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

[thinkwild]

Simple. A salary cap isn't supposed to give some teams a better chance at winning. All it's supposed to do is lower and hold costs down.

Well if thats all the goal is, then why such intrasigence on other ways to achieve it? Surely you arent going to tell me that you cant think of a million other ways to do it?

 

[thinkwild]

i would hope we could keep as many of our guys as possible, but in the very first post Havlat and Spezza as examples. Havlat is a good player but he want the big dollars too much, he's not that much of a team player but a selfish one, i know its not all about the attitude of the player but as good as he is i could do without him. And Spezza........well he can still develop into a good player........but i don't think he is as great as some say he's got alot of growing to do!i still find him defensivley unstable and well i could live without him too i think.

Havlat and Spezza are going to be exciting stars in this league when they grow up. I hope they get exactly what they are worth in the system, as they define it. You shouldnt have to hope that they will take less than they are worth. Havlat was horribly underpaid, and the team was offering him less than the rookie cap after 3 years, which in hockey contract land, is a slap in the face. They all know it, although its hard for us to grasp. Havlat stood up for himself and got a fair deal after the hardball tactics of the team.

 

[PecaFan]

Well if thats all the goal is, then why such intrasigence on other ways to achieve it? Surely you arent going to tell me that you cant think of a million other ways to do it?

Since it's so easy, how about tossing out a few of these "other ways" to cut millions of dollars in expenses?

Maybe they should play the games in the dark, save on their energy bills?
Maybe they could walk to road games, instead of those expensive plane tickets?
Maybe the should play without sticks, since they cost money to buy?

 

[copperandblue]

I did not say shouldn't. I said wouldn't.

My mistake then. When you said "to answer the original question..." I took it to mean my original question which was should they....

Under a cap system they will shed talent because they are forced to shed it whether they hasve suitable replacement talent or not. Under a non-cap system they will shed talent because they produce so much talent they will have cheaper options that produce every bit as good of a team.

I don't really follow this, how does a cap effect producing talent and having cheaper options? I can appreciate that it may (stress may) effect the older established talent but if there is young talent in the system before the cap - there will be young talent after it as well.

Besides, moving out older talent is just an opportunity to bolster young talent more quickly. Which takes this full circle, SHOULD they keep this core together anyways?

The Senators may very well have peaked. It is very easy to get better if you are the pittsburgh Penguins. It is very hard to get better when you are the Ottawa Senators. That doesn't mean they won't win. All it means is that they have reached the point they are outstanding and very difficult to improve.

Your right, it doesn't mean they won't win but I think it is pretty clear that they won't win in the fashion that theyw ere expected to win in. It also seems pretty clear that they won't be winning for a number of years in a row - which is what they were expected to do a few short years ago.

At this point it is becoming more and more a single shot in the dark and that, to me, suggests that the time to blow the team up is coming closer and closer - again with or without a cap.

They don't have to get better to win. All they have to do is play better at the right time.

That describes 16 teams every spring when the playoffs start. Not a real good endorsment of a team that was SUPPOSED to win....

 

[copperandblue]

4 players get $6mil each, and the other 16-18split $7mil for what, im too tired for math. Dagenais and Commodore benefit from this how?

This type of argument doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me.

Everyone can make assumptions in order to make a point.

For example....

I will assume that the 31 mil cap number is a bargaining tactic to make the 40 mil real number look more attractive.

I will also assume that percentage wise, the star players will take less of a hit but real dollar wise they will.... for example a 9 mil player today will make 6 mil tomorrow. That pushes the pseudo stars down a bit as well or at best keeps them close to where they are.

So based on MY assumptions I will suggest that...

Ottawa's 4 star players (not necessarily top NHL stars) will be making less or very similar to what they have been and not continuing to rise up the pay scale....

Alfredsson will drop to 4.8 mil, Redden will drop to say 4.5 mil, Chara will stay the same at 4.6 and Hossa will creep to 3.5....

Geez that leaves 22.6 mil for the remaining 18 players... that seems pretty reasonable...factor in that last years team had 13 players below the remaining average for a total of 9.49 mil and all of a sudden your only looking at 5 additional guys to divide up the remaining 13.11 mil or on average 2.62 mil each....I dunno it seems pretty realistic...

