Imposed parity?

[hockeytown9321]

What you don't get is that payroll limitations already prevent ~75% from doing exactly that. How is it fair that the Wings and a few other teams are capable of retaining all their players while the rest of the league cannot? It is MUCH more fair for all teams to have the same payroll limitations.

When did I say the current system was perfect or didn't need to be changed.

Like I've said before: Making something equally unfair for everyone does not make it fair.

 

[quat]

What i am worried about is that if a team drafts and trades well they will be forced to choose between their good players becuase of a cap. I don't think its fair. I have never said the current system should stay or that there don't need to be changes. If they could come up with a cap like the NBA's that allows you to go over to resign your own players, I'd be all for it.

Yes the NFL might be very healthy and interesting and competitive, but that doesn't mean the actual football is great. Just like hockey in the 80's. There was a higher standard of play. I think most hockey fans would rather the game be played the way it was then than the way it is now. Right now, NHL is more competitive than ever, but the overall standard of play is alot lower than it used to be.

Well I can certainly understand this concern. I just don't see it as a given that teams which draft well will immediately lose their better players... is it something to consider? Sure... but there are many reasons to believe the opposite will happen as well.

I really don't see where you are coming from with your opinion that the quality of the NFL football has gone down. I've heard nothing of this from the football fans I know, and I haven't been more than a casual viewer myself, so I can't speak to it from my own experience.

It's an interesting question about the NHL, and the defensive intereference style of hockey and how it has emerged. Was it caused by too rapid expansion, more importance given to winning as regarding financial windfall, better coaching styles? I doubt it's any one thing, but then the game isn't static either, and is bound to change regardless.

I still support efforts to make the league more even, as that will eventually garner the most interest in the game and ultimately make it a stronger and richer league.

 

[hockeytown9321]

again you are focusing on how they picked up those guys......not the fact that they had the dough to actually pay them

and if someone is going to argue tha Primeau is the best power forward in the game today.....they will lose

OK, maybe the Red Wings were one of a caouple teams that could afford Hasek. The fact is Hasek chose to come to Detroit, and the only other team he would consider was St. Louis. If his salary would have been affordable for all teams, he still would have gone to either Detroit or St. Louis becuase he thought those teams gave him the best chance to win.


What alot of people forget is that Detroit offers alot more to players than money. Its a good place to play becuase the organization treats its players great, the players are big time local celebrities and the team wins. I appreciate that alot of players on Detroit have been unselfish by deferring money or taking less so that the team could improve.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I agree with this, but I don't think this is a bad thing. Detroit has been in a tough spot the past few years. They are still good, particularly in the regular season when most of the games are against inferior teams and they have such a geographical advantage.

They still generate the big regular season revenues. It has been easy for them to think they still have a chance - and the fans certainly believe - but I think their chances of winning four series in a row have now dropped to near zero. Nashville gave them all they could handle and Calgary beat them like a drum. The Flames are faster and Detroit can't handle them physically. Their puck possession game fell apart.

Absent change in the CBA, they have to fall on hard times. They don't have enough good young players. They aren't good enough to make money in the playoffs. They have two problems:

1) Every year they have to add talent to stay in the same place because every year their best players are one more year past their prime. If they do nothing the group gets worse.

2) They stopped producing players when they go into the free agent business big time. Teams only have so many jobs. The typical team has forty or fifty players under contract. Two teams plus a few still in Junior and an extra goalie in the ECHL. Nobody has many job vacancies. Turnover in the entire NHL is only about 8%. There is no job growth. Hire five players and you have to cut five players.

Since Detroit has hired a lot of veteran players from outside the organization, the guys they have dropped are young players from within the organization. Some of these guys might have turned out better had their opportunities not been blocked. A Detroit doesn't find many late round gems because late rounders don't get much of a chance in an organization that solves problems by throwing money at it.

Detroit and Dallas both made the mistake the Rangers made after winning the 1994 Stanley Cup. The Rangers did not take apart their core for several years after it was obvious that they should. They kept replacing one expensive veteran with another. You can't get better that way. You are on a treadmill that eventually carries the team to oblivion.

