Is an uneven playing field indefensible?

[Wetcoaster]

Anyone see in that list below the big spenders and where they are? To say that NY with 8 million to draw from. LA with over 3.5 million, Chicago with 3 million, Philly with 1.5 million does NOT have an advantage over Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay (about 300,000 each) in 'growing' a top team is out of their friggin' minds. It is like saying that you and I will have a contest in growing corn, each have one acre but you are growing in the rain forest I am growing in Death Valley. And most years you seem to win . . . well duh . . . must be my fault as I did not give enough effort. Blaming the fans in small markets is pure idiocy, they on a percentage basis support their reams MORE than you do. Them's the facts. Now if you want teams only in five markets do not change the dynamics.

And Kodiak, in answer to your 'And if Tampa is struggling because it's not a hockey market, why did Dallas do so well?' just look below. Dallas has four times the population as Tampa Bay and is the eighth biggest market in the US, likely even higher up since 2000 as the south is growing.


US Cities Over 300,000 Ranked:
2000 Census


Rank City 2000
1 New York NY 8,008,278
2 Los Angeles CA 3,694,820
3 Chicago IL 2,896,016
4 Houston TX 1,953,631
5 Philadelphia PA 1,517,550
6 Phoenix AZ 1,321,045
7 San Diego CA 1,223,400
8 Dallas TX 1,188,580
9 San Antonio TX 1,144,646
10 Detroit MI 951,270
11 San Jose CA 894,943
12 Indianapolis IN 791,926
13 San Francisco CA 776,773
14 Jacksonville FL 735,617
15 Columbus OH 711,470
16 Austin TX 656,562
17 Baltimore MD 651,154
18 Memphis TN 650,100
19 Milwaukee WI 596,974
20 Boston MA 589,141
21 Washington DC 572,059
22 El Paso TX 563,662
23 Seattle WA 563,374
24 Denver CO 554,636
25 Nashville TN 545,524
26 Charlotte NC 540,828
27 Fort Worth TX 534,634
28 Portland OR 529,121
29 Oklahoma City OK 506,132
30 Tucson AZ 486,699
31 New Orleans LA 484,674
32 Las Vegas NV 478,434
33 Cleveland OH 478,403
34 Long Beach CA 461,522
35 Alburquerque NM 448,607
36 Kansas City MO 441,545
37 Fresno CA 427,652
38 Virginia Beach VA 425,257
39 Atlanta GA 416,474
40 Sacramento CA 407,018
41 Oakland CA 399,484
42 Mesa AZ 396,675
43 Tulsa OK 393,049
44 Omaha NE 390,007
45 Minneapolis MN 382,618
46 Santa Ana CA 377,977
47 Honolulu HI 371,657
48 Miami FL 362,470
49 Colorado Springs CO 360,890
50 St. Louis MO 348,189
51 Wichita KS 344,284
52 Pittsburgh PA 334,563
53 Arlington TX 332,969
54 Cincinnati OH 331,285
55 Anaheim CA 328,014
56 Toledo OH 313,619
57 Tampa FL 303,447

http://www.demographia.com/db-2000uscityr.htm

You have to factor in the metropolitan area from which fans are drawn.

IN 2000, THE TAMPA-ST. PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER, FL MSA OR "METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA" RANKED #21 IN THE NATION FOR POPULATION SIZE AT 2.39 MILLION;
http://www.co.hernando.fl.us/plan/abstr2001/stat102a.htm

Size and Population
Tampa Bay, consisting of Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando counties, is the most populous and affluent metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and the largest television market in the state. Tampa is Florida's third most populous city with more than 300,000 residents, and Hillsborough is Florida's fourth most populous county at over one million residents. Hillsborough County, established in 1834, encompasses 1,051 square miles of land and 24 square miles of inland water area. Tampa is the largest city in the county and serves as the county seat.
http://www.visittampabay.com/areainfo/facts.php

In 2003, Florida’s Tampa Bay region was home to an estimated 3.8 million people, an increase of over 69,600 people from 2002. This region’s growth rate continues to outpace that of the nation, with domestic migration accounting for 81% of its net migration. With these new residents, the Tampa Bay region’s racial and ethnic mix continues to become increasingly diverse. The population of the Tampa Bay region is also relatively older than that of the rest of the state.

Population Growth

For the past ten years, the Tampa Bay region’s population has grown at a rate faster than that of the nation, but slower than that of Florida as a whole.