 

[SENSible1*]

The Sens have not peaked and will still make significant strides. There is simply too much young developing talent to pretend they have. If it makes you feel better to do so, knock yourself out, but if you'd prefer to deal in reality, just check out the age of the core.

Their starting goaltending took them back a notch last season, but they have addressed that problem, at least in the short term. Even with poor play at the most crucial position in 03-04, they still managed 102 points--a dream season for most teams.

The CBA will be a major factor in determining how many cups they win. Until we know the specifics of the deal, it is difficult to determine the ramifications. If teams are allowed a discounted cap impact for homegrown talent, then it will significantly change the amount of player movement for all teams, the Sens included.

 

[copperandblue]

The Sens have not peaked and will still make significant strides. There is simply too much young developing talent to pretend they have. If it makes you feel better to do so, knock yourself out, but if you'd prefer to deal in reality, just check out the age of the core.

Fine, if the emerging talent is what will make the Sens an even better club then were is the problem with a cap? If a cap will contribute to salaries remaining static or slow the growth to match revenues then there should be no problem.

The emerging talent is a couple years from truly hitting their stride and in a couple years the old guard will have been moved along.... many here argue that is the correct way to do things.

Lats years team with the expensive older guard was still less then 40 mil there is nothing to suggest that the young players will develop to the point where they will eclipse that.

Their starting goaltending took them back a notch last season, but they have addressed that problem, at least in the short term. Even with poor play at the most crucial position in 03-04, they still managed 102 points--a dream season for most teams.

Yeah and that short term fix in net reeks of desperation....a sign that to me suggests management sees the window closing..... the coaching change as well...

The CBA will be a major factor in determining how many cups they win. Until we know the specifics of the deal, it is difficult to determine the ramifications. If teams are allowed a discounted cap impact for homegrown talent, then it will significantly change the amount of player movement for all teams, the Sens included.

The CBA has already been a factor in the number of cups the Senators have won. Imagine if they could have made a move for Hasek 3 years ago or made a move for Holik 2 years ago or......

However, very few teams were actually capable to pick them up for financial reasons and the Senators were left with the same holes that have plagued them for 6 years.

Ohh what could have been.....

 

[SENSible1*]

Fine, if the emerging talent is what will make the Sens an even better club then were is the problem with a cap? If a cap will contribute to salaries remaining static or slow the growth to match revenues then there should be no problem.

The emerging talent is a couple years from truly hitting their stride and in a couple years the old guard will have been moved along.... many here argue that is the correct way to do things.

I'm pro-cap, especially if it allows for additional spending on developed talent. The Sens have done a decent job in lining up replacement parts, regardless of the final CBA outcome.

Lats years team with the expensive older guard was still less then 40 mil there is nothing to suggest that the young players will develop to the point where they will eclipse that.

I'm sure the Sens will be able to hold the increase to a minimum this season. In the next couple of seasons, unless there is a major force reducing salaries, that will not be the case.

Yeah and that short term fix in net reeks of desperation....a sign that to me suggests management sees the window closing..... the coaching change as well.

No desperation at all. Simply a realization that Lalime was NOT the answer to their goaltending situation and that Hasek was by far the best option available. The fact that Hasek was willing to base his salary on his performance was simply a bonus. It may not work out, but it was a no-brainer once Hasek expressed interest.

If Hasek can get anywhere near his previous level, then the Sens will have the one ingredient they've always lacked--elite goaltending.

The CBA has already been a factor in the number of cups the Senators have won. Imagine if they could have made a move for Hasek 3 years ago or made a move for Holik 2 years ago or......

However, very few teams were actually capable to pick them up for financial reasons and the Senators were left with the same holes that have plagued them for 6 years.

Ohh what could have been.....

Bryden's ownership, not the previous CBA was the real problem in failing to exploit the old CBA. Melnyk bought a team that came within one goal of advancing to (and likely winning) the Stanley Cup. He had little incentive to spend extra because the team appeared poised, even without upgrades. So he decided to spend some money to keep the team together by re-signing Smolinski and then added salary by picking up Bondra.

The Sens window is no where near closed. They "underperformed" their way to a 102 point season and got knocked out by their nemesis in 7 games. If this season ever does get underway, the Sens will have a very good chance to prove you wrong.

