Complex CBA could turn fans away from the NHL

[vopatsrash]

to me, it boils down to what you cherish the most as a fan.

Rooting for the name on the back of the sweater
Do you like a system where you can keep the players you develop and become attached to and maybe lose them to a team that goes out and plucks 30 years olds from poorer team's rosters when they can no longer afford them, thus potentially affecting competitive balance because 2-3 teams are basically all star teams?

Rooting for the sweater
Or do you like a system where every team can spend the same amount, you will lose some of your homegrown talent, but you have a chance to win based on shrewd development of young players, coaching, and strategic keeping of certain homegrown talent?

A cap is a mixed bag because you can only expect a player to be on a team for about 4-5 years, tops. Here's an example in the NFL...the Tennessee Titans just had to cut their best WR, their best 2 DB's, and their best defensive lineman to stay under the cap. 3 out of those 4 were drafted/developed by the titans and now they're gone and the team will struggle for a year or two. However, every team has to purge at some point, so it evens out. without that system, the Titans, Jaguars, Colts, Packers, etc. could not compete with the Cowboys, Giants, and Jets.

I can see why someone would like either point of view. I certainly like keeping the players i like on my teams. However, if drastically changing the payroll disparity that existed in the NHL brings better competitive balance and better stabilizes most of the league financially, I'm certainly for losing some players i like every few years. You'll lose some one year and you'll gain some the next. It all evens out in the end and puts even more of a premium on the coach and the GM.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I guess the way I look at it, even if the UFA age lowers to 28 I don't think we'll see teams that draft well, run an efficient ship and treat their players with respect suddenly see them bolt for the hills. If their current team can compete with what other teams are offering in terms of dollars, doesn't that reduce the chance that player leaves?

The amount that the 'base' team can offer for a player to stay will be totally dependent on how much cap room they have. So if they want to keep, lets say Havlat or Lecavalier, they will have to gut their team of Alfredsson or Richards.

The team building will become about choices, and not an elite assembly of players.


Instead of Redden and Chara, it will be Redden or Chara... Instead of Richards and St. Louis, it will be Richards OR ST. Louis... etc... its going to become a game of choices, and they will gut theier teams.

Looking at the history of the previous CBA, it was unecessary for Tampa or Ottawa to chose between those two players, for example. Now they will have to. If you don't consider this 'gutting' the tesam, than I don't know what kinda rationalizing you're doing.

 

[Ar-too]

The NHL/NHLPA would be well advised to keep the CBA as simple as possible. Fans do not want to be lawyers/accountants. If the new CBA is too complex I can see it turning fans off and away from the game. We don't want formula's to figure out our favourite teams roster!!!!

Shoaltes of the G & M said it will be a very complicated agreement, possibly the most complex in sports. IMO the last thing the NHL needs.

He said 36 million hard cap which includes about 5 million per team in player costs and a floor of about 22 million which also includes up to 5 million in player costs so in essence we have a 31 million hard and a 24 soft cap with luxury tax at 100% on spending over 24 and a floor of around 17 million. IMO, too complex. Scrap the floor and KISS.

That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. I don't care about the particulars of the CBA. Player movement generates interest. Player movement among all teams generates even more interest. This CBA indicates that we're going to have lots of player movement with all of the teams. That's a good thing.

 

[Ar-too]

The team building will become about choices, and not an elite assembly of players.

Still, if you make the right choices and draft well, you will succede. The Sens are likely to be big winners here. Being able to keep some of their stars is better than being able to keep none of their stars.

 

[Jester]

The amount that the 'base' team can offer for a player to stay will be totally dependent on how much cap room they have. So if they want to keep, lets say Havlat or Lecavalier, they will have to gut their team of Alfredsson or Richards.

The team building will become about choices, and not an elite assembly of players.


Instead of Redden and Chara, it will be Redden or Chara... Instead of Richards and St. Louis, it will be Richards OR ST. Louis... etc... its going to become a game of choices, and they will gut theier teams.

Looking at the history of the previous CBA, it was unecessary for Tampa or Ottawa to chose between those two players, for example. Now they will have to. If you don't consider this 'gutting' the tesam, than I don't know what kinda rationalizing you're doing.

top-flight player salaries will begin to fit into the new economic model... that is the most obvious thing that will occur. these guys won't be making 10 mil, they'll be making 4 mil... if someone wants to offer them 20% of their cap space, let them... they won't have the money to compete with your more balanced roster with more depth.

so no... you won't necessarily have to gut your team, you will have to manage your cap space and make wise decisions. the management group each team has will be much more important... just like it is in the NFL.

 

[The Old Master]

to me, it boils down to what you cherish the most as a fan.

