Can Ottawa keep their core with a cap or without one?

[EJsens1]

I've seen some talk here the last couple days, people using Ottawa as a prime example of a team who will lose either way in a capped system or not.

From what I see, the positions are (roughly)....

Cap-With their team getting better, players will want raises. Assuming and a big assumption at that, having a cap in the 30-40 million range for arguments sake, they'll have to dump some of their players to fit under the cap when guys like Hossa, Havlat, Spezza, etc., reach their primes and want more money.

No cap-That they are located in a small market environment and despite having Eugene Melnyk as owner, still wouldn't be able to afford a team salary for all their players as the team potentially get's better.

I know this could be argued for alot of teams as well, but Ottawa seems to be the example I've noticed alot recently. Some say they will benefit, others don't. As a Sens fan, I'm curious which way would benefit and keep this team together or not.

Click to read more...

 

[ceber]

Depends on how much the owner is willing to lose, doesn't it? I mean, if he doesn't mind continuing to lose money (last bit I saw on TSN.ca had them losing less money by not playing.. don't know how accurate that is), it'd be better for them if there was no cap, right?

On the other side of the coin, if the owner is eventually going to say enough is enough, a cap may help. Since every team will have cap pressure, the rise in salaries will be lower since teams won't be as willing to make bigger offers to guys. If the cap also includes some sort of incentive to keep players on the same teams (90% of returning contract salary counts against the cap, etc.), who knows how good it could be?

 

[SENSible1*]

Depends on how much the owner is willing to lose, doesn't it? I mean, if he doesn't mind continuing to lose money (last bit I saw on TSN.ca had them losing less money by not playing.. don't know how accurate that is), it'd be better for them if there was no cap, right?

On the other side of the coin, if the owner is eventually going to say enough is enough, a cap may help. Since every team will have cap pressure, the rise in salaries will be lower since teams won't be as willing to make bigger offers to guys. If the cap also includes some sort of incentive to keep players on the same teams (90% of returning contract salary counts against the cap, etc.), who knows how good it could be?

Until the downward pressure on salaries works itself out and more importantly until the actual terms of a "cap" are negotiated, there is no way of telling if the Sens (or any other team) would be better or worse off under a cap.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

If there is a true hard salary Cap ala the NFL, the Senators have absolutely no chance to keep the core (Hossa, Alfie, Havlat, Spezza, Redden and Chara) together.

 

[SENSible1*]

If there is a true hard salary Cap ala the NFL, the Senators have absolutely no chance to keep the core (Hossa, Alfie, Havlat, Spezza, Redden and Chara) together.

"A true hard salary cap" is just one of a myriad forms that "cost certainty" can take.

Don't believe the PA's stance that a 31M hard cap is the only thing the NHL has put on the table. Do you think the NHL wrote "31 M--hard cap" out 6 times on a sheet of paper and handed it to the union? The NHL has shown a willingness to look at different methods of implementation, as long as salaries are tied to revenue.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

"A true hard salary cap" is just one of a myriad forms that "cost certainty" can take.

Don't believe the PA's stance that a 31M hard cap is the only thing the NHL has put on the table. Do you think the NHL wrote "31 M--hard cap" out 6 times on a sheet of paper and handed it to the union? The NHL has shown a willingness to look at different methods of implementation, as long as salaries are tied to revenue.

All essentially did the exact same thing, and would limit teams to spending at the $31 million number.

On top of the the question was asked if the Sens would be able to keep their team together under either situation.

My premise is that if they go to an NFL style hard cap, the Sens have NO CHANCE to keep their team together.

 

[PecaFan]

I think it's obvious. A cap means lower salaries than the current system. (that's the whole point of a cap) Is it easier to keep together a higher price team, or a lower price team? Obviously, the lower price team.

But, let's assume that they can't keep everybody, for whatever reason. With a cap system, *management* will decide who to get rid of. Older, overpaid veterans, etc.

Under the current system, they wouldn't get to choose. It'd be *finances* choosing who got let go. The best players, the ones you most want to keep, yet can't afford.