Between 1993 and 2003, the Tampa Bay region’s population grew by 586,415 people, or 18.2%, while that of the state and the nation grew by 22.2% and 11.9%, respectively.

In 2003, this region gained about 69,680 people, at an annual growth rate of 1.9%, to bring its total population to an estimated 3.8 million people.
http://www.eflorida.com/floridasregions/population.asp?level1=3&level2=106&level3=269&region=tb

Pretty clear why the NHL expanded to Florida.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

How come in 2000 Pittsburgh and St.Louis had the NHL's best television ratings per market? It's not about being a large city.

Just because eleven million people live in New York does not mean they are hockey fans. No one is paying attention aside from the die-hards here. 100,000 combined homes tuned into hockey in this market when all three teams played last season.

Are you going to tell me some of these smaller markets cannot match that if they are shown on a regular basis?

Simple common sense. There are more potential fans to mine in big markets than small. And yes, the fact that some smaller markets like Pittsburgh do so well compared to the market that they have to draw from speaks well for them. But they will never, ever be able to compete with a NY (I pick on them because they are more than double the next largest market) or any of the markets with over a million people. Nor is it fair to expect them too.

The question remains,

Do you all want a league with five teams? If not you need to allow all the cities a chance, especially when the fans there are doing their part, building stadiums, and filling them in better fashion than those in the big cities are when judged on a per capita basis.

 

[likea]

You're being incredibly short-sighted. I find it very hard to accept your analysis of "the big markets are big and the small markets are small and that's that, now and forever" when the big market teams have had financial problems in the recent past. Philadelphia struggled financially pre-Lindros. Detroit was not doing so great in the 80s.

ya, Philly and Detroit must have really struggled....first detroit

Detroit Red Wings 1980-81 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1981-82 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1982-83 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1983-84 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1984-85 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1985-86 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1986-87 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1987-88 40 785,532 19,638
Detroit Red Wings 1988-89 40 788,102 19,703
Detroit Red Wings 1989-90 40 781,679 19,542


my guess is they still hovered around 19000 fans in those years not reported...which is awesome for a gate drawn sport

why do you think that is, even tho they sucked...........

why, because they have a ton of people to draw from
http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_det_attendance.html


now Philly

Philadelphia Flyers 1980-81 40 683,080 17,077
Philadelphia Flyers 1981-82 40 681,744 17,044
Philadelphia Flyers 1982-83 40 673,880 16,847
Philadelphia Flyers 1983-84 40 665,445 16,636
Philadelphia Flyers 1984-85 40 678,036 16,951
Philadelphia Flyers 1985-86 40 687,342 17,184
Philadelphia Flyers 1986-87 40 688,497 17,212
Philadelphia Flyers 1987-88 40 696,180 17,405
Philadelphia Flyers 1988-89 40 696,202 17,405
Philadelphia Flyers 1989-90 40 696,268 17,407

http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_phi_attendance.html

17,000 people each and every night

they must have really struggled for money....

no, they were just a bad team

 

[likea]

First of all, a ranking of city population is worthless. You would need a ranking of total metro area populations. If the Lightning really only had a pool of 300k to draw from, they'd be lucky to get 5000 people in the building.

Second, no one is disputing that a large market is an advantage. What's in dispute is whether a team can develop a larger hockey market. Los Angeles is a huge market, but the Kings don't generate the revenue nor do they have the payroll of the Blues, and yet St. Louis is only slightly ahead of Pittsburgh on your list. The difference is that one is a team that has finished at or near the top of the league for many years, and the other is a middling team that hasn't done anything of note since they lost #99. So the demand in the smaller market dwarfs the demand in the larger market, making St. Louis a better hockey market than LA despite the huge population difference.

Third, no one is blaming the fans. All I have said is that fans show up for a winner, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's how it should be. As a fan, I would certainly put more effort into finding time to go to a game and be willing to spend more on tickets if my team was doing well. But if the team is not doing well, then it's up to the owners to entice the fans to come to games until things turn around. If it wasn't like this, owners would have no incentive to improve the teams.