Rooting for the name on the back of the sweater
Do you like a system where you can keep the players you develop and become attached to and maybe lose them to a team that goes out and plucks 30 years olds from poorer team's rosters when they can no longer afford them, thus potentially affecting competitive balance because 2-3 teams are basically all star teams?

Rooting for the sweater
Or do you like a system where every team can spend the same amount, you will lose some of your homegrown talent, but you have a chance to win based on shrewd development of young players, coaching, and strategic keeping of certain homegrown talent?

A cap is a mixed bag because you can only expect a player to be on a team for about 4-5 years, tops. Here's an example in the NFL...the Tennessee Titans just had to cut their best WR, their best 2 DB's, and their best defensive lineman to stay under the cap. 3 out of those 4 were drafted/developed by the titans and now they're gone and the team will struggle for a year or two. However, every team has to purge at some point, so it evens out. without that system, the Titans, Jaguars, Colts, Packers, etc. could not compete with the Cowboys, Giants, and Jets.

I can see why someone would like either point of view. I certainly like keeping the players i like on my teams. However, if drastically changing the payroll disparity that existed in the NHL brings better competitive balance and better stabilizes most of the league financially, I'm certainly for losing some players i like every few years. You'll lose some one year and you'll gain some the next. It all evens out in the end and puts even more of a premium on the coach and the GM.

i'm not so sure it will be like you say, with all teams under the cap, team [a] won't be able to offer that much more for a player than team so will a player want to move his family for a few dollars more?

 

[Hasbro]

It's what killed the NFL and NBA

 

[hockeyfan33]

The amount that the 'base' team can offer for a player to stay will be totally dependent on how much cap room they have. So if they want to keep, lets say Havlat or Lecavalier, they will have to gut their team of Alfredsson or Richards.

The team building will become about choices, and not an elite assembly of players.


Instead of Redden and Chara, it will be Redden or Chara... Instead of Richards and St. Louis, it will be Richards OR ST. Louis... etc... its going to become a game of choices, and they will gut theier teams.

Looking at the history of the previous CBA, it was unecessary for Tampa or Ottawa to chose between those two players, for example. Now they will have to. If you don't consider this 'gutting' the tesam, than I don't know what kinda rationalizing you're doing.

I completely agree with this post. IN the previous cba, you build then for 6-7 years you contend. (detroit, Colorado, New Jeresy, etc..) once you are a contender, to keep your team together the next few years your payroll goes up about 10 or so million while you make runs at the cup. Then eventually you'll move to the bottom of the list as your vets start retiring and teams like Tampa (young up and coming) move to the top for the next 5 or so years.

So now if Tampa pays Lecavlier, Richards, khabibulin 5-6 million a year that will basically take up half of their payroll and they won't have enough money left to fill the rest of the depth on the team and will have to either trade on of the 3 or have a weak supporting cast for them. What happens? they sucked and built a team for about 5 years, one only one cup and will go back to an average or team again because they can't keep their team together because of a cap.

 

[vopatsrash]

i'm not so sure it will be like you say, with all teams under the cap, team [a] won't be able to offer that much more for a player than team so will a player want to move his family for a few dollars more?

well, the players were willing to fight for this cba (their words) to the point of season cancellation for a few dollars more, so i'm sure it's possible.

It really depends on the player. some are motivated by money. some are motivated by family. some are motivated by winning.

and it might not be like I say, because who knows what the final numbers/set up will be? My point is that with a cap every team is in the same boat. Without a cap, the teams are not in the same boat when some are restricted by their individual financials and some are not.

 

[AM]

which rational fans?

Its pretty ignorant to say that the CBA agreed upon doesn't matter. The CBA proposed by the league, and unfortunately at least semi-accepted by the PA will make NHL hockey far less enjoyable for any rational fans in North America. What is scary is these same fans are anticipating the new system as some type of utopia, when the exact opposite will occur.

You mean like you?

Sorry bad joke.

Well, as usual, we disagree 100%.

I wont bother making an arguement, I expect all rational fans to know what I'd say!

 

[WC Handy*]

The odds of a younger team being broken up are far more likely under a salary cap system than under the old, ingenious system.

If you readily admit that the players will leave no matter what , when they hit their prime, something that didn't happen under the previous CBA, than you are readily admitting that this CBA is far worse for fans and smaller market teams. That much is obvious to anyone with common sense, and congratulations on finally realizing it.


You actually think a cap ENCOURAGES teams to stay together? Are you that moronic?

THE PLAYER TURNOVER WILL INCREASE DRAMATICALLY UNDER A SALARY CAP SYSTEM, AND EACH TEAM WILL BE LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF ELITE TALENT THEY CAN CARRY, INCLUDING THE SMALL MARKETS. UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM, THE SMALL MARKETS COULD BECOME ELITE IF THEY DRAFTED AND DEVELOPED TALENT. NOW THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Only someone with no clear understanding of cause and effect relationships would believe that this CBA will decrease player movement and make the league better for fans.

