A question for the NHLPA supporters

[degroat*]

LOL. They wouldn't be stuck with him, therefore you have no point.

 

[tantalum]

LOL. They wouldn't be stuck with him, therefore you have no point.

Wasn't Yashin traded at a time when he made no money? I thought he was RFA... It was also the offseason in which the cap may or may not be enforced.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

LOL. They wouldn't be stuck with him, therefore you have no point.

huh ? what do you mean ?

my contention is any team without Yashin is a better team than with Yashin. So if under your CBA, they cant trade Yashin for a stud young player and a norris calibre dman, i fail to see it as a good system.

dr

 

[degroat*]

huh ? what do you mean ?

my contention is any team without Yashin is a better team than with Yashin. So if under your CBA, they cant trade Yashin for a stud young player and a norris calibre dman, i fail to see it as a good system.

dr

They didn't trade Yashin for a stud young player and a Norris caliber defenseman. They traded him for a draft pick and a prospect.

 

[MikeC44]

The idea is being put forward by Gary Bettman. Can you name one thing he has done that has been good for the NHL? I hate cap systems. I like great teams. I don't like tons of player movement and cap systems have tons of player movement.

Give me the choice that Bettman pretends we have:

a) A cap system and 30 teams

b) Status quo and teams fold.

Goodbye Mickey Mouse markets. This is a no-brainer. I cannot understand anyone who would suggest otherwise. You are asking me to give up hockey for a year or two to keep Edmonton and Pittsburgh and Buffalo and Florida in the NHL? In another life. Hockey has been priced out of Edmonton? Who cares outside Edmonton?

They can pony up more money or the fans can lose their team. Why should the rest of us pay to keep them around? The result would be a stronger league.

I am really getting angry about whining fans in small markets who expect to get the best hockey in the world without paying for it. They want someone else to pay for it via revenue sharing or the players to pay for it by taking less than they would if the Mickey Mouse markets did not exist.

Why should we? Why should the players? Why should these markets drag the league down? I'll be a lot happier listening to Oiler fans whine about the team they lost - I will ignore them like everyone ignores Winnipeg fans today - than listening to them whine about how bad the NHL is as a sports league.

Fans who don't like what they see - fans who don't care whether there is hockey this season or next - aren't really hockey fans. Who needs them? Who wants a system that subsidizes markets that aren't good enough for big time hockey?

Why isn't contraction - by bankruptcy - the best option if the league is in such big trouble? If Edmonton can't afford a payroll that is higher than it is today, tough. Either live with it or fold the team.

Tom

My question is: Where does it stop? This would eventually lead to a league with 1 team if every few years the bottom teams were chopped off.

 

[wint]

A team like Ottawa would THRIVE under a cap system because they have been so good at developing players.

Not true. A salary cap system does not reward smart drafting, strong player development, or being bad for years in order to rebuild (all things that Ottawa has gone through). Therefore, a hard cap would be harmful to the Ottawa franchise right now.

A cap would do just what it does in the NFL. No team can be good for very long, because their players become too expensive. Teams are built from the ground up in 1-3 years, and then have a 1-3 year window to win. Rebuilding simply consists of suffering through the final years of huge front-loaded contracts. When those players are gone, you sign more talent to front-loaded contracts and take a shot at the Super Bowl.

Good players at every position are almost always available, so winning is just a matter of signing the right guys at the right time. There is little competitive difference between the best and worst drafting teams (certainly not as much as in hockey), because nearly everyone switches teams soon anyway.

A team like Ottawa is built for both now and the future. But in a world with a cap, there is no reason to ever build for anything more than 2 or 3 years down the line. So Ottawa has spent the last 10 years building up to this point (which they never would have had to to under a cap), but would now be forced to disband within a year, or at least get rid of Alfredsson this year, Redden next year etc. (which they would not have had to do under the old system). Ottawa gets the worst of both worlds.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

They didn't trade Yashin for a stud young player and a Norris caliber defenseman. They traded him for a draft pick and a prospect.

so whats your point ? they clearly won that trade, short term, long term and financially. why would you want to restrict their ability to do those kinds of deals ?

dr

 

[Digger12]

Not true. A salary cap system does not reward smart drafting, strong player development, or being bad for years in order to rebuild (all things that Ottawa has gone through). Therefore, a hard cap would be harmful to the Ottawa franchise right now.

A hard cap, perhaps yes.