St. Louis is not a better hockey market, they just have an insane owner willing to lose 30 million each and every year.............they put players on the ice by taking a huge loss each year because the owner pays for it out of his pocket

this is what you don't grasp....

when these owners do this it makes owners and teams who are fiscially sound look bad to their ticket buying public because they lose their star player to the owner that treats his/her hockey team like a toy

now once you lose those star players people tend to not want to support your product anymore losing ticket revenue

if you can't compete for the players you will never be able to keep the ticket paying public happy

teams like St. Louis, NY Rangers, the Devils, Washington are the cause of this lockout because they spend an insane amount of money and take the loss in their pocket books which sooner or later will catch up to the team in the form of chapter 11 or by the owner selling it to the highest bidder

St. Louis is one of the teams that lost 30 million the year the levitts report is out

but what a great hockey market it is.....

 

[NYIsles1*]

Simple common sense. There are more potential fans to mine in big markets than small. And yes, the fact that some smaller markets like Pittsburgh do so well compared to the market that they have to draw from speaks well for them. .

No, that's not it. In winter the Pens are the number one and only pro sports team in their market. In New York City hockey is the seventh, eighth or ninth biggest daily event most days. Out of town sports also take center stage over hockey because this is a large media market. In Pittsburgh the Pens will be the major sports news of the day in that market.

But they will never, ever be able to compete with a NY (I pick on them because they are more than double the next largest market) or any of the markets with over a million people. Nor is it fair to expect them too..

But they are competing and in many ways are doing better. Columbus and Minnesota are far better overall hockey markets than the tri-state area on their worst days.

 

[Russian Fan]

St. Louis is one of the teams that lost 30 million the year the levitts report is out

but what a great hockey market it is.....

People (I'm not pointing you) need to understand that the Levitt report, they didn't take the books & RE-ANALYSE THEM. They took the numbers, they put X's & O's on some places & got the results.

That means the Levitt report just took the book that the NHL gave them & not the other way around (meaning, the Levitt report didn't investigate).

 

[wint]

To say that NY with 8 million to draw from. LA with over 3.5 million, Chicago with 3 million, Philly with 1.5 million does NOT have an advantage over Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay (about 300,000 each) in 'growing' a top team is out of their friggin' minds.

Looking at your chart, 5 of the 8 NHL cities in the top 15 population-wise have made the Conference Finals at least once in the last 10 years (I excluded Columbus or it would have been 5 of 9). Conversely, 5 of the 6 NHL cities in your bottom 15 population-wise have teams that have done so. So it doesn't look like there's much of a problem there.

For those that worry that Philadelphia has a big competitive advantage over Tampa, I would say that the best way to get good has nothing to do with spending money. It involves acquiring top young prospects (attained by way of bad regular season records and good drafting), good coaches to teach them (their salaries are reasonable), and holding on to your good players when they're becoming stars (rich teams can't sign away good young players because of the 5 1st rounders rule for RFAs). The only things big markets can do that smaller one's can't (ex. signing big-name UFAs) have never proven to be particularly effective team building tools.

Also, for those who worry that the NHL is approaching a baseball-like competitive balance problem, there are many factors that make baseball's situation much worse. Most of them have to do with the fact that it is very difficult to figure out how to turn money into wins in hockey. Players become UFAs after 13 years with a team (as opposed to 8 in MLB) so the richest clubs can't sign away a top player in his prime. It is also very difficult to accurately price assets in the NHL. Baseball is a sport of individual achievement, and you can compute how much any particular player is likely to contribute. Hockey doesn't work that way.

So it is unwise and nearly impossible to acquire the players that rich teams know would be valuable (due to RFA rules). And it is extremely difficult to put an accurate price on the things they can buy (older players). In the end, rich teams have very little advantage, if any.

As a side note, the one way that a team like the Rangers COULD take advantage of the system is by trading scrubs for good players with bad contracts. Then, they could trade those good players to other teams, offering to pick up a huge chunk of their contracts, in exchange for top-flight prospects and picks. Voila, instant rebuilding. But it hasn't really happened.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

ya, Philly and Detroit must have really struggled....first detroit

Detroit Red Wings 1980-81 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1981-82 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1982-83 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1983-84 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1984-85 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1985-86 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1986-87 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
Detroit Red Wings 1987-88 40 785,532 19,638
Detroit Red Wings 1988-89 40 788,102 19,703
Detroit Red Wings 1989-90 40 781,679 19,542


my guess is they still hovered around 19000 fans in those years not reported...which is awesome for a gate drawn sport

why do you think that is, even tho they sucked...........

why, because they have a ton of people to draw from
http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_det_attendance.html

Actually attendance sucked so much when Illitch bought the team in 1982 he resorted to giving away cars to get fans in the seats. The old joke was someone stole my car but left the Wings tickets on the curb.