 

[copperandblue]

Bryden's ownership, not the previous CBA was the real problem in failing to exploit the old CBA. Melnyk bought a team that came within one goal of advancing to (and likely winning) the Stanley Cup. He had little incentive to spend extra because the team appeared poised, even without upgrades. So he decided to spend some money to keep the team together by re-signing Smolinski and then added salary by picking up Bondra.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Granted, Bryden didn't do any great favours to Sens fans in his last few years as owner but he was not necessarily the problem in this specific regard.

For arguments sake (because I am just trying to make a point here) let's say the Senators were Hasek and Holik away from winning the cup- two players that were available at the right time and could be considered the right fit for the team. Two of the biggest critisisms (atleats that I have heard) have been lack of grit/leadership and suspect goaltending.

Would the Senators - even under Melnyk - have been able to go out and spend 16 mil on two players without Melnyk donating money to the team out of pocket?

I would say no. Everyone who argues against cost certainty points to the Rangers and says "what do you care, let them spend the money, their no good anyways and they're just hurting themselves...."

I say that when the Rangers (for example) spend 8 mil on a 4 mil player the trickle down effect includes things such as taking Ottawa out of the running through lack of affordability despite Ottawa's likely more appropriate fit for the player, greater, more urgent need and so on...

The Sens window is no where near closed. They "underperformed" their way to a 102 point season and got knocked out by their nemesis in 7 games. If this season ever does get underway, the Sens will have a very good chance to prove you wrong.

I can honestly say that I hope your right. I have no problems with the Sens and the expectations have been quite high for a while now.

However I still think, even if this team wins a cup next year, history will remember them as a bit of a disapointment based on the failed expectations and I also feel that cap or no cap - players like Alfredsson and certainly Hasek won't factor into the mix. The players that will factor in long term are still reasonably priced of quite inexpensive and again if the cap is a reaosnable number there shouldn't be any problem in the Sens keeping them for quite a long time.

 

[SENSible1*]

What Melnyk would have done in that situations is simply speculation. He has demonstrated, so far, a willingness to spend money. His tendancies in his other business ventures suggests that he would have taken an aggressive stance and paid the price to upgrade weaknesses in the past.

Bryden had no money because the shell game financing he favoured led to high debt servicing. Melnyk has a team and arena with solid revenue streams and no debt. He likely could let the payroll rise for a while still before it hits him too heavily in the pocketbook.

Personally, I think the current CBA is probably the Sens best chance at a "dynasty", but am more interested in the overall health of the league than just the Sens short term prospects.

 

[copperandblue]

What Melnyk would have done in that situations is simply speculation. He has demonstrated, so far, a willingness to spend money. His tendancies in his other business ventures suggests that he would have taken an aggressive stance and paid the price to upgrade weaknesses in the past.

You know there was a part of me that was happy that Melnyk bought the Sens, finally one of the little guys had an owner with deep pockets.

The problem with that is, it does the league no damn good to have owners that have deep pockets and are willing to spend out of them. That is how this problem became what it is.

The league needs to get to the point where every team is operating based on what the team can afford....not the owner.

Based on that, I think my point was valid....

 

[vanlady]

You know there was a part of me that was happy that Melnyk bought the Sens, finally one of the little guys had an owner with deep pockets.

The problem with that is, it does the league no damn good to have owners that have deep pockets and are willing to spend out of them. That is how this problem became what it is.

The league needs to get to the point where every team is operating based on what the team can afford....not the owner.

Based on that, I think my point was valid....

I have a question then, why doesn't the league just put in franchise financial rules about deficits and just skip the CBA issue all together. It's not like other franchise companies don't do it. Force GM's and owners into living within a budget, institute revenue sharing and the issue is taken care of without messing with the CBA

 

[SENSible1*]

I have a question then, why doesn't the league just put in franchise financial rules about deficits and just skip the CBA issue all together. It's not like other franchise companies don't do it. Force GM's and owners into living within a budget, institute revenue sharing and the issue is taken care of without messing with the CBA

Because the league is smart enough to want parity, instead of the richest teams simply owning all the best players.

If they followed your advice, the talent gap would rival baseball.

 

[YellHockey*]

Because the league is smart enough to want parity, instead of the richest teams simply owning all the best players.

If they followed your advice, the talent gap would rival baseball.