A soft cap similar to the NBA, I think that has a chance of working...but only with a component of revenue sharing.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Every team goes through rebuilding for goodness sakes. Some are better at it than others...I.E. some have better management, better drafting and better player development than other teams. Some teams are perpetually bad at this it has nothing to do with the cap. The Lions have not been bad for years because of a cap but because of poor personel choices and inner club turmoil. Some teams are always good with these factors and have consistently good teams.

Exactly. Some teams are always bad, and its their own fault. The cap can't solve this, however, alot of people here think it can.

 

[hockeytown9321]

There is a reason why there is a certian amount in which a team must spend, so team will not go dumping salaries so they can free up space to sign a big time free agent.

Hard cap at 38 Million min spending at 33 million.

You can still create a dynasty with this system, that is what great teams do, unlike the beloved Red Wings throwing around 70 million to buy cups.

You have obviously have no knowledge of the situation, so until you get some, keep your uninformed comments to yourself.

 

[degroat*]

so whats your point ? they clearly won that trade, short term, long term and financially. why would you want to restrict their ability to do those kinds of deals ?

dr

Why would you possibly want to base an entire league's system on how much teams get in return for high dollar players? Do you realize how little sense that makes?

What you're telling me is that a system where teams develop good players and have to trade them to teams with higher payrolls is a good thing.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Someone asked earlier about proving there is medicority with a hard cap. Since the NFL is the only league with one, I did some research.

I went through the last 10 seasons (1994-2003) of 5 NFL teams, teams that are generally thought to have good management.

Minnesota:
92-68, .575 winning percentage. 4 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. Less than 7 wins twice, more than 9 four times.

Redskins:
70-89-1, .438 winning percentage. 5 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. Less than 7 wins 4 times, more than 9 once.

Dallas:
83-77, .519. 1 season at .500. 5 years with more than 9 wins, 4 years less than 7 wins.

Kansas City:
94-66, .588. 6 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. less than 7 wins once. more than 9 wins three times.

Philadelphia:
87-72-1, .544. 1 season at 7-9. three seasons less than 7 wins. 6 seasons more than 9 wins.

in 50 total seasons, 426-372-2, .533. 17 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9, 14 seasons with less than 7 wins, 19 seasons with more than 9 wins.

34% of the time, these teams finished at .500, or within a game of it. 28% less than 7 wins, 38% more than 9 wins.

No winning % over .588. the average record was 8.5 wins and 7.4 losses, so rounding those off, its 9-7 for teams with good management.

If you extrapolate out the winning and losing %'s to hockey, the average record would be 43-38, with a little left over because of the NFL's ties. Lets say NHL teams average 10 ties a year, take away 5 wins and 5 losses, the record becomes 39-33-10,( I added one more win to account for all 82 games) which amounts to less than .500 hockey.

these are the facts and figures I base my opinions on. Instead of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, try to find some evidence to back up your arguments.

If anybody else has the time to do it, I'd be really interested in this breakdown for the entire NFL. Obviously the final record will be .500, but I'd like to see team by team breakdowns.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

What you're telling me is that a system where teams develop good players and have to trade them to teams with higher payrolls is a good thing.

im saying thats better than having a league where a team like OTT cant trade Yashin PERIOD to anyone, never mind for a great return.

why should we protect NYI at the expense of OTT anyway ?

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

You know, its kind of funny. All these poor, woe is me fans begging for a cap so they can compete. What happens if you get one and your team still sucks? All of your GM's and owners have it easy now. They can make horible moves and blame the system, or the evil Red wings. They don't have to win, they don't have to produce. They have built in excuses. So what are the excuses going to be under a cap?

 

[degroat*]

You know, its kind of funny. All these poor, woe is me fans begging for a cap so they can compete. What happens if you get one and your team still sucks? All of your GM's and owners have it easy now. They can make horible moves and blame the system, or the evil Red wings. They don't have to win, they don't have to produce. They have built in excuses. So what are the excuses going to be under a cap?

Feel free to quote one person in this entire thread that said a cap is the reason that thier team cannot compete.

Good luck with that.

 

[degroat*]

im saying thats better than having a league where a team like OTT cant trade Yashin PERIOD to anyone, never mind for a great return.

why should we protect NYI at the expense of OTT anyway ?

dr

So your entire reason for not wanting a cap is because you think teams who sign or trade for bad players should have to suffer?

That's such a great thing to base an entire system on. I simply cannot argue with that logic.