I know as a kid me and my parents would walk up to the ticket office right before the game and get great seats.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I have no problem with a floor to ceiling range of maybe 6 or 7 million difference. Yours of $10 to $12 million I would not like, but we are getting closer to agreement.

Well, the thing is the $38 million luxury tax is not a floor, rather it is what I would call a soft ceiling. I haven't thought about a floor because the problem isn't that some teams aren't spending enough, it is that some teams are spending too much. I guess if there were a salary floor it could be around $31 million, $7 million less than the ceiling, as you said it should be. Teams would have room to move between $31 and $38 million. Most teams would stay below at most $40 million, those who go above the ceiling would have to pay a tax.

But, the reason that ceiling has to be soft is because all though it is ridiculous that a big market can spend $70 million on salaries when some teams don't even make take in that much revenue, it would also be ridiculous to say that big market can't spend above $38 million. In a lot of ways, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. With that said if a team makes money and feels they can afford to pay their players $40 million, fine, they should be allowed above the ceiling but it would cost them because the luxury tax would kick in. The hard cap at $48-$50 million isn't really the ceiling, $38 million luxury tax is the ceiling.

The hard cap sits there to do two things: 1) prevent a Yanks situation, as people say is the biggest problem with a luxury tax. You are probably right that a luxury tax won't prevent a few teams from spending whatever they want. However this hard cap at $48-$50 million would stop them. It is essentially only for the Rangers, Wings, Flyers, Leafs etc. who can spend $70 million on salaries. 2) it also prevents the amount of luxury tax from being so great that salaries are inflated. If there were no cap beyond the luxury tax, than let's say 6 teams would still spend $60 million on salaries and there would end up being too much tax money. Putting the cap there only gives teams $10 million of wiggle room in the luxury tax area, which wouldn't allow for that much tax to be kicked back even if 5 teams decided they still wanted to spend the max of $48 million.

So $31 million is the floor
$38-$40 million is the soft ceiling that most teams would stay below
$48-$50 million is the hard ceiling, minimizing the problem of big market-small market by stopping the biggest of markets from spending out of control while still allowing teams who do their jobs well and make money to spend some of it and at the same time assuring that those teams who do decide to pay the luxury tax can't spend so much and pay so much tax causing salaries to inflate.

I am absolutely sure that this philosiphy is right for the NHL. Of course, I have not tested all the numbers so I can't say this is how much would be payed in luxury tax and these are the teams that would likely be over the tax, that would take way too much time and effort. But, I think that these numbers are pretty damn close to what would be affective.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

There is no league-wide competitiveness problem as the league stands. The list of top clubs does not in any way resemble the list of top markets. Besides, if New York, Chicago, L.A. and D.C. had an unfair competitive advantage, wouldn't they be using it?

Speaking strictly about competitiveness, the advantages of a salary cap (big markets can no longer buy up all the top UFAs, who are overpriced for their production and who are on the downsides of their careers anyway) are far outwieghed by the potential disadvantages (lots more player movement, exciting young clubs like Tampa and Ottawa have to gut their teams).

There are certainly some things that bigger markets can do that smaller markets can't. However, I'm not sure if any of those things actually help the team. Having a big market and huge ticket prices and hefty corporate sponsorship packages allows winning teams to keep all their players at inflated prices even if the team is not winning championships. It also allows them to buy up all the "prime" free agents. Neither of these has proven to be a very successful strategy.

Big market clubs are also shielded from some problems like not needing to be responsible with RFA contracts. Why would the Rangers risk a holdout when they can just pay the guy? This, coupled with owners' unwillingness to let go of players for nothing, causes RFA contracts around the league to rise, making it necessary for losing teams to trade their high-priced players for picks and prospects. Oddly enough, however, this HAS proven to be a successful strategy for rebuilding.

So the things that big markets can do that small markets can't tend to be disadvantageous, and the things small markets have to do that big markets don't tend to be advantageous. In the end, there really isn't a competitiveness problem with the league right now. Again, this has nothing to do with the financial side of things, where problems clearly exist. But to suggest that smaller market teams don't have a fair shot at winning is simply wrong.

