa had received was Muckalt and Joe Schmoe who's since been released and you were one of the worst teams in league still, you'd be pissed.

It's especially rich that Ottawa fans keep saying the current system works, when the only reason you haven't won a Cup yet is that you keep being bounced of the playoffs by the big spending teams in Jersey, Toronto, Philly, etc.

Oh well, the one consolation if there eventually is no cap will be saying "I told you so" in a few years to all the Ottawa fans who thought they'd be better off under the old system.

 

[Epsilon]

Here's a funny idea: what if teams were allowed to trade/sell salary cap space like a commodity? So if a team wants to blow up and rebuild, they have the choice of either signing players they don't really want to get themselves up to the minimum, or letting other teams compete to acquire that cap space which they can then use for their own rosters.

 

[Epsilon]

Where are you getting this stuff from? The league has said no such thing. The league wants to *prevent* teams from having to move players for money reasons. Just like what happened to Ottawa in the past.

It's only because the deals worked out for you that you're in favour of them. If all Ottawa had received was Muckalt and Joe Schmoe who's since been released and you were one of the worst teams in league still, you'd be pissed.

It's especially rich that Ottawa fans keep saying the current system works, when the only reason you haven't won a Cup yet is that you keep being bounced of the playoffs by the big spending teams in Jersey, Toronto, Philly, etc.

Oh well, the one consolation if there eventually is no cap will be saying "I told you so" in a few years to all the Ottawa fans who thought they'd be better off under the old system.

You might want to re-think that. Ottawa owns Philly's arse so bad it's not even funny. However, small-market Buffalo has done a number on the Senators before.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Yup, it just amazes me how many Ottawa fans are behind the PA. I think Thunderstruck is the only one who's not.

*Everything* that the Senators are good at is *enhanced* by a cap. Finding young talent, developing young talent, signing young talent cheaply, these are prime Cap management skills.

It's the teams like the Rangers that should by fearing the cap.

Not really.
The Sens are a team that have been coming together for awhile now.
The remind me a lot of the Wings of the 90s.
Oh so close every year. Until the point where it looked like they might never, ever get over the hump.
Of course, the wings had the money to keep their team together. Then they went out traded for Brendan Shanahan (wouldn't have been likely with a salary cap)
The next year they paid a ton of money, after the first cup win, to keep Sergei Fedorov. Without him, no 2nd cup.


To me, the Sens are very close to that scenario now.

A cap won't help them at all. Because the very talented players are going to get their money somewhere.

Speaking of Fedorov's signing with the wings as an RFA.

Why in the world is the league shutting down to protect the Carolina Hurricanes, who made that ridiculous RFA offer to Fedorov after the first wings cup.
What was it, 30 million for five years. But if the team makes the conference finals, 12 million gets paid in the first year??

So this numbnuts Karmanos, single handely blows up the market for RFAs.

And now he's crying that he can't compete.

Weep. Weep.

 

[CarlRacki]

The salary cap for the NFL in 2004 is $80.5 M. If you can't put together a dynasty with that kind of cash, a GM should just resign. This is why people (not you necessarily) who use the NFL for comparison shouldn't.

The size of the cap is irrelevant to the discussion. Having a cap of $80.5 million makes dynasty-building no easier than a $35 million cap because, in both instances, every team in the league is working with the same payroll ability.

 

[shakes]

First of all, what's wrong with making money? Are you suggesting people should invest millions and millions of dollars into the NHL with the expectation of losing money or substandard returns upon their investment? If so, good luck finding quality ownership.
Second of all, the size of the TV contract is irrelevant. All that determines is the amount of revenue distributed, not how it's distributed. The league is offering the players a percentage of revenues, not a flat number.

Nothing is wrong with making money. I never said otherwise. My point was about anyone who diluded themselves to thinking that the NHL cares about parity and this is why we were going through this lockout.

And the money part of the tv contract was secondary, the point of that comment related to your "marquee matchup" statement. Most in the US don't care hockey period and a cap doesn't change this.

 

[SENSible1*]

Yup, it just amazes me how many Ottawa fans are behind the PA. I think Thunderstruck is the only one who's not.

*Everything* that the Senators are good at is *enhanced* by a cap. Finding young talent, developing young talent, signing young talent cheaply, these are prime Cap management skills.

It's the teams like the Rangers that should by fearing the cap.

Why any Sens fan would fear a league based on every team having to compete equally using skills the Sens organization has already mastered is beyond my comprehension?

As for keeping the team together - it ain't happening with or without a cap. In this debate, Ottawa fans maybe amongst the most unbiased around. The upper end of the salary cap numbers being floated is $38 million which is less the Sens payroll for last year. But Ottawa has to be close to it's limit so a cap wouldn't hurt the Sens much.

