Idea for a better NHL.

[Jay haller]

So this is another thread where a bunch of NYR and TOR fans try to convince the rest of us that the salary cap is a scourge ruining the league?

Except it is. The product is now crap. The NFL has the same problem because of a hard cap.

That Vegas is going to win the president’s trophy is prime evidence.

A cap floor with a luxury tax might be best. I mean you’ll still get circumventers like Arizona but teams like Chicago Toronto and NYC are not going to go all la dodgers in regards to the luxury tax either.

 

[lomiller1]

The main reason I bring up this idea is so that good management and good development aren't penalized

Good management and good development are not penalized under the currant system. In fact, it’s the only way to win consistently. The more you weaken the cap the less management and development matter and without a cap good management and god development don’t matter at all. At that point all than matters is how much you can pay to build your team, so good management/development go out the window.

 

[Butch 19]

Wow you seem very emotional about this...a little too emotional.

I was just pointing out that its much more than just "Toronto and new York" that would benefit from this.

I don't think the cap will ever go away, but I'm darn near sure that it will be modified substantially to help 75% of the league. Soft cap or franchise tag or an alternative, I'm not sure, but it should and will be changed.

Theres already some teams that will fold at this point. The sooner we get rid of them the better. I don't really see what the difference is.

and I'm just (non-emotionally - ha!) pointing out that several-to-many teams would be hurt by significant cap changes. And maybe moreso, why do you seem to care how much a player makes?

How does making money harder for certain teams help the NHL product?

See how far you get with the NHLPA re teams folding. Do you think they'll agree that it's a good thing?

 

[Crede777]

It's better for the league to rotate who is strong on a yearly basis than it is to have 1-3 dominant teams.

Cycling teams that are at the top raises league interest across the board rather than localizing it in a few cities.

In fact, I think if the NHL could have it their way, a different team would win the #1 overall each year and a different team would win the Stanley Cup each year.

 

[lomiller1]

Theres already some teams that will fold at this point. The sooner we get rid of them the better. I don't really see what the difference is.

It doesn’t matter how many teams fold without a cap the teams at the bottom of a revenue scale will struggle for viability. In a 20 team league that was Winnipeg, Pittsburgh, Quebec, etc. In a 30 team league these are now "mid market" teams that can thrive at times when they are successful on the ice. Cut 10 teams and all it takes is a loosing season or two to put todays "mid market" teams in the same situation Arizona and Florida are in today. Eliminating teams is a race to the bottom that only ends when there are too few teams for a viable league.

 

[Hockeyisl1fe]

There are no "homegrown" players in the NHL.

 

[sparxx87]

The owners didn't lock out out of half a season because they felt like spending more money on salaries.

Nah, they did it to bend the players over a barrel, knowing that they’d cave first with a limited window to earn this money and far less capital.

 

[Jay haller]

It's better for the league to rotate who is strong on a yearly basis than it is to have 1-3 dominant teams.

Cycling teams that are at the top raises league interest across the board rather than localizing it in a few cities.

In fact, I think if the NHL could have it their way, a different team would win the #1 overall each year and a different team would win the Stanley Cup each year.

No it’s not, no one is saying the nba superteam system is the best but 6 or 7 really good teams is good for the league. But the current nhl is so watered down by contract inflexibility due to the cap constraints. That you can have a team like Vegas made up of cast offs having the best record in the league. That next year could easily be dead last in the league.

 

[Jay haller]

Good management and good development are not penalized under the currant system. In fact, it’s the only way to win consistently. The more you weaken the cap the less management and development matter and without a cap good management and god development don’t matter at all. At that point all than matters is how much you can pay to build your team, so good management/development go out the window.

Yeah, but in the same time the cap benefits teams that are not managed well. Add in the fact that teams to get under the cap have to find more ways to artificially lower salaries to keep players from leaving via FA ala the NMC/NTC.

If the league had a luxury tax system like say baseball yes there would be teams like Chicago, NYR, Tor but there would be more upswing it would allow

 

[talkinaway]

Sorry, I'm a fan of a big market team (BOS), and I like the salary cap. Considering that the Penguins won the cup two years in a row and three times total since the cap (and a fourth SCF appearance), the Hawks have won it three times, the Kings have won twice, and Boston's made two appearances in the SCF with one win...success in one year doesn't guarantee failure in the future. The cap puts emphasis on drafting well and signing players to good contracts, which I prefer to simply buying your way into a championship. (Hello, 1990s Yankees.)