Buying up all the free agents doesn't guarantee success but it vastly IMPROVES the teams chances of winning over the other teams. A lot of players hit their prime, or are in their prime already when they approach 30 so I wouldn't say that the FA's are big diminishing assets. They can still play for a number of years productively until it's time to call it quits. Big spending teams have a big advantage in that they all improve their regular season success by big amounts when they sign all these star players. Hey, they might not win the cup but most of them are guaranteed their playoff spots. With those playoff spots come playoff revenue. Revenue some other team might have had if it weren't for the combination of the inability to retain a star and some rich team greatly outbidding them.

Most people say a team can't win 100% buy signing players but like I said, a lot of them rule in the regular season. Some stars bring in extra people just because of who they are. It was all those teams right to sing whomever they wanted. I don't blame the players for going to those big teams. I just think it sucks seeing big time players going to the same teams every year.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

You guys also have to remember that sometimes a big FA signing helps a big market team more off the ice than on. A lot of tickets can be sold, a lot of media attention can be acquired by signing a top free agent in July. This is something small market teams can't do at this point and that is one way how big markets have an advantage over small markets. Even if that player doesn't do **** for the team, in a big market he still helped sell a few extra season tickets and probably helped overall ticket sales and TV ratings simply because a big signing or trade creates a "buzz".

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Some gopod discussion thus far. But thus far none of the anti-cap people have answered the basic question, why a Cap would be bad for the game.

If this is a sport, my best against yours, how in the name of anything that made what we have come to know as competition should the playing field be so uneven? If you and I were competing in whatever you name, from a footrace to a duel, should you get a half mile head start? Get to use an uzi while I use a one shot pistol? I just do not get how any can defend, as I put it in the title of this thread, the indefensible.

A story to illustrate. When younger, college age, I was playing basketball with my family when I saw a shot come out of the corner of my eye. I slammed it stuffing the shooter, and only then saw that it was my twelve year old girl cousin. My 5' 4" girl cousin. I come from a basketball family, at 6 foot I am the runt, and her brother, 6'6" and an all state foreward in highschool came up and said 'You must be so proud. Try that on me.'

Those who have payrolls year in year out 3, 4 times others, or if we get like baseball, where hockey is heading toward, 10 times the lowest payroll, must be so proud when they win. Like slamming my 12 year old female cousin. Here is your chance, defend yourselves and your position. Defend the indefensible.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

a ps, with two points:

a) I do not think that the NHL, even under the current system, is in as much trouble competitive balance wise as baseball is, but fear much more for where it is heading.

b) could a strong luxury tax do some good in restoring competitive balance? Sure, it would help, but if the NHL is to thrive it needs more than a half measure band aid. A Cap would ensure that we were unlikely to go through this again. As baseball showed, a luxury tax is unlikely to stop us from going through this all again in five years. And right now, when revenues are as low as they are, especially television revenues, may be the only chance to permanently get the house in order, with a Cap. Once big money television money comes there is much more to lose all around and the Owners will never stand united.

 

[wint]

Some gopod discussion thus far. But thus far none of the anti-cap people have answered the basic question, why a Cap would be bad for the game.

I am not necessarily against a cap, but I view it as potentially more harmful than good. Under the current system, Tampa will pay the salary increases of Richards and Lecavalier and St. Louis with the extra revenue created by playoff games, increased fan interest, sponsorships, etc. However, if a hard salary cap were to be implemented, Tampa would not be able to hold on to all of their young stars. Ottawa would also have to dump talent, and Atlanta would have to choose between keeping both Heatley and Kovalchuk or supplying one of the two with a capable supporting cast.

I like it when there are a few very good teams full of talent. They are fun to watch, and they can help draw in TV viewers. As long as the ability to assemble such a team is based on drafting, trading, and luck as opposed to market size and corporate sponsorships (which I believe is the case), I see no reason to force those teams to break up simply because they have too many good players to fit under an arbitrary cap.

I do think a cap could be instituted in a successful way, but there are other options to control salaries and insulate owners from the bad signing decisions of others. Fix the arbitration and Qualifying Offer systems. Raise the UFA age to 33 or 34. Institute meaningful revenue sharing (split the gate with the visiting team?). Cap individual player salaries or put them on a scale. I just worry that a strict salary cap would punish teams that have been developing the right way and make mediocrity more pervasive.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Well I can answer your question, but only for myself I am sure that a lot of other anti-cap people wouldn't agree with me. I do support the PA, I don't want a cap, however as far as I am concerned I am not anti-cap, rather anti-nhl. As you know from the course of this thread, I am a PA supporter who definetly supports a hard cap. But I don't accept it as the NHL is talking about it, therefor I am anti-nhl more than anything. So I can't tell you how a cap in general would be bad for the game, but I could tell you how the NHL's cap would be bad for the game.