The Devils and the Avalanche have not gone into the free agent market big time. They only extend a few of their own players beyond free agency age. They do not hire veterans that take away jobs and opportunity for young players. They have dumped more talent than anybody in the league because they don't dump young players. That's the model every team should follow. Ottawa certainly will. They've already started, losing Bonk and Lalime.

The best hockey decision for Detroit would have been to stop spending three or four years ago. I think they have been driven by the best business decision. Dallas and St. Louis are at the same crossroads. They can spend money to stay in the same place or they can look at their roster and say "Our best players are past their prime. Unless we give much bigger roles to our young players we are going to get worse and we are already in a dogfight for a playoff spot."

Under the old CBA, the smaller market teams were forced to make the hard decisions but those decisions almost always turn out to be right. The larger markets (or the ones with owners willing to lose money) have the option to go the wrong way. They may stay up there as a quasi-contender for a time, but they pay in the longer term.

The Ranger wallet has been their Achilles Heel. If they - or any other team - wants to spend when they should be cutting payroll, let them fill their boots. It doesn't hurt anyone except themselves.

I think a smart fan can understands why a team decides to cut. You spend two or three years in the wilderness and then you come back. There are 30 teams. You might have to do that many times if you don't produce enough players.

The alternative is worse. If you have money, you get on the treadmill for a few years and then you are the Rangers. They've spent like drunken sailors for ten years, they've missed the playoffs for seven straight years and they still have to spend two or three years in the wilderness before they can come back.

Unless they change the CBA.

Tom

We disagree on Detroit's young players. Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Kronwall will be big stars. But thats an argument for a different day.

But if Detroit falls on hard times it should be becuase they mismanaged the team. Hard times shouldn't be artifcially imposed on any team.

 

[copperandblue]

Making something equally unfair for everyone does not make it fair.

If something is equally unfair then doesn't it ultimately make things fair?

 

[quat]

Take a look at the current NFL. Instead of having say 2-3 great teams, 4-5 real good teams, 4-5 good teams, 10 average teams, 4-5 bad teams and 2-3 horrible teams, the NFL currently has

2 real good teams
1 good team
9-10 average teams
17 bad teams

It begs the question. How have you evalutated these teams? The point being that if every team in the league were fantastic, but a couple were even slightly better, you would still end up with figures like the ones you've given. Someone has to lose, even if they're a good team.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well I can certainly understand this concern. I just don't see it as a given that teams which draft well will immediately lose their better players... is it something to consider? Sure... but there are many reasons to believe the opposite will happen as well.

Teams that draft well will have two options. The first is the road that New England will be going down soon. You keep the core guys together for a few years. All along you give raises to keep your team intact. At some point you run out of cap space and your team gets blown up.

The other option is you get rid of guys right before they get the raises. Maybe you comepte for a year or two this way, but most likely you're in a constant rebuilding mode.

 

[hockeytown9321]

If something is equally unfair then doesn't it ultimately make things fair?

It most certainly does not. If you get screwed and I get screwed equally, we both still got screwed.

 

[hockeytown9321]

You have the right to disagree. But, you'd be wrong.
Come on, the Red Wings of the late 90s can't hold a candle to the great Habs teams, the great Oilers teams or the great Islanders teams.

I find it really difficult to believe that one of the main points of argument for a modest luxury tax, but no cost certainty system, is because of the fact we'll never see another dynasty in the NHL.

If the BEST the NHL could do going forward was the same team winning the Cup 2 out of 3 years, but that all other clubs would be profitable and reasonably competitive, wouldn't THAT supersede the need for team greatness???

As far as the Detroit Lions are concerned, they've stunk for years but that is mainly due to the fact they've had horrendous management and player evaluation. Compare that to the Montreal Expos (may they RIP), who were the consummate small-market operation but became extinct because fans got fed up with the looting of talent. The NHL may not be at that level yet, but we're not THAT far off, either.

Any system where the rich can simply get richer if they so choose is not a good system--not when you have 30 franchises operating and revenue-generating problems.

Again, an argument for a different day, but player for player the late 90's Red Wings stack up pretty well to any other team. Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Larionov and Bowman as coach could be HOF'er in any era. Throw in Hull, Robitaliie and Hasek from 2002. All some of the best at their posisitions of all time.