It didn't? LOL. Tell that to Edmonton. Tell that to any number of small market teams. The difference now is that it will happen to EVERY team and not just certain teams.

Jeez you're dense...

 

[MarkZackKarl]

.

What elite players did Edmonton develop that they lost during their prime years?

So now you say its fairer (even though your assertion that it existed in the first place is faulty) for ALL teams to be consistently broken up, instead of a select few (once again, this only happened if the team was not good enough to win in the first place)??

Thats some good antilogic you got going on there.

If you still believe spending money UNLESS the team has already won was an advantage under the previous system, you clearly have no understanding of it, and thus are not qualified to correctly assess the differences between that agreement and the coming agreement (although I will admit that we don't know all the concrete details, a good idea of what is coming is taking shape more and more each day.)

Limiting Edmonton to be at best slightly above average in a capped world will decrease their chances at winning, not increase them.

Am I the only one here capable of seeing this? Maybe I am expecting too much out of this board for intelligent conversation

 

[Montrealer]

What elite players did Edmonton develop that they lost during their prime years?

So now you say its fairer (even though your assertion that it existed in the first place is faulty) for ALL teams to be consistently broken up, instead of a select few (once again, this only happened if the team was not good enough to win in the first place)??

Thats some good antilogic you got going on there.

If you still believe spending money UNLESS the team has already won was an advantage under the previous system, you clearly have no understanding of it, and thus are not qualified to correctly assess the differences between that agreement and the coming agreement (although I will admit that we don't know all the concrete details, a good idea of what is coming is taking shape more and more each day.)

Limiting Edmonton to be at best slightly above average in a capped world will decrease their chances at winning, not increase them.

Am I the only one here capable of seeing this? Maybe I am expecting too much out of this board for intelligent conversation

This from the guy railing about his beloved Senators being broken apart without even knowing what the final terms of the CBA are going to be, let alone knowing with any sort of certainty the effects of said CBA on the various franchises and their players.

 

[LordHelmet]

Thanks.

Now can you change your avatar?

I live near the area where that ******* decapitated a 70 year old man and stabbed his 70 year old wife to death a few weeks ago.

Perhaps I'm just overly sensitive but seeing that guys face makes my skin crawl.

will do.

 

[speeds]

It didn't? LOL. Tell that to Edmonton. Tell that to any number of small market teams. The difference now is that it will happen to EVERY team and not just certain teams.

So then do you agree with scaredsensfans that roster turnover will increase?

Now not only will EDM and other small markets have that turnover, but so will every other team in the league, is that what you are saying?

 

[SENSible1*]

top-flight player salaries will begin to fit into the new economic model... that is the most obvious thing that will occur. these guys won't be making 10 mil, they'll be making 4 mil... if someone wants to offer them 20% of their cap space, let them... they won't have the money to compete with your more balanced roster with more depth.

so no... you won't necessarily have to gut your team, you will have to manage your cap space and make wise decisions. the management group each team has will be much more important... just like it is in the NFL.

Don't expect him to grasp this fact or admit it even if your excellent post allowed him to finally see the flaw in his thinking, but thanks for trying.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Part of this wise decision making is CHOOSING BETWEEN ELITE PLAYERS, something that DID NOT HAPPEN under the old CBA, at least with ELITE PLAYERS IN THEIR PRIME.

 

[speeds]

Don't expect him to grasp this fact or admit it even if your excellent post allowed him to finally see the flaw in his thinking, but thanks for trying.

It's a theory, not a fact, that top salaries are going to drop that drastically.

I might say that theory (star salaries dropping to 4-5 mil) is horribly misguided, but I might be wrong, who knows?

 

[Trottier]

The NHL/NHLPA would be well advised to keep the CBA as simple as possible. Fans do not want to be lawyers/accountants. If the new CBA is too complex I can see it turning fans off and away from the game. We don't want formula's to figure out our favourite teams roster!!!!

We're talking about running a multi-billion dollar business, not a fantasy league. Sure it would be nice if the CBA is dumbed down for the sake of those disinterested or incapable of expending brainpower.

However, one would guess (hope) it's not high on the list of priorities of the NHL and NHLPA.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Sure it will. Thats why they are lowering the UFA age right, to let teams hold on to the players they draft for less time. Thats exactly going to help teams that draft and develop talent.

Unless a team consistently drafts average NHL players with average NHL salaries to follow, they will continually (read: every year) bleed off any elite players that they develop after they reach a certain quota (lets say 4 per team) because quite frankly a salary cap will not allow any team to assemble a bunch of great players, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY DRAFT THEM

Even if the teams that can continually produce players have an advantage over those who cannot, it will be small. Since the cap acts as a centralizing type magnet where teams evenly spread out their dilluted talent with a near identical amount of elite players, this means that the SC champion will be decided by the luckiest team, not the best team, irregardless of any drafting greatness that a team may have.