Albeit they are small reasons in the grand scheme of things, but a few problems I have with a cap as the NHL has proposed it(mid 30's hard cap):
- unfair and ridiculous profits for some owners. A team like the Leafs or the Rangers can make a $20 million profit finishing last in the conference and not putting anything into their teams. With a 30-something million hard cap, some teams would have the ability to turn a profit no matter what, thus the owners have the option of putting effort into his team or giving a crap about his team. An owner in a big market can literally do absolutely nothing for his team, fans or city and still turn a profit, and that can't be good for competition. Further, let's say the Rangers do well and make the playoffs, their revenues are now pushing $100 million for the year. We are talking in a good year the Rangers might have a profit of $60 or $70 million. The profits some teams could make, especially big market teams, is off the charts. There would be a hell of a lot of money going into owners pockets, some of which really should be going to the players who made that money.

- parody would reign. Some people complain how under the last CBA a small market team who made a run in the playoffs was automatically a one-hit wonder, as they were always unable to keep that talented team together. Well, a hard cap creates the same situation, except big market teams will now have that problem as well. If you put the cap at $38 million, we can obviously assume that just about every team in the league will be right at the cap. When a team is succesful, in order to keep that team together you must increase your payroll the next year. In the case of the cap, a succesful team will likely have to let players go who contributed throughout the season and playoffs and replace them with players other teams had to let go, thus destroying chemistry and only making it harder for that team to repeat their success the next year. In a sport like hockey where chemistry is perhaps the most important thing, especially when you get into the playoffs, any type of cap will automatically create parody because the chemistry of teams will be destroyed almost every other summer. The amount of player movement in the NFL can be offset because it is more of an individual game and chemistry does not play as big a factor as it does in hockey. Anyway, a cap would create too much parody in a sport like hocke simply because of it's effects on team chemistry.

- increased player movement, to the point where player and fan loyalty to teams across the league is hurt. You see it in the NFL, where they have a hard cap. I'm afraid to spend $100 on a Giants jersey because it's very possible that the player on the back of it is going to be a cap casualty next March. And this can also be connected to the last point, where too much parody can be created because of increased player movement.

- from one extreme to another is never a good thing. Right now player salaries are very high and team profits are very low or non existent. The NHL is clearly competely on one side of the spectrum and their system is almost completely a 'free market'. A cap, as the NHL has proposed, would bring the league to the complete other side of the spectrum. Going from a 'free market' to a cap in one CBA is not right, the right place now is in the middle (luxury tax, soft cap or a system like I have talked about in this thread). When you are going off the road, the last thing you want to do is jerk the wheel too hard and go off the other side of the road, which only creates more problems for you. This is what I think the NHL is doing by going from the last CBA directly into a CBA with a low capped system.

I probably didn't mention a few other small things, but that's okay. As I said, I am not anti-cap but anti-nhl. I completely understand your view of the cap. I completely understand that it will mathematically assure that the league doesn't lose any money, assure that big markets don't spend much much more than small markets and assure that player salaries return to a normal level and stay there. A cap at or around $40 million could certainly solve mostly all of the NHL's problems, and if you are willing to live with the new problems it can create, such as the ones above, than a cap definetly works for you. However, in my case I am not willing to live with the problems it can create. I am anti-nhl and believe their cap would be bad for the game simply because a hard cap as they are proposing is not the best solution for the problems of the NHL. It is a solution, yes, but it is not the only solution nor the best solution. The system in which I talked about earlier, I believe is a better solution than simply slapping a low hard cap on the league. And that is just my idea, so I am sure there are plenty of other systems out there than can work. So, I can't support the NHL because they have treated this lockout as if the only solution is a low hard cap, when in fact there are other solutions. A cap is not the wrong answer, but there are better answers that the NHL doesn't seem to be willing to think about, thus we are locked out.

And one more thing, please stop talking about how a luxury tax system won't work because of the results MLB has seen. I have already proved to you, in this thread, how a luxury tax system could work and could have different results than MLB's.

 

[PecaFan]

Exactly! The flip side of that is that some of today's small markets are yesterday's large markets.

What you miss is that it's a simple matter for a large market to under-achieve, and lose revenue and attendance through incompetence, mis-management etc. They don't become a small market, they're just a large market that's not making money.

