A question for the NHLPA supporters

[degroat*]

Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?

I don't want to know why you think there shouldn't be a cap.

I don't want to know who you think is at fault for the higher salaries.

I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.

Click to read more...

 

[hockeytown9321]

The #1 complaint of the small market fans is that they cannot resign the players they develop. A hard cap causes the same problems.

From the business side, the small market teams can't generate enough revenue. A cap does not increase revenue at all, and would probably decrese it.

 

[degroat*]

The #1 complaint of the small market fans is that they cannot resign the players they develop. A hard cap causes the same problems.

Without a cap, some teams can't afford to retain their players they develop because they get too expensive.

With a cap, all teams will have the same problems.... fitting the players they develop into their payroll without going over the cap.

How is this bad for the NHL?

From the business side, the small market teams can't generate enough revenue.

Without a cap, the complaint from small teams is that they don't generate enough revenue to compete on the UFA market with the big market teams. With a cap, their level of revenue would be sufficient to compete on the UFA market.

A cap does not increase revenue at all, and would probably decrese it.

Quite the opposite actually. Even if you happen to believe that payroll is not related to winning percentage, as many people do around here, there is no denying that if the smaller market teams had comparable payrolls to the large market teams the fans would feel that they had more of a chance to win which increases demand for the product. More demand equates to more revenue.

 

[Diaboli]

A brilliant question, though I don't think that the pro-NHLPA are thinking it that way. They only think of the free-market world where we live nowadays.

 

[YellHockey*]

A hard cap forces mediocrity on the league. Teams can't become dominant because dominant teams become expensive and a salary cap prevents teams from getting expensive.

There wouldn't be any more great teams, just a bunch of mediocre ones and some bad ones.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Without a cap, some teams can't afford to retain their players they develop because they get too expensive.

With a cap, all teams will have the same problems.... fitting the players they develop into their payroll without going over the cap.

How is this bad for the NHL?



Without a cap, the complaint from small teams is that they don't generate enough revenue to compete on the UFA market with the big market teams. With a cap, their level of revenue would be sufficient to compete on the UFA market.



Quite the opposite actually. Even if you happen to believe that payroll is not related to winning percentage, as many people do around here, there is no denying that if the smaller market teams had comparable payrolls to the large market teams the fans would feel that they had more of a chance to win which increases demand for the product. More demand equates to more revenue.

Why is it fair that any team has to picka nd choose which players they keep based on economics. Again, if anyone bothered to read what I've written, you'll know I never said the current system was fair, or that they should keep it.

And seeing as how Anaheim and Carolina produced so much revenue after their Cup Finals apperances, I guess I'm wrong to think that fans in those (and other) places will never support the game.

I think sometimes Canadians don't realize the lack of interest in hockey in the US. I'm sure they have some kind of "cost certainty" in the Arena Football League, but Detroit's team just folded, and any parity the league has does not increase attendance or TV ratings.

 

[hockeytown9321]

A brilliant question, though I don't think that the pro-NHLPA are thinking it that way. They only think of the free-market world where we live nowadays.

If you think the current system is a free-market, you're grossly mistaken. I support the PA, but I'm not blinded by thier rhetoric. They have faults. They make too much money. But a cap is not the way to fix things.

 

[degroat*]

A hard cap forces mediocrity on the league. Teams can't become dominant because dominant teams become expensive and a salary cap prevents teams from getting expensive.

There wouldn't be any more great teams, just a bunch of mediocre ones and some bad ones.

I don't agree with that, but let's assume you're right. I'm not quite sure why that's a bad thing for the NHL. What it would mean is that every team with above average management and player development would get their share of playoff appearances. That would increase the fan bases for the teams that need to do so while not losing any significant portion of any established fan base.

In all honestly, the concern you present is simply the concern of the selfish fan. I'm not saying that you're selfish, just that it's typically an arguement presented by someone who wants their team to be contending for a Cup ever year.

 

[MikeC44]

Why would a hard cap would be bad for the NHL?

I don't want to know why you think there shouldn't be a cap.

I don't want to know who you think is at fault for the higher salaries.

I simply want to know why you think a hard cap would be bad for the NHL.

A hard cap limits hockey decisons.
If you're a team going into the playoffs, and you think you need one more scorer to compete with the top seeds, you can't go out and get one if you're at the cap limit.
Even worse, what happens if you're Pronger-type defencmen goes down for the season in January and you're at the cap limit. You can't even try to replace him.
And on the other side, if you're a last place team with a veteren scorer who's about to become a UFA, you can't trade him to any team who's at the cap limit.