You vastly underrated the role that good pro scouting, coaching and management would play in such a system.

To say it will all amount to luck is to admit your ignorance of such roles in hockey.

You shouldn't be scared if you believe your team has a good scouting staff, a good GM and a good coach. Those 3 things will separate the good teams from the poor. We've already seen that teams who can get whatever players they want (the Rangers) do not necessarily compete for anything. It's all about getting the right mix of players.

 

[WC Handy*]

What elite players did Edmonton develop that they lost during their prime years?

Perhaps Doug Weight?

So now you say its fairer (even though your assertion that it existed in the first place is faulty) for ALL teams to be consistently broken up, instead of a select few (once again, this only happened if the team was not good enough to win in the first place)??

Thats some good antilogic you got going on there.

Yes, it is fair for every team to have to deal with the same payroll constraints as opposed to the previous deal where players consitantly left smaller market teams for large market teams.

Limiting Edmonton to be at best slightly above average in a capped world will decrease their chances at winning, not increase them.

Edmonton will not be able to spend just about as much as every other team instead of having a payroll at about 50% of the highest payroll. And you think this decreases the chances of Edmonton winning? Wow.

Am I the only one here capable of seeing this? Maybe I am expecting too much out of this board for intelligent conversation

You still haven't figure out that there's a reason why no one agrees with you...

 

[SENSible1*]

It's a theory, not a fact, that top salaries are going to drop that drastically.

I might say that theory (star salaries dropping to 4-5 mil) is horribly misguided, but I might be wrong, who knows?

True each is just a theory.

One theory is plausible and the other isn't.

Guess we'll know by the end of the CBA which one is right, but I know where the smart money is going.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

What elite players did Edmonton develop that they lost during their prime years?

Edmonton lost Weight, Guerin and Joseph because they couldn't afford them. Why would it matter if they developed them or not? They lost them because of the unlevel playing field in the last CBA.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Stars will still get their money

The stars will still get their money. Even if the temporary resetting of salaries causes a downward trend to an average of 7.5 to 8 to 5.5 to 6... it will still even out in the end. The stars will be getting the most money. Not only that, but now that they are going to become UFA's significantly earlier than the previous CBA, it will drive up the salaries of those players to teams.

In the end, it will lead to a far more logical and balanced pay scale, but not in terms of monetary amounts. Instead, the system will be more reflective of a players actual value, and not the warped (but great) previous system that saw players get their big paydays AFTER they were out of their prime years.

This makes sense overall for the players but for the fans it sucks for sure.

Not only will a cap limit the amount of star players each team can have, thus decreasing a teams chance at winning (if 20 of the 30 teams are more or less interchangable, than that will DECREASE the cahnces of winning in a given year, compared to pre 2005 where there were obvious elite teams).

After that happens, a lower UFA age will ensure that players who are elite can move to other teams at an alarmingly increased rate... Ie Havlat Hossa Thornton will all be eligible to leave shortly, as opposed to 31 under the old agreement.

Since fans will be losing their players far more quickly and with far more frequency, this will lead to a decreased overall product. If Colorado is not distinguished from Buffalo in quality, who will care? How is watering down the product with no elite teams ever again (at least not during this CBA) going to increase interest? Why should fans care if peoeple in St. Louis are watching the NHL?

Its better that the league is more regional, putting less incentive on the league itself to try and have all the big stars gravitate to the big markets, which is of course their plan. You can't be seriousi f you believe that this lockout is to help the small markets ahead of the big markets... That doesn't make sense at all.

The league would much rather have a team in Manhattan win the Stanley Cup than a team in Colorado, Vancouver or Ottawa. Its a fact.

They are designing this CBA to make that more likely. Notice how they are also designing the draft to give the Rangers the best chance to get Crosby?

 

[Vast Ant Dioi]

Part of this wise decision making is CHOOSING BETWEEN ELITE PLAYERS, something that DID NOT HAPPEN under the old CBA, at least with ELITE PLAYERS IN THEIR PRIME.

Edmonton:
Weight
Guerin
Niinimaa
Carter
Marchant
Arnott
Joseph
and more

Calgary:
Fleury
MacInnis
Nieuwendyk

Didn't Ottawa "lose" Yashin because they wouldn't/couldn't pay him what he wanted? And, shock, it worked out for your team in the end.

Boston lost Allison.

NJ "lost" Holik.

Anaheim lost Kariya.

The list goes on and on...there are many, many cases of where teams had to choose between signing a player for what they wanted and keeping some other part of their team intact, or not overspending.

Open your eyes man, you're re-writing history to suit your horrible argument.