Either way, the cap system works better for Ottawa.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I think it's obvious. A cap means lower salaries than the current system. (that's the whole point of a cap) Is it easier to keep together a higher price team, or a lower price team? Obviously, the lower price team.

But, let's assume that they can't keep everybody, for whatever reason. With a cap system, *management* will decide who to get rid of. Older, overpaid veterans, etc.

Under the current system, they wouldn't get to choose. It'd be *finances* choosing who got let go. The best players, the ones you most want to keep, yet can't afford.

Either way, the cap system works better for Ottawa.

Under a hard salary cap FINANCES will play a major role in deciding which players to keep and/or to let go. Take a look at the NFL if you don't think this is the case.

If the NHL adopts an NFL type system (won't happen) the league will become much more of a year to year league, and teams will have an incredibly difficult time building for the long haul.

It will be much easier to go from being real bad to real good .. and also real good to real bad. Much much harder to stay consistantly good.

 

[degroat*]

Once again... can someone please find a source for the $31M for me? Daly and Bettman have been saying 50% of revenues and that equals out to $35M.

 

[degroat*]

Under a hard salary cap FINANCES will play a major role in deciding which players to keep and/or to let go. Take a look at the NFL if you don't think this is the case.

If the NHL adopts an NFL type system (won't happen) the league will become much more of a year to year league, and teams will have an incredibly difficult time building for the long haul.

It will be much easier to go from being real bad to real good .. and also real good to real bad. Much much harder to stay consistantly good.

You're overblowing the problem, considerably. Teams have proven time and time again in the NFL that if you manage correctly you can stay competive for a rather long time. Your Eagles are a pretty good example having gone to the NFC Championship the last 3 years and on their way to do it again.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You're overblowing the problem, considerably. Teams have proven time and time again in the NFL that if you manage correctly you can stay competive for a rather long time. Your Eagles are a pretty good example having gone to the NFC Championship the last 3 years and on their way to do it again.

The Eagles and Pats have done it, the Eagles for 5 years and the Pats for 4 years. For the most part they've the exceptions to the rule, and it will get very very difficult for the Pats when Tom Brady get his new huge money contract next year.

 

[PecaFan]

Under a hard salary cap FINANCES will play a major role in deciding which players to keep and/or to let go. Take a look at the NFL if you don't think this is the case.

Under a cap, finances influence *management* decisions.
Without the cap, finances *alone* makes the decisions.

That's the difference.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Under a cap, finances influence *management* decisions.
Without the cap, finances *alone* makes the decisions.

That's the difference.

if you think it's that simple you have no idea.

Do you think the San Francisco 49ers wanted to let their two best offensive players (Terrel Owens and Jeff Garcia) leave ??? No, they couldn't fit them under the cap, so they had to let them walk, and now they're horrible.

Come this offseason the Indy Colts are going to have to decide whether to keep Marvin Harrison or Edgerin James, because they'll only be able to afford to keep one of them.

The Eagles this past year had to let both of their starting cornerbacks who were among the best in the NFL(Vincent & Taylor) leave via free agency because they were getting too expensive.

 

[mytor4*]

you talk about the sens losing some players if a cap is put in.the point i don't understand is where are these players going to go. since the other teams will be maxed at there cap they won't be able to take on good players without losing there good players. your theory on a cap is a catch 22 . won't happen as you see it . sens will keep there players as no other team can take them without losing there own. cap of sort is good.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

you talk about the sens losing some players if a cap is put in.the point i don't understand is where are these players going to go. since the other teams will be maxed at there cap they won't be able to take on good players without losing there good players. your theory on a cap is a catch 22 . won't happen as you see it . sens will keep there players as no other team can take them without losing there own. cap of sort is good.

Best teams have more good players, and they lose them to weaker teams that have less good players.

Say for example Ottawa has 6 elite players and another 4 or 5 real good players.

Columbus has 2 elite players and 3 other real good players.

Ottawa can't fit all those players under the cap and a less talented team, will have the money to be able to pay a player or two that the Sens can't fit under the cap.