 

[quat]

Teams that draft well will have two options. The first is the road that New England will be going down soon. You keep the core guys together for a few years. All along you give raises to keep your team intact. At some point you run out of cap space and your team gets blown up.

The other option is you get rid of guys right before they get the raises. Maybe you comepte for a year or two this way, but most likely you're in a constant rebuilding mode.

Well, I simply don't agree with your opinion on this. Initially there will be movement in the league, but after that teams should be able to keep most of their rosters intact. Perhaps the odd star will exceed the cap, but what player is going to leave a town he's lived in for several years, maybe has a family living there with roots now, to go to another place for a small raise in pay? And very likely the change in pay would not be very substancial. Teams just won't have the funds to give your average players the big $'s. I'm betting that most teams will be able to hang on to the majority of their players longer than they do now.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well, I simply don't agree with your opinion on this. Initially there will be movement in the league, but after that teams should be able to keep most of their rosters intact. Perhaps the odd star will exceed the cap, but what player is going to leave a town he's lived in for several years, maybe has a family living there with roots now, to go to another place for a small raise in pay? And very likely the change in pay would not be very substancial. Teams just won't have the funds to give your average players the big $'s. I'm betting that most teams will be able to hang on to the majority of their players longer than they do now.

I guess we'll just have to disagree and find out(maybe)

One last thing though, I don't think it will be one team offering $5 million for a guy to stay and another offering $5.5. I think you'll have teams that just run out of cap room and only be able to offer their stars half or less of what thye could get elsewhere. The entire free agent system will be predicated on who has enough cap room to sign someone, not if they have the revenue to do that. If Calgary only has $4 million in cap space and Iginla is a free agent, its pretty likely on of the 29 other teams will have $5-6 million and at that point loyalty is secondary.

The other thing I think is likely to happen is that teams might be able to resign their stars, but not theor second tier players. Guys like Kris Draper who isn't a superstar and doesn't make a lot in the grand scheme of things but are really important to their team's success. If a team has one or two guys eating up almost all of their cap they won't be able to resign depth guys. And since the depth guys will be cheaper, there are going to be alot of other teams with the cap room to sign them. So someone will say don't spend all your cap money on one or two players. Thats fine, but if they spend all their money on depth players and no stars, its awfully hard to win that way too. There needs to be a balance.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

We disagree on Detroit's young players. Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Kronwall will be big stars. But thats an argument for a different day.

Even if true, it isn't enough, not by a long shot.

But if Detroit falls on hard times it should be becuase they mismanaged the team. Hard times shouldn't be artifcially imposed on any team.

I agree. I think they have mismanaged the team and I think they will pay the price for it.

Tom

 

[djhn579]

It most certainly does not. If you get screwed and I get screwed equally, we both still got screwed.

So it's much better for most everyone else to get screwed, as long as it doesn't happen to you?

Didn't you mention not too long ago that one of the biggest problems in the league is lack of revenue? If your a fan of one of the majority of teams that gets screwed because other teams can pay much more than your team can, what incentive do you have to pay for tickets and merchandise? If your team is constantly losing it's best players, has been in rebuilding mode for 5 or more years, and regularly loses a majority of their games because of that, who is going to spend a lot of money to see them?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If your a fan of one of the majority of teams that gets screwed because other teams can pay much more than your team can, what incentive do you have to pay for tickets and merchandise?

It's fun to watch hockey even though the team isn't very good. Tickets are cheap and easy to get. When I was still going to games, I always got my tickets free when the team was bad through corporate connections. When the team was good, I paid through the nose.

If your team is constantly losing it's best players, has been in rebuilding mode for 5 or more years, and regularly loses a majority of their games because of that, who is going to spend a lot of money to see them?

Nobody. If they don't draw enough to pay for a rebuilding team year after year, get rid of the team. I'd also be blasting the management if they are rebuilding for five years. Maybe it is time to get somebody who can hire decent scouts. What kind of management can't find a bunch of good young players in five years?

Incompetent management in these places blames the lack of revenue and the need to keep a low payroll instead of accepting responsibility for the stupid decisions they made. Only a chump could possibly buy that kind of an excuse, but there are lot of hockey fans who are chumps. Go figure.

Tom

 

[hockeytown9321]

So it's much better for most everyone else to get screwed, as long as it doesn't happen to you?

Did you read my post or not?

