Big Market team domination?

[tricksta189*]

With the cap expected to keep rising, are small market teams going to be screwed? TSN was saying that Philly/NY could be spending up to 60 million..how do small market teams compete? I'd rather not have the sport turn in to baseball...

Click to read more...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

$60 million in real dollars. They're still limited to $50.3 million in cap dollars - which means in the later years, guys will be counting more than they're making.

And yes ... they could be bought out - and that would be dead cap space the team would be carrying for years. Ask the San Francisco 49ers how easy it was to field a competitive team once Rice & Co. left and the team had to carry something like $22 million in dead cap space for a few years as a result.

 

[MerryJ99]

Someone tell me what the difference is between real dollars and CAP dollars?

Is it what they are spending in salary as compared to the CAP hit per year?

 

[GKJ]

The rich are still rich and the poor are still the poor. Almost makes you wonder if the salary cap was worth the lost season. I said in 2003 that it wasn't.

The team that make money can spend and the ones who don't make money will not. That is how it was before the lockout, and its still the same after the lockout. It's no surprise to the people who saw this coming 4 years ago.

Someone tell me what the difference is between real dollars and CAP dollars?

Is it what they are spending in salary as compared to the CAP hit per year?

As an example:

The Flyers will be paying $8M to Briere in 2007-08 (real dollars), but the cap hit will only be $6.5M for the duration of the contract. At the end of the deal, the last year is rumored to be $2 or $3M, but the cap hit will still be $6.5M

 

[kdb209]

The rich are still rich and the poor are still the poor. Almost makes you wonder if the salary cap was worth the lost season. I said in 2003 that it wasn't.

The team that make money can spend and the ones who don't make money will not. That is how it was before the lockout, and its still the same after the lockout. It's no surprise to the people who saw this coming 4 years ago.

Except before the lockout the haves would be spending in the $60M-$80M range and the have nots in the low to mid $20Ms.

Now the difference (at least in terms of cap dollars) can be at most $16M, and if the team has at least an average payroll, no more than $8M - big difference.

 

[tricksta189*]

Will the nhl start having the same problems it had that forced hockey in to a lockout?


Starting to look like small market teams are going to have no chance once again..and their fans will be gone.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Someone tell me what the difference is between real dollars and CAP dollars?

Is it what they are spending in salary as compared to the CAP hit per year?

Joe Schmoe signs a 5-year deal with the following salaries by year:

Year 1: $4 million
Year 2: $4.5 million
Year 3: $6 million
Year 4: $5 million
Year 5: $3.5 million

That's real dollars. He counts $4.6 million toward the salary cap (the average salary over his contract) - that's cap dollars.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Will the nhl start having the same problems it had that forced hockey in to a lockout?


Starting to look like small market teams are going to have no chance once again..and their fans will be gone.

Big market teams are always going to have an advantage over small market teams. The advantage has shrunk considerably.

As for the four teams that have been hurt the most in free agnecy:


Nashville - part of it is $$$$$, but a big part was also the fact that the uncertainlty of the situation. Where are they going to be playing in 2 years, 4 years etc.

New Jersey - New Jersey has always spent right to the cap and money has never been an issue in New Jersey. This year they are moving into a brand new arena and their revenue streams should jump considerably. Money wasn't the issue in New Jersey

NY Islanders - From all reports the Isles offered Smyth more than the Avs did, they also offered big money to Kariya from other reports. The players just chose other destinations.

Buffalo - could have had Briere locked up for 5 yrs. & $25 million last year and they chose not to do so. They didn't try and lock their players up before becoming UFA's. They had no conversations with the two players until just days before July, 1. It appears that they targeted the player who didn't really want to stay, Drury, and gave a joke of an offer to the one that did, Briere.

 

[Rich Nixon]

The Flyers will be paying $8M to Briere in 2007-08 (real dollars)

No, it's $10 million next year.

 

[GSC2k2*]

And I'll go blue in the face, to match my avatar - that the money is now spent on younger talent. At exactly the point when a team that drafts well and develops talent should be making that big push (and have more than a 2 yr window to do it) is the point where they get to compete with everyone else in the NHL for top (younger) talent.

And I will go equally blue in the face, pointing out that the methodology of building a team that you described is yesterday's technique.

 

[puck57]

Is there anything in the new CBA which sets a top limit to what the cap can be in a specific dollar amount like $80 or $100 mill or whatever or it is just always linked to what the revenues are from season to season? Anyone know?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Except before the lockout the haves would be spending in the $60M-$80M range and the have nots in the low to mid $20Ms.

Don't forget that those have nots who were spending in the low to mid 20's are now forced to spend at least $34.3M

 

[puck57]

There are no limits, it's just a range between 54-57% of NHL revenues starting at $2.1 billion or less up to $2.7 billion (57% thereafter).

Ah- so the most the cap can be is 57% of revenue no matter how high the revenue is. I guess the union would not have agreed to a set dollar amount for the ceiling since they gave in on the percentage. Thanks.

 

[Sotnos]

Don't forget that those have nots who were spending in the low to mid 20's are now forced to spend at least $34.3M

And they're getting revenue sharing to do it.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

And they're getting revenue sharing to do it.

If they can meet certain conditions re attendance and revenue growth (better than league's average), yes, they'll get the 'full share' of revenue sharing. If not??

GHOST

 

[Northern Dancer]

And isn't it interesting that some of the teams that were struggling pre new CBA are in the same boat post new CBA, perhaps that is telling us something about the economics of the NHL.