 

[degroat*]

Why is it fair that any team has to picka nd choose which players they keep based on economics.

That's exactly what teams have to do whether they have a cap or not. Every team has a limited payroll, otherwise called a budget, that requires teams to make decisions in terms of player personnel. The difference is that with a cap every team has the same payroll.

 

[West]

I think sometimes Canadians don't realize the lack of interest in hockey in the US.

I think most of us do. It's treated the same way baseball is up here. A few die hard fans but generally speaking you couldn't get me to a Jays game with free tickets (may free tickets and free bree though).

 

[degroat*]

If you're a team going into the playoffs, and you think you need one more scorer to compete with the top seeds, you can't go out and get one if you're at the cap limit.....

And on the other side, if you're a last place team with a veteren scorer who's about to become a UFA, you can't trade him to any team who's at the cap limit.

As much as we all love the trade deadline, the unfortunate reality about the day is that the hecticness of the day is caused by the financial instability of the league.

Leagues typically want to limit this kind of player movement. The NBA has a rule in place that requires the salaries of the players being exchanged to be within 15% of each other.

Even worse, what happens if you're Pronger-type defencmen goes down for the season in January and you're at the cap limit. You can't even try to replace him.

You could easily solve this problem by having some rule in the CBA that stated that players on the IR don't count towards the cap.

 

[Diaboli]

If you think the current system is a free-market, you're grossly mistaken. I support the PA, but I'm not blinded by thier rhetoric. They have faults. They make too much money. But a cap is not the way to fix things.

But isn't the cap actually the only way to get some sense to the wages? What else alternatives are there? A gentlemens agreement isn't possible in an environment, where the "only" goal is to beat everyone else by any means necessary (or at least if the GM is stupid). Gentlemens agreement didn't even work in a semi-professional basketball league here in Finland, so it definetely won't have a chance there.

Yes, I also understand, that the NHL isn't really a free-market, because the teams "own" players. But you can pay the amount of money you want to a player, even if it would bankrupt your company, or in this case, the NHL-team. That is the same as in normal business, here, in the free-market world. That's were I was going with that.

 

[tantalum]

The whole mediocrity thing is BS. Their are dominant teams in cap leagues from year to year and their are perpetually terrible teams. Some teams have better scouting and prospect development, better management, better coaching, better chemistry and some are worse and that will continue. A cap doesn't guarantee a team can necessarily hold onto a player as the player still has a right to find employment where he wants (after all a consequence of the cap will be increased free agency) but that team will now be able to find a similar player without having to worry about excessive salary escalation.

 

[hockeytown9321]

That's exactly what teams have to do whether they have a cap or not. Every team has a limited payroll, otherwise called a budget, that requires teams to make decisions in terms of player personnel. The difference is that with a cap every team has the same payroll.

Like I said before: Making something unfair for everyone doesn't make it fair.

You're also forgetting that teams do not, and will never have equal talent. Therefore there will always be inequality. The more talent a team posesses both on and of the ice means they are punished more than teams with less talent. I can't believe I'm still arguing this.

 

[Diaboli]

You could easily solve this problem by having some rule in the CBA that stated that players on the IR don't count towards the cap.[/QUOTE]

As someone might have noticed, I'm pro-teams, but this isn't really that simple. What happens when the this player returns to the roster? Would they have to sell the new-purchased player? This could turn into a trading/selling-frenzy. I think that was a good question, which needs an even better answer.

 

[YellHockey*]

I'm not quite sure why that's a bad thing for the NHL.

Because the calibre of play would be diminished. A game between two great teams provides the best hockey in the world. Last year the best regular season game I watched was an amazing game between Ottawa and Tampa. Under a salary cap, the chances of seeing such an amazing game are remote since there won't be any teams that will be able to have a roster with the amount of talent that Tampa and Ottawa have.

In all honestly, the concern you present is simply the concern of the selfish fan. I'm not saying that you're selfish, just that it's typically an arguement presented by someone who wants their team to be contending for a Cup ever year.

Why shouldn't the fans be selfish and want to see the best product possible?

What fan doesn't want to have their team contending for a Cup each year? Are there really fans that hope their team is mediocre year after year?