 

[garry1221]

you talk about the sens losing some players if a cap is put in.the point i don't understand is where are these players going to go. since the other teams will be maxed at there cap they won't be able to take on good players without losing there good players. your theory on a cap is a catch 22 . won't happen as you see it . sens will keep there players as no other team can take them without losing there own. cap of sort is good.

exactly, what most anti-cap people forget about is that the situation will be the same across the board. Players will realize that if they want to play they'll have to settle for less of a raise than they've been used to over the last decade. It in no way means that every team will be broken apart every year. Just that players will have to deal with smaller raises, and eventually when more of the high priced vets retire, the next wave of players will have already been used to the lesser raises and won't be crying over not making high 7 or 8 figure salaries.

 

[mytor4*]

Best teams have more good players, and they lose them to weaker teams that have less good players.

Say for example Ottawa has 6 elite players and another 4 or 5 real good players.

Columbus has 2 elite players and 3 other real good players.

Ottawa can't fit all those players under the cap and a less talented team, will have the money to be able to pay a player or two that the Sens can't fit under the cap.

yes i agree but over time it will equal itself out. once all teams have at least 4 good players[6 mil each =24 mil] they won't be able to take on more without going over the cap.

 

[degroat*]

The Eagles and Pats have done it, the Eagles for 5 years and the Pats for 4 years. For the most part they've the exceptions to the rule, and it will get very very difficult for the Pats when Tom Brady get his new huge money contract next year.

It goes beyond those teams. The Rams also fit into the category and there are plenty of other teams that have consistantly made the playoffs over the last 5 years... Indy, Minnesota, etc. Teams have proven that if you managed the cap well that it is very possible to stay competitive in the NFL. Teams, such as the 49ers (who you mentioned), are in the situation they are in because they have no clue how to manage a cap.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

It goes beyond those teams. The Rams also fit into the category and there are plenty of other teams that have consistantly made the playoffs over the last 5 years... Indy, Minnesota, etc. Teams have proven that if you managed the cap well that it is very possible to stay competitive in the NFL. Teams, such as the 49ers (who you mentioned), are in the situation they are in because they have no clue how to manage a cap.

Minnesota has missed the playoff 3 years running.

Indy has made the playoffs 4 of 5 years, but has won just 1 playoff game.

 

[GKJ]

once all teams have at least 4 good players[6 mil each =24 mil] they won't be able to take on more without going over the cap.

And that is why the numbers that Bettman is throwing around is completely absurd

 

[degroat*]

Minnesota has missed the playoff 3 years running.

Indy has made the playoffs 4 of 5 years, but has won just 1 playoff game.

Hmm... didn't realize Minnesota had missed that much recently. That said, the point still stands. Teams that are managed well can stay good for quite a few years.

 

[degroat*]

And that is why the numbers that Bettman is throwing around is completely absurd

How so?

 

[Chelios]

To me the most important aspect of a cap is that every team is on the same financial level. When every team is on the same level financially it will be the teams that manage their players the best that will come out on top. It is as simple as that. It is true that Ottawa might not be able to keep all their core players under a cap, but they would be no more likely to lose them than they are under the current system. Most people believe that if a cap is implemented and revenue sharing is increased their will be some sort of salary floor. If this is the case each team, even the lower spending ones, would have little room to maneuver, and therefore would not be able to make these huge offers to free agents. I think that under a cap you`ll see alot of players accept a lower salary to stay with a contender. To apply it to this situation, I could see (under a cap) Spezza staying in Ottawa for 3 million rather than heading off to Columbus for 4.5 million.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I think that under a cap you`ll see alot of players accept a lower salary to stay with a contender. To apply it to this situation, I could see (under a cap) Spezza staying in Ottawa for 3 million rather than heading off to Columbus for 4.5 million.

Players go where the money is, in all sports. Very very rarely do players take less money.

 

[Chelios]

Players go where the money is, in all sports. Very very rarely do players take less money.

I don`t agree. Sure there will be alot of players who will go where they can get the best buck. But I am positive that if there is only say a $1 million difference in the offers, there are alot of players who will stay on with the contenders rather than take the money with a crappy team. Also, under the current system there are alot of players who would accept less money to stay where they are, but the union puts alot of pressure on them to take the best deal, regardless of what they want. A cap would players who wanted to stay put a reason to do so, even if it meant less money.