Let me put it to you this way. You get mugged on the street and lose $200. I get mugged on the street and lose $200. We both lost the same amount. I know I wouldn't go home and feel better if I knew you got mugged too. I'd be pissed that I lost $200.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Even if true, it isn't enough, not by a long shot.



I agree. I think they have mismanaged the team and I think they will pay the price for it.

Tom

And if they do pay a price for it, its no one's fault but their own. I won't be on here blaming anyone else for their problems. Except maybe the refs.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

hockeytown,
will all due respect, you just sound like a guy who doesn't want to see his Red Wings broken up. And I can respect that. You're obviously hard core all the way, and that's cool.

The thing is, eventually they will be broken up and replaced. And chances are they may have to wait a while before they find another warrior like Yzerman to lead them.

Picture yourself, for just a moment, in another city rooting for another team. Should every NHL franchise have the opportunity to go on a run similar to the one the Wings have had over the last decade? What you're saying is it would not be possible in a cap system. What about all 30 teams enjoying half the success of the Wings...shouldn't that be a goal for all pro sports leagues, in theory at least?

The way I see it, all 30 teams should have the same divine right to win. If they all start on equal footing, then it'll be up to the management teams and the players themselves to make it happen. It won't be because so-and-so's owner dishes out more cash, or so-and-so's owner is a cheap *******.

Lastly, about the Patriots, they are a lesson for ALL sports franchises on how to keep a winning team going WITHIN a salary-cap system. Don't you think there are people in Boston that HATED the idea of losing Drew Bledsoe, let alone trading him to a division rival? Think anybody cares about that today?

Also, does anyone still miss Lawyer Milloy in New England? As for the coming years, so they'll lose some players and replace them with others. A football team's roster consists of 53 active players every week. So, changes will occur no matter the system. HOWEVER, the day the Pats have no choice but to get rid of Tom Brady is the day I declare that the NFL's salary cap DOESN'T work.

 

[djhn579]

Did you read my post or not?

Let me put it to you this way. You get mugged on the street and lose $200. I get mugged on the street and lose $200. We both lost the same amount. I know I wouldn't go home and feel better if I knew you got mugged too. I'd be pissed that I lost $200.

Well, when your looking at it from the point of view where your not the one getting mugged, that's easy to say. What if the shoe was on the other foot and Detroit was one of the few teams being mugged? It's all relative. You look at it as your team will be screwed if there is a cap, because your team is one of the "haves". If you were looking at it from my perspective, and your constantly getting screwed, it wouldn't hurt to see someone else screwed once in a while.

Realistically, no one is going to get screwed. If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players well, a cap will not be that big a deal. You keep your top players because no other team is going to out bid you, and if you're drafting well, you will always have good players coming in to replace the ones you have to trade away to make room to keep your stars. If you have good players that are becoming too expensive for you to keep, you trade them for more draft picks which, since you draft so well, will ensure you have a better opportunity to draft more good players.

If a team is truely managed well, they should be able to handle a cap without getting screwed. If in reality you have poor or mediocre management and can make up for your shortcommings by throwing money around, then we will see since they will be screwed just like all the other poor and mediocre teams in the league...

 

[Winger98]

The thing is, eventually they will be broken up and replaced. And chances are they may have to wait a while before they find another warrior like Yzerman to lead them.

Don't mean to interject, but I don't think anyone would complain about their team fading away into the sunset after making a good, hard run at Glory. What I think there is a fear of is that the ability to build a team to win for the long term will be devalued and, in its place, will be the implementation of systems with easy to replace cogs that are shifted and replaced annually.

Instead of building a team up through solid drafts and trades/waivers/etc. (such as how the wings picked up Draper and Maltby), we'll see teams actually built more through free agency as a greater number of mid-lower end players continually hit the market. And with greater roster turnover, teams will work to create a "team system" that is easy to learn and implement, and this system will most likely be defensive (to hit back on the original intent of this thread).

As I said before, teams need to be able to retain their core. They should be rewarded for building a team right, and forcing them to gut part of their club because they developed too good of a team isn't exactly fair either. Give teams a generous cap break for retaining their own players (say, players who have played with them for 5+ seasons) and perhaps some form of penalty for splurging on UFA while having a certain amount already tied up in the team, and I think it would be a better system than a simple hard cap.