 

[BruiseBros]

Big market teams are always going to have an advantage over small market teams. The advantage has shrunk considerably.

As for the four teams that have been hurt the most in free agnecy:


Nashville - part of it is $$$$$, but a big part was also the fact that the uncertainlty of the situation. Where are they going to be playing in 2 years, 4 years etc.

New Jersey - New Jersey has always spent right to the cap and money has never been an issue in New Jersey. This year they are moving into a brand new arena and their revenue streams should jump considerably. Money wasn't the issue in New Jersey

NY Islanders - From all reports the Isles offered Smyth more than the Avs did, they also offered big money to Kariya from other reports. The players just chose other destinations.

Buffalo - could have had Briere locked up for 5 yrs. & $25 million last year and they chose not to do so. They didn't try and lock their players up before becoming UFA's. They had no conversations with the two players until just days before July, 1. It appears that they targeted the player who didn't really want to stay, Drury, and gave a joke of an offer to the one that did, Briere.

What mekes things worse, in Buffalo's case, is that (according to the Buffalo News), they could have had Drury signed to a 4 yr $21.5 mil offer back in September. That is under market value. Also, Briere says he would have accepted a $6 mil/yr offer, if it would have come close to after the season ended. Buffalo cannot cry about small market vs. Big market, they had the opportunity to set the market on a high-profile FA(Briere) and passed.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/111802.html

 

[Spungo*]

The rich are still rich and the poor are still the poor. Almost makes you wonder if the salary cap was worth the lost season. I said in 2003 that it wasn't.

The team that make money can spend and the ones who don't make money will not. That is how it was before the lockout, and its still the same after the lockout. It's no surprise to the people who saw this coming 4 years ago.

Oh please... the cap wasn't meant to allow the Nashville Predators to spend dollar for dollar what the New York Rangers spent. NOBODY... and I mean NOBODY (except you, perhaps) believed every single team would be at the cap limit every single year.

The cap was designed to decrease the spending distance between teams. It's no longer 80 million vs. 20 million. The most one team can outspend another is 50 million vs. 34 million.

Before lockout: 60 million dollar difference between highest and lowest spending teams.

After lockout: 16 million (maximum) difference between highest and lowest spending teams.

'NUFF SAID.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Oh please... the cap wasn't meant to allow the Nashville Predators to spend dollar for dollar what the New York Rangers spent. NOBODY... and I mean NOBODY (except you, perhaps) believed every single team would be at the cap limit every single year.

The cap was designed to decrease the spending distance between teams. It's no longer 80 million vs. 20 million. The most one team can outspend another is 50 million vs. 34 million.

Before lockout: 60 million dollar difference between highest and lowest spending teams.

After lockout: 16 million (maximum) difference between highest and lowest spending teams.

'NUFF SAID.

yet Bettman claimed the cap was required for financial stability of the league.

besides, NYR, PHI, TOR (the three highest spending teams) never won a thing under the old system (err 1 cup between them). spending 80m didnt give them any more cups than those teams spending 30m.

also, id like to see a list of the payrolls from the last 3 seasons before the lockout, i doubt there were many teams spending only 20m.

 

[kdb209]

yet Bettman claimed the cap was required for financial stability of the league.

besides, NYR, PHI, TOR (the three highest spending teams) never won a thing under the old system (err 1 cup between them). spending 80m didnt give them any more cups than those teams spending 30m.

also, id like to see a list of the payrolls from the last 3 seasons before the lockout, i doubt there were many teams spending only 20m.

$20M is a bit of an overstatement - mid to upper $20M's is a better reflection of the have nots:

http://andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Business/historical-payrolls.htm


Bottom 10 teams in Payroll ('03-'04):

Nashville 23.2
Florida 26.4
Pittsburgh 26.6
Minnesota 26.8
Atlanta 27.2
Edmonton 30.8
Chicago 31.6
Columbus 32.1
Buffalo 33.0
Tampa Bay 33.5

Top 10 teams in Payroll ('03-'04):

New Jersey 48.1
Washington 51.1
Anaheim 54.4
Colorado 60.9
St. Louis 61.2
Toronto 61.8
Philadelphia 65.1
Dallas 67.6
NY Rangers 77
Detroit 77.8

 

[EbencoyE]

With revenue sharing, the small market teams have no excuse not to pay up to the cap. If a team doesn't spend the money they are allowed to, it's purely the owner's fault.

 

[kdb209]

With revenue sharing, the small market teams have no excuse not to pay up to the cap. If a team doesn't spend the money they are allowed to, it's purely the owner's fault.

Sigh. How many times must it be sad - the CBA was NOT designed for every team to spend to the cap - it was designed for the average payroll to be the cap midpoint.

In fact, if those small market teams spend over the midpoint, they give up the second round of revenue sharing - the phase designed to get them from the cap midpoint minus $4M to the cap midpoint.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Sigh. How many times must it be sad - the CBA was NOT designed for every team to spend to the cap - it was designed for the average payroll to be the cap midpoint.

QUOTE]


According to Gary, the goal was 30 healthy and stable teams.

 

[FissionFire]

Which is why there is revenue sharing. The salary cap wasn't going to magically solve the financial ill's of every team. Besides, if Bettman was purely concerned with having 30 healthy and stable franchises, Balsille would own the Predators right now.

 

[Tb0ne]

Which is why there is revenue sharing. The salary cap wasn't going to magically solve the financial ill's of every team. Besides, if Bettman was purely concerned with having 30 healthy and stable franchises, Balsille would own the Predators right now.