Elite players get elite level contracts. In the current system that will mean that Ottawa will lose players. Under a cap, they will still lose guys. Once you hit the cap level, players have to go. At least in the current system, in theory, the Sens could keep all their players. Fans would have to pony up massively on ticket prices but it could be done.

The Sens won't be able to hold onto the talent in either system, so personally I'd rather see them spread aound the league rather than having them go to the same big markets.

The organization has always done a fabulous job of finding and developing replacements. Let's see how good other teams are at the Sens game.

 

[PecaFan]

You might want to re-think that. Ottawa owns Philly's arse so bad it's not even funny.

True they haven't lost directly to Philly, but I included them because they've had some tough physical battles with them, and the lingering effects have certainly hampered their ability to go all the way.

 

[Epsilon]

True they haven't lost directly to Philly, but I included them because they've had some tough physical battles with them, and the lingering effects have certainly hampered their ability to go all the way.

I'd hardly say that's even the case. Philly tends to roll over and die when they play Ottawa, just as Ottawa does against Toronto, and Toronto does (to a lesser extent) against Philly. That 4-1 Ottawa series win, where Philly only scored 2 goals and only got a win in a 1-0 shutout, was one of the easiest series victories I've ever seen. Ottawa could have gotten a better workout going golfing, and there probably would have been more physical contact as well.

You included them because you were just randomly naming off big-market Eastern Conference teams that happen to usually make the playoffs.

 

[jcpenny]

The salary cap for the NFL in 2004 is $80.5 M. If you can't put together a dynasty with that kind of cash, a GM should just resign. This is why people (not you necessarily) who use the NFL for comparison shouldn't.

BTW an NFL team has about 55 players, twice more than the NHL so Twive more to pay. 80,5 is about the same versus 38 mil.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Why any Sens fan would fear a league based on every team having to compete equally using skills the Sens organization has already mastered is beyond my comprehension?

How many cups? Zero.
The Sens have mastered nothing.
And if there's a salary cap, forget about it. It's always time to rebuild in salary cap mode.
Good Bye to the Steve Yzermans of the world in Salary Cap mode.
They'll get dumped after 6 years.

 

[Hasbro]

Here's a funny idea: what if teams were allowed to trade/sell salary cap space like a commodity? So if a team wants to blow up and rebuild, they have the choice of either signing players they don't really want to get themselves up to the minimum, or letting other teams compete to acquire that cap space which they can then use for their own rosters.

that's kind of what the NBA is doing with teams taking on contracts. The Nuggets burned off Juwan Howard's deal and used the space to get K-Mart a year later.

 

[s7ark]

Can you explain how a hard cap will allow teams to keep their talent together?

Because it promotes basically the exact opposite.

Because the asking price for players will go down. If they want 11 million and are willing to sit they won't find a single owner that will pay that. that means the players have to come down to reasonable salaries is order to work in the NHL.

 

[s7ark]

Yeh, Ive never understood why people think that a cap will ensure that teams will be able keep everybody together longer. Just because one team doesn't have cap room to pay someone, doesnt mean another team doesn't. You are going to have salary dumping trades like today's Raptors blockbuster and you are going to get a lot of "sign and trades". Quite honestly, IMO team chemistry and team/name recognition is going to suck.

Yeah but if your choice is between 4 million on the team you are currently playing for and the city you and your family are living in, or uprooting everything and going to a potentially worse team for an extra million, a lot of players may just stay where they are. It wouldn't be like how it is today that a team will have 8 million of cap room just waiting for that superstar. And if that does happen the the team that signs that 8 million guy wil lhave to lose guys next year as they improve. It actually makes the GMs job harder by having to budget for the future as well as the present. that is why the idiot proff argument is flawed.

Everyone will be affected by the cap, so a player can demand 10 million and know that if his team won't pay another one will like in the current CBA. No team is going to have unlimited spending to add superstars anymore.

That coupled with the average salary going down will keep teams together

 

[s7ark]

First of all the NHL does not care about parity, they care about making money. Second of all, people south of the border actually watch those sports and because of that have excellent tv contracts.

Parity makes them more money. The entire league gets more money by every team being able to compete so ticket sales go up. That creates more fans and bigger TV deals.

We have seen this happen in the NFL

 

[s7ark]

The salary cap for the NFL in 2004 is $80.5 M. If you can't put together a dynasty with that kind of cash, a GM should just resign. This is why people (not you necessarily) who use the NFL for comparison shouldn't.

It wasn't when the cap was signed in 87. it was around 34 million, sound familliar? It has gone up to 80 million by creating parity in the league so more and more fans become interested and the big TV deals going up and up . By tying revenue to the salary cap as it gets better for the owners it gets better for the players. Everybody wins. What is the problem?