Cap exemptions for re-signing players?

[hockeytown9321]

I particularily like this quote from the article:

"This is the new collective bargaining agreement and I guess we're being punished because we have too many strong players," said Muckler. "When you have a cap system, you are going to have movement."

If thunderstruck is reading this, I'll take you off my ignore list so I can see your apology.

 

[kdb209]

I don't get your point, if Pittsburgh gets there new rink, if these youngsters all develop into a dynamite core of superstars, if Pens are rolling in dough, you have no problem with them being forced to weaken there team because of cap issues. Why not have a luxury tax where they can keep as many as they can afford.

The problem is, that even if Pittsbugh gets a new arena, they are not "rolling in dough". Yes, they are in a much better situation than they are in right now, but they will still have significantly lower revenues than the larger market teams (Rangers, Leafs, etc) - larger markets will be able to charge more for tickets and Luxury Boxes, have more lucrative cable deals, get more revenue from adverising and sponsorships, etc. If you allow teams to overspend with a "luxury tax", those bigger market teams will still be able to outbid the Pens for their "dynamite core of superstars", let alone any multi-billionaire owner who doesn't mind losing money to stoke his ego with a championship. The league would be right back to where it was before the lockout. Just look at MLB and tell me that luxury taxes work.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

I was and still am anti-salary cap but right now the agreement is signed and there is nothing that should be done right now to change it. If teams want to address this the next CBA thats their right, but to change it after one offseason isn't right IMO.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Just look at MLB and tell me that luxury taxes work.

Bud Selig seems to think the luxury tax is working just fine:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14921887.htm

"Commissioner Bud Selig is convinced that the current system is working and the luxury tax helps spread the wealth among the have-nots"

Its not the Yankees fault Pittsburgh's owner pockets his share of revenue sharing or luxury tax money instead of improving his team.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Bud Selig seems to think the luxury tax is working just fine:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14921887.htm

"Commissioner Bud Selig is convinced that the current system is working and the luxury tax helps spread the wealth among the have-nots"

Its not the Yankees fault Pittsburgh's owner pockets his share of revenue sharing or luxury tax money instead of improving his team.

I don't know how the Yankees are financing their new stadium, but I do know that the team was wanting money from the city and state until they realized that if they self-financed the project, they wouldn't have to share revenues from the new stadium.

Granted, if there's going to be revenue sharing there should be something to force owners who collect to put that money into the team, but when only 11,000 people are showing up each night it's hard to generate a lot of money to plow back into the team in the first place.

And then there's the Marlins, who essentially loaded up before each of their two World Series titles and then immediately dismantled the team per ownership's demand to carry as little payroll as absolutely possible.

 

[Cabin Mirror]

There should be an exception that allows a contending team to acquire a player in the final year of his contract even if they go over the cap. If they go over they wouldn't be allowed to sign anyone for more than the minimum salary and would have to get back under by July 1. It would make the trade deadline more exciting.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I don't know how the Yankees are financing their new stadium, but I do know that the team was wanting money from the city and state until they realized that if they self-financed the project, they wouldn't have to share revenues from the new stadium.

The Yankees are paying for about 75% of the new stadium:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4732

Granted, if there's going to be revenue sharing there should be something to force owners who collect to put that money into the team,

There definitely should be. I can't see Pittsburgh or Kansas City's owners agreeing to it though, and the Yankees or Red Sox probably don't care enough to make it an issue during the next CBA.

but when only 11,000 people are showing up each night it's hard to generate a lot of money to plow back into the team in the first place.

Its a chicken and egg situation. Its hard to generate enthusiasm from fans when they know they the team won't even make an attempt to reward them for their support.

 

[free0717]

I think the cap should be just that. The owners wanted this. Now they are losing there best players.

The only thing I would change is the averaging of Multi year Contracts.

For Instance, A team like the Rangers Have cap room this year but anticipate not having cap room two to three years down the road can offer a player more money this year and less money in the future. They would still have to be under the cap.

The Rangers could have gone to max money this year for Elias and less money in future years. This would give GMs more flexibility in contract signing.

 

[thebigstubbs*]

So

If Team A aquires player 1 before he becomes an UFA or RFA

he would be home grown talent and the team could sign him for whatever they like

Hockey needs a hard cap for awhile

teams are already finding ways around it