 

[degroat*]

You know, its kind of funny. All these poor, woe is me fans begging for a cap so they can compete. What happens if you get one and your team still sucks? All of your GM's and owners have it easy now. They can make horible moves and blame the system, or the evil Red wings. They don't have to win, they don't have to produce. They have built in excuses. So what are the excuses going to be under a cap?

You know, it's kind of funny. All these poor, woe is me fans praying that there is no cap so they can continue to buy caps. What happens to the Wings fan base when the team starts to suck again? Is hockey going to be meaningless in 'HockeyTown' like it was for 2 decades? How will Wings fans be able to win arguments with the "Well our team has won 3 cups in the last X years" token Wings fan reponse when the Wings are once again the doormat of the NHL?

 

[Russian Fan]

If there's one thing that the NFL CAP prove is not that superstar player are being paid less but that the depth of every franchise is being cut for rookies.

Sakic, Pronger, Niedermayer & all will still get 6-7-8-9M$ a year but the 3rd-4th lines will be fill with AHLers borderline NHLers because the cap won't give you the possibility to add some depth in your teams.

That means injuries will be a much more important factor to take into consideration of a franchise. 2-3 major injuries could turn the season around because they can't add any player to the line-up except some rookies or AHLer @ less than 800K.

Meanwhile the cap will increase profit to the owner, the quality of the game already a concern will be again be a regression of what we have now.

That means mediocre teams will battle for a playoff spots because of other teams injuries or the lack of depth of EVERY TEAM.

Is that what we want from a GM ? to not get an opportunity to build a team ? I'm not even talking about teams like Ottawa, TB, ATL, CBJ that take time to develop their future stars.

Thinking salaries for stars will decrease are in for a HUGE REALITY CHECK because salaries never decrease in any sports. The cut was made with the reserve , the depth, the veteran ''fillers''. Instead of getting a Rob Dimaio or a Cliff Ronning to help your team to get more experience in the playoff you will go into your farm & hope he'll progress & do the job.

 

[degroat*]

Someone asked earlier about proving there is medicority with a hard cap. Since the NFL is the only league with one, I did some research.

I went through the last 10 seasons (1994-2003) of 5 NFL teams, teams that are generally thought to have good management.

Minnesota:
92-68, .575 winning percentage. 4 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. Less than 7 wins twice, more than 9 four times.

Redskins:
70-89-1, .438 winning percentage. 5 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. Less than 7 wins 4 times, more than 9 once.

Dallas:
83-77, .519. 1 season at .500. 5 years with more than 9 wins, 4 years less than 7 wins.

Kansas City:
94-66, .588. 6 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9. less than 7 wins once. more than 9 wins three times.

Philadelphia:
87-72-1, .544. 1 season at 7-9. three seasons less than 7 wins. 6 seasons more than 9 wins.

in 50 total seasons, 426-372-2, .533. 17 seasons at 8-8, 9-7 or 7-9, 14 seasons with less than 7 wins, 19 seasons with more than 9 wins.

34% of the time, these teams finished at .500, or within a game of it. 28% less than 7 wins, 38% more than 9 wins.

No winning % over .588. the average record was 8.5 wins and 7.4 losses, so rounding those off, its 9-7 for teams with good management.

If you extrapolate out the winning and losing %'s to hockey, the average record would be 43-38, with a little left over because of the NFL's ties. Lets say NHL teams average 10 ties a year, take away 5 wins and 5 losses, the record becomes 39-33-10,( I added one more win to account for all 82 games) which amounts to less than .500 hockey.

these are the facts and figures I base my opinions on. Instead of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, try to find some evidence to back up your arguments.

If anybody else has the time to do it, I'd be really interested in this breakdown for the entire NFL. Obviously the final record will be .500, but I'd like to see team by team breakdowns.

If you want to do some meaningful research compare the pre-cap NFL to the post-cap NFL and post any proof you find that shows caps cause mediocrity.

 

[ceber]

If all teams have a high number of talented players on them, we should expect to see a lot of near-.500 records, right? Does being just a bit above .500 make you mediocre, regardless of the amount of talent on your team and the amount of talent you compete against?

Are you seeing better games when two teams are evenly matched, or when one team has a significant advantage due to the talent of their players?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So your entire reason for not wanting a cap is because you think teams who sign or trade for bad players should have to suffer?

That's such a great thing to base an entire system on. I simply cannot argue with that logic.

actually, thats not why i said i dont want a cap. however, a cap promotes suffering of teams who sign or trade for bad players, it does not help them.

why are you going in circles ?