 

[tantalum]

A hard cap limits hockey decisons.
If you're a team going into the playoffs, and you think you need one more scorer to compete with the top seeds, you can't go out and get one if you're at the cap limit.
Even worse, what happens if you're Pronger-type defencmen goes down for the season in January and you're at the cap limit. You can't even try to replace him.
And on the other side, if you're a last place team with a veteren scorer who's about to become a UFA, you can't trade him to any team who's at the cap limit.

It doesn't limit hockey decisions at all. It FORCES hockey decisions because simply having a bigger wallet doesn't matter. A GM actually has to be able to run his team properly and keep such things into account. It requires the GM to be smart and make smart decisions concerning the personel of his team.

Any cap will not have injured players counting towards the cap. If a guy goes down for the season that salary room would be freed up for a replacement. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to call people up from the minors.

 

[hockeytown9321]

But isn't the cap actually the only way to get some sense to the wages? What else alternatives are there? A gentlemens agreement isn't possible in an environment, where the "only" goal is to beat everyone else by any means necessary (or at least if the GM is stupid). Gentlemens agreement didn't even work in a semi-professional basketball league here in Finland, so it definetely won't have a chance there.

Yes, I also understand, that the NHL isn't really a free-market, because the teams "own" players. But you can pay the amount of money you want to a player, even if it would bankrupt your company, or in this case, the NHL-team. That is the same as in normal business, here, in the free-market world. That's were I was going with that.

No it si not the only way to get salaries that make sense. Its is however the only way the league is willing to discuss, much to the detriment of the league.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Why shouldn't the fans be selfish and want to see the best product possible?

What fan doesn't want to have their team contending for a Cup each year? Are there really fans that hope their team is mediocre year after year?

I was told I'm selfish because I thought my team would b punished by a cap, so yeah, I guess they do want mediocrity.

 

[hockeytown9321]

It doesn't limit hockey decisions at all. It FORCES hockey decisions because simply having a bigger wallet doesn't matter. A GM actually has to be able to run his team properly and keep such things into account. It requires the GM to be smart and make smart decisions concerning the personel of his team.

Any cap will not have injured players counting towards the cap. If a guy goes down for the season that salary room would be freed up for a replacement. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to call people up from the minors.

A cap still forces economic decisons.

 

[tantalum]

You could easily solve this problem by having some rule in the CBA that stated that players on the IR don't count towards the cap.

As someone might have noticed, I'm pro-teams, but this isn't really that simple. What happens when the this player returns to the roster? Would they have to sell the new-purchased player? This could turn into a trading/selling-frenzy. I think that was a good question, which needs an even better answer.[/QUOTE]


That's what farm systems are for and roster depth. It requires good management if you can't simply use your wallet to bail yourself out because you don't have anyone who can step up. It may involve more player movement yes but any cap is going to involve that anyways due to increased free agency...the logical trade off.

 

[Guest]

There wouldn't be any more great teams, just a bunch of mediocre ones and some bad ones.

Totally disagree. There wouldn't be as many or as long of runs by great teams because they wouldn't be able to maintain their roster with increasing salaries. Strong teams with solid drafting and scouting would continue to be among the best teams in the league. The poorer teams in the league would benefit from this however, as they would be able to swoop right in on trades and signings of the players the good teams can't hold onto anylonger.

A hard cap flattens the bell curve. Right now in the NHL you have a handful of good teams, a handful of bad team, and the majority are in the middle. For example, in each conference the top 4 teams are pretty solid for the season, and the bottom 4 teams are pretty bad for the season. The 7 in the middle are all on near playing ground and usually only a few points seperate a playoff team from a bubble team.

A hard cap makes it so that there are probably more like 2 teams who are good, 2 teams who are bad to spite themselves, and then 13 teams that are in the hunt. Or at least that is my theory on the subject, because a hard cap will more evenly distribute talent throughout the league. If you took players away from the top 10 salaried teams in the league and added them to the rest of the league, the spenders would probably decrease in success and the others would probably increase from those additions.

That said, I don't support a hard cap, but I prefer a cap system that limits veteran growth and doesn't punish teams for developing, drafting, and scouting.

 

[degroat*]

Like I said before: Making something unfair for everyone doesn't make it fair.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not understanding how or why having the same payroll for every team is unfair for everyone. Seems quite fair to me.

You're also forgetting that teams do not, and will never have equal talent. Therefore there will always be inequality. The more talent a team posesses both on and of the ice means they are punished more than teams with less talent.

How is this bad for the NHL?

 

[Diaboli]

No it si not the only way to get salaries that make sense. Its is however the only way the league is willing to discuss, much to the detriment of the league.

Would you tell me some of these proposals?