Except that players aren't on the free market until they reach 31. By then most players are "best players" in name recognition only.

The talent gap wouldn't happen simply because of the age of unrestricted free agency. That rule causes the best run teams to be the best teams.

 

[vanlady]

Because the league is smart enough to want parity, instead of the richest teams simply owning all the best players.

If they followed your advice, the talent gap would rival baseball.

Not with revenue sharing in place. And I am talking about strict revenue sharing not the likes of baseball

 

[dawgbone]

Except that players aren't on the free market until they reach 31. By then most players are "best players" in name recognition only.

The talent gap wouldn't happen simply because of the age of unrestricted free agency. That rule causes the best run teams to be the best teams.

Except that the rich teams can continue to set salary levels higher than everyone else. It's not the best teams setting the markets, it's the richest teams.

 

[dawgbone]

I have a question then, why doesn't the league just put in franchise financial rules about deficits and just skip the CBA issue all together. It's not like other franchise companies don't do it. Force GM's and owners into living within a budget, institute revenue sharing and the issue is taken care of without messing with the CBA

You mean telling the owners that they can't spend past a certain amount of money?

Uhh... what do you think the PA would say about that?

 

[vanlady]

Except that the rich teams can continue to set salary levels higher than everyone else. It's not the best teams setting the markets, it's the richest teams.

OK with revenue sharing, how are the rich teams the rich teams they are equal then.

 

[dawgbone]

Not with revenue sharing in place. And I am talking about strict revenue sharing not the likes of baseball

OK with revenue sharing, how are the rich teams the rich teams they are equal then.

And what would that do?

Would it reduce salaries from their current level, which is 75% of revenues? Now instead of punishing the big teams from spending as much as they make, you are cutting out what they make.

Why on earth would the owners agree to this? It makes no sense from their perspective.

 

[vanlady]

You mean telling the owners that they can't spend past a certain amount of money?

Uhh... what do you think the PA would say about that?

Absolutely nothing, it is illegal for them to compell a team to run a deficit if there is a fiscal responsibility clause in the franchise agreement.

 

[vanlady]

And what would that do?

Would it reduce salaries from their current level, which is 75% of revenues? Now instead of punishing the big teams from spending as much as they make, you are cutting out what they make.

Why on earth would the owners agree to this? It makes no sense from their perspective.

If the teams are not willing to revenue share then the league is doomed. Every major sports economist agrees on one thing, the NFL is a success because of revenue sharing. Basketball also supports that theory, because teams were still on the brink of bankruptcy with a cap, until the league put in a luxury tax and revenue sharing.

 

[dawgbone]

Absolutely nothing, it is illegal for them to compell a team to run a deficit if there is a fiscal responsibility clause in the franchise agreement.

WHEW... you just managed to duck out of the way of that question... that was close.

If your answer resembled anything close to a possible answer to my question, it would have been nice.

I never said force the owners to run a defecit (not even sure where you pulled that idea from)... I said tell the owners that they can't run a defecit, which means you are telling owners they can only spend a certain amount of money, thereby capping them.

The owners can't do that without doing it in the CBA.

 

[dawgbone]

If the teams are not willing to revenue share then the league is doomed. Every major sports economist agrees on one thing, the NFL is a success because of revenue sharing. Basketball also supports that theory, because teams were still on the brink of bankruptcy with a cap, until the league put in a luxury tax and revenue sharing.

So we are in agreement, share revenues, cap salaries and the league will be fine.

Perfect.

 

[vanlady]

WHEW... you just managed to duck out of the way of that question... that was close.

If your answer resembled anything close to a possible answer to my question, it would have been nice.

I never said force the owners to run a defecit (not even sure where you pulled that idea from)... I said tell the owners that they can't run a defecit, which means you are telling owners they can only spend a certain amount of money, thereby capping them.

The owners can't do that without doing it in the CBA.

Wrong, every major franchise organization in North America has a fiscal resposibility clause. It gives the franchisor the right to shut you down or fine you if you run a deficit. This is not a cap, it is called a budget, something that every responsible business has. Vancouver, Edmonton, Boston and other teams run this way why not the big boys too?

 

[vanlady]

So we are in agreement, share revenues, cap salaries and the league will be fine.

Perfect.

Share revenues with a strict luxury tax and the league will be fine.