 

[Guest]

Don't mean to interject, but I don't think anyone would complain about their team fading away into the sunset after making a good, hard run at Glory. What I think there is a fear of is that the ability to build a team to win for the long term will be devalued and, in its place, will be the implementation of systems with easy to replace cogs that are shifted and replaced annually.

Instead of building a team up through solid drafts and trades/waivers/etc. (such as how the wings picked up Draper and Maltby), we'll see teams actually built more through free agency as a greater number of mid-lower end players continually hit the market. And with greater roster turnover, teams will work to create a "team system" that is easy to learn and implement, and this system will most likely be defensive (to hit back on the original intent of this thread).

As I said before, teams need to be able to retain their core. They should be rewarded for building a team right, and forcing them to gut part of their club because they developed too good of a team isn't exactly fair either. Give teams a generous cap break for retaining their own players (say, players who have played with them for 5+ seasons) and perhaps some form of penalty for splurging on UFA while having a certain amount already tied up in the team, and I think it would be a better system than a simple hard cap.

And thus my proposal of a tenure based cap. My proposal is that anyone that has played their entire career for a team does not count against the cap, and then there is also an exception based on tenure of service. I've proposed anywhere from a 6-8 year tenure of service to get the cap exception. Then the only players who are being capped are the players signed as free agents in recent seasons as well as players who are traded for in recent seasons.

This would allow teams to spend their money as they wish on their homegrown talent, without worrying about cap limits, and it would prevent teams from overspending in the free agent market or making reverse salary dump trades to their advantage.

When it all comes down to it, no matter what cap or tax you come up with, it has to have a threshold, and that's what is really to debate. If you set up the rules, you have to determine the threshold you want to enforce, no matter what set of rules you use. So that I consider up to debate.

 

[quat]

I guess we'll just have to disagree and find out(maybe)

One last thing though, I don't think it will be one team offering $5 million for a guy to stay and another offering $5.5. I think you'll have teams that just run out of cap room and only be able to offer their stars half or less of what thye could get elsewhere. The entire free agent system will be predicated on who has enough cap room to sign someone, not if they have the revenue to do that. If Calgary only has $4 million in cap space and Iginla is a free agent, its pretty likely on of the 29 other teams will have $5-6 million and at that point loyalty is secondary.

The other thing I think is likely to happen is that teams might be able to resign their stars, but not theor second tier players. Guys like Kris Draper who isn't a superstar and doesn't make a lot in the grand scheme of things but are really important to their team's success. If a team has one or two guys eating up almost all of their cap they won't be able to resign depth guys. And since the depth guys will be cheaper, there are going to be alot of other teams with the cap room to sign them. So someone will say don't spend all your cap money on one or two players. Thats fine, but if they spend all their money on depth players and no stars, its awfully hard to win that way too. There needs to be a balance.

The thing is, all the teams will be facing these problems, and it will be the well managed teams that will succeed. There will always be roster changes, and fan favorites get moved for a variety of reasons anyhow... as you point out, it will more than likely continue in the future as well. It just seems that a more defined payroll may make teams more stable overall. There simply won't be (or it will be much more unlikely), teams offering unusually large contracts to get productive roll players or freakish amounts for the stars. When I say large or freakish amounts, what I mean is in relationship to how much revenue the league actually produces, not necessarily a defined #.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players well, a cap will not be that big a deal.

If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players, the current system should not be that big a deal.

 

[SENSible1*]

If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players, the current system should not be that big a deal.

If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players under the current system, but happen to have a small market and revenue base, the big market teams will price your talent out of reach and then snatch it away once it is fully developed.

Far better systems, that reward teams for smart management and talent develpment, are available to the league. Too bad the PA isn't even willing to discuss them.

 

[YellHockey*]

If you have a well managed team that drafts and develops players under the current system, but happen to have a small market and revenue base, the big market teams will price your talent out of reach and then snatch it away once it is fully developed.

Name those teams that your example applies to. It sure doesn't apply to Ottawa, one of the smallest markets in the league.

 

[SENSible1*]

Name those teams that your example applies to. It sure doesn't apply to Ottawa, one of the smallest markets in the league.

It applies to every team except the big markets.