 

[lomiller1]

Yeah, but in the same time the cap benefits teams that are not managed well.

What does that even mean? The fact of the matter is 3 teams have won 8 of the last 9 Cups, so clearly being well managed isn’t just possible it’s the key to success in the NHL.

Add in the fact that teams to get under the cap have to find more ways to artificially lower salaries to keep players from leaving via FA

That’s one of the points in having a cap. It (along with escrow) keeps the players earning a predefined share of revenue. At the end of the 90’s ¾ of the teams in the NHL were loosing money and "not viable markets" by the standards currently being applied to Arizona and Florida.

If the league had a luxury tax system like say baseball yes there would be teams like Chicago, NYR, Tor but there would be more upswing it would allow

The average MLB fan is 60 years old and was in their 30’s when court cases opened the door to true free agency in sports. Clearly they are having huge difficulty drawing in new fans, so why would a league like the NHL that desperately needs to grow it’s fan base want to emulate MLB?

 

[Gnashville]

No it’s not, no one is saying the nba superteam system is the best but 6 or 7 really good teams is good for the league. But the current nhl is so watered down by contract inflexibility due to the cap constraints. That you can have a team like Vegas made up of cast offs having the best record in the league. That next year could easily be dead last in the league.

Vegas is not a team of castoffs most of those players would still be on the team that had them if not for expansion.

 

[Jay haller]

What does that even mean? The fact of the matter is 3 teams have won 8 of the last 9 Cups, so clearly being well managed isn’t just possible it’s the key to success in the NHL.

That’s one of the points in having a cap. It (along with escrow) keeps the players earning a predefined share of revenue. At the end of the 90’s ¾ of the teams in the NHL were loosing money and "not viable markets" by the standards currently being applied to Arizona and Florida.

The average MLB fan is 60 years old and was in their 30’s when court cases opened the door to true free agency in sports. Clearly they are having huge difficulty drawing in new fans, so why would a league like the NHL that desperately needs to grow it’s fan base want to emulate MLB?

Yet, it’s making money hand over fist where in the highest paid player in the NHL is making the same as a #4-5 starting pitcher on a contender. Now, the Mlb has some problems as well but in reality has the best real parity of the big 4 sports.

 

[lomiller1]

Yet, it’s making money hand over fist where in the highest paid player in the NHL is making the same as a #4-5 starting pitcher on a contender

In 1990 MLB was the 800lb gorilla of North American pro sports and still makes enough on its national TV rights to keep its low revenue franchises running even if they had no fans come out the ballpark at all. The NHL does not have that luxury.

Now, the Mlb has some problems as well but in reality has the best real parity of the big 4 sports.

In what universe? Of the 20 world series finalists in the last 10 years 17 have represented the largest cities/statistical areas in the US. While the large markets win year after year if a have-not team gets lucky enough to put together a championship caliber roster get dismantled as soon as their players qualify for free agency and need to start over at the bottom.

 

[Matty Sundin]

The cap is fine just that most general managers are absolute morons who would go bankrupt if they ever ran a real business themselves.

 

[Calendal]

I think cap is mostly fine. Escrow makes it difficult to pay more accross the board.

If we can push escrow losses down, I would see small value in lesser cap hit for RFA years (even if contract spans to UFA years).

Make the stairs a little less steep.

 

[Dustin]

Hard cap keeps the league solvent. I would not mind a franchise tag similar to the NBA for one player I suppose. Without a cap many teams would be in financial trouble by either trying to compete financially with other teams or by losing their star players and main draws to those teams.

 

[Bounces R Way]

With the NHL guaranteeing all of it's contracts it would be nearly impossible to operate without a salary cap. The cap was brought in to promote parity and keep small markets competitive. It makes asset management and drafting and developing much more important that handing out big contracts. I'd say it's doing it's job, teams that are well run like San Jose and Nashville have made the final the last two years.

That being said I do think they should raise it substantially in the coming years. Doesn't make sense for over half your league being up against a hard cap of 75M.