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

You know, it's kind of funny. All these poor, woe is me fans praying that there is no cap so they can continue to buy caps. What happens to the Wings fan base when the team starts to suck again? Is hockey going to be meaningless in 'HockeyTown' like it was for 2 decades? How will Wings fans be able to win arguments with the "Well our team has won 3 cups in the last X years" token Wings fan reponse when the Wings are once again the doormat of the NHL?

First off, please let me know which cups the Red Wings bought, and i'll prove you wrong.

Second, here's some Red Wings attendance figures for you to chew on, sorry for providing facts again.

83-84: 16,743
84-85: 17,414
85-86: 17,027(this team finished with 17 wins, 40 points)
86-87: 18,756(NHL record at the time)
87-88: 19,638
88-89: 19,703(NHL record at the time)
89-90: 19,542(last time Red Wings missed playoffs)
90-91: 19,664
91-92: 19,723
92-93: 19,714
93-94: 19,820
94-95: 19,780
95-96 to present, 100% capacity, every night.

Thanks for trying though.

and if you want to go through all the NFL teams pre and post cap, feel free. I don't have the need to convince my self, you're the one needing convincing. Don't forget to include the dynasties of Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco.

 

[Guest]

If all teams have a high number of talented players on them, we should expect to see a lot of near-.500 records, right? Does being just a bit above .500 make you mediocre, regardless of the amount of talent on your team and the amount of talent you compete against?

Are you seeing better games when two teams are evenly matched, or when one team has a significant advantage due to the talent of their players?

And these unevenly matched teams have to resort to clutching and grabbing just to compete with the better teams. I know I love to see the best players on the ice tow 200 lbs. men behind them by their sticks or a free hand, that's why I watch hockey.

You could also argue that the cap would increase the depth in the league by redistributing it. If the really talented teams like Ottawa for example, were to lose a few players who are skilled, then the receiving teams would improve. It also might give a younger or unknown player more of a chance to play for Ottawa that they didn't have before. Even if it's just a 3rd liner, it could make a difference on a bigger scale.

I personally would rather see a 7 goal game with the score of 4-3 than 5-2 or 6-1, if the teams are more evenly matched and they can actually score a few goals, it might just be enjoyable.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If all teams have a high number of talented players on them, we should expect to see a lot of near-.500 records, right? Does being just a bit above .500 make you mediocre, regardless of the amount of talent on your team and the amount of talent you compete against?

Are you seeing better games when two teams are evenly matched, or when one team has a significant advantage due to the talent of their players?

I think in the NFL, when two good teams are playing, the football is good. Other than that, it can get really, really ugly. Millions of penalties, dumb plays, punts, etc.

Medicority is measured in realitive terms, so yeah, if you have a bunch of teams with lots of good players, .500 is mediocre. To turn the argument around, if all the teams are bad, but finish .500, they're still mediocre within the context of the time period. There still has to be a best and worst bad or good team, so those in the middle are mediocre.

 

[OpinionatedMike]

Just so everyone knows, the Wings did buy a cup.

Moving on.

It all depends on how you look at the situation, I don't see what's wrong with an NFL system. It provides a lot of money to the owners, which seems to be a bad thing, and it's the most popular sport in North America, the Super Bowl is watched by MILLIONS. I don't see how the NHL becoming popular is a bad thing. Maybe it is, but I don't see how.

You cannot get the NHL popular with the way it is now, losing 9 NHL teams also won't help the NHL become the most popular sport either.

I have less of a problem with an owner asking to gain some money in something he's put forward, then I do seeing 3rd and 4th line NHLers asking for 1 Million Dollar contracts, and that's where it ends for me. I have no problem with players (who are greedy in their own way) asking to be paid top dollar, but the question is what is top dollar? I say 7 Million.....spoiled brats, who needs more then 7 Million?

But when I see players of decent talent getting 5 Million, 4 Million, 2 Million, heck even ONE million, that's where MY personal problem is.

And you can't blame the "rich" teams, they have millions of people in their cities, they have the ability to raise prices to the demand that people will pay. The problem is that they then go and pay 1.65 Million to a 4th line player. Well then every 4th line player should be getting 1.65 Million (in the eyes of the player).

That's the problem, I don't BLAME Edmonton, or Carolina, I blame the owners for moving Carolina, but thats a different issue. You can't BLAME small market teams for not spending, and you can't blame large market teams for over spending.

I don't THINK a cap would hurt, but I don't think a cap is NEEDED.

There are tons of other things that can be done to curb spending of the lucky/rich teams. The Red Wings, Leafs, Rangers and such.