The opposite doesn't follow. A small market cannot easily become a large market as there are many factors outside their control.

 

[likea]

I am not necessarily against a cap, but I view it as potentially more harmful than good. Under the current system, Tampa will pay the salary increases of Richards and Lecavalier and St. Louis with the extra revenue created by playoff games, increased fan interest, sponsorships, etc. However, if a hard salary cap were to be implemented, Tampa would not be able to hold on to all of their young stars. Ottawa would also have to dump talent, and Atlanta would have to choose between keeping both Heatley and Kovalchuk or supplying one of the two with a capable supporting cast.

I like it when there are a few very good teams full of talent. They are fun to watch, and they can help draw in TV viewers. As long as the ability to assemble such a team is based on drafting, trading, and luck as opposed to market size and corporate sponsorships (which I believe is the case), I see no reason to force those teams to break up simply because they have too many good players to fit under an arbitrary cap.

I do think a cap could be instituted in a successful way, but there are other options to control salaries and insulate owners from the bad signing decisions of others. Fix the arbitration and Qualifying Offer systems. Raise the UFA age to 33 or 34. Institute meaningful revenue sharing (split the gate with the visiting team?). Cap individual player salaries or put them on a scale. I just worry that a strict salary cap would punish teams that have been developing the right way and make mediocrity more pervasive.

the owner and GM of Tampa Bay have both come out and stated they will lose less money this year ( a year with no hockey) than they would if hockey was played

he also stated that they didn't even break even until they reached the finals last year

therefore Tampa would not be keeping their players either way unless the owners want to take major losses...you would see Tampa trade their players like Edmonton, Pittsburgh and many others

if Tampa didn't break even until the finals last year, they give everyone 10% raises who gets one along with signing just their UFA's...they would not be able to make a profit or break even at all next season and the seasons after

if they would get bounced from the playoffs early or have an injury filled season and fan fare dies out some they would lose a ton

the owners take to big of a risk right now with small market teams

why should owners have to take on personal dept to run a hockey franchise?????

while I agree with revenue sharing to some extent, total revenue sharing would not change the percentage the players are being asked to take

so I am not sure why pro NHLPA people use this as a battle cry

either way the percentage is 54-57% of revenue

so even with total revenue sharing that percentage would not change.....thats the amount the players are going to get

 

[ColinM]

What you miss is that it's a simple matter for a large market to under-achieve, and lose revenue and attendance through incompetence, mis-management etc. They don't become a small market, they're just a large market that's not making money

That depends on the market. New York certainly hasn't lost their spending power but how far has that gotten them? If Colorado underachieved and lost revenue as a result they would likely lose their spending power and have to rebuild. If they choose not to rebuild and instead choose to sign Unrestricted Free Agents they'd end up with a team like the Rangers or Capitals had. I do not begrudge a team that has a high payroll with a bad team on the ice since the product on the ice is more important.

The opposite doesn't follow. A small market cannot easily become a large market as there are many factors outside their control.

That's fine. It forces teams to be built the right way which is to acquire several prospects and allow them to grow, Instead of just spending a bunch of money. Most teams have to earn their large revenue by putting a good team on the ice. Why should becoming good be easy?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I am not necessarily against a cap, but I view it as potentially more harmful than good. Under the current system, Tampa will pay the salary increases of Richards and Lecavalier and St. Louis with the extra revenue created by playoff games, increased fan interest, sponsorships, etc. However, if a hard salary cap were to be implemented, Tampa would not be able to hold on to all of their young stars. Ottawa would also have to dump talent, and Atlanta would have to choose between keeping both Heatley and Kovalchuk or supplying one of the two with a capable supporting cast.

How? How does Tampa get forced to dump Richards, Lecavalier and St. Louis? Do you think that they are all going to get $10 million a season? News flash. The $10 million salary will go the way of the dodo. Superstar players will be paid in the $6-7 million range. The next tier (Richards and Lecavalier) will be paid in that $4-5 million range. Niche players like St. Louis will be paid less, no matter how good they are in one market. Same for role players. The days of the $2 million contract for third and fourth liners is done. A new economic reality will take hold of the NHL, and the players (and agents) will have to get used to it.

 

[ColinM]

Some gopod discussion thus far. But thus far none of the anti-cap people have answered the basic question, why a Cap would be bad for the game.

The reason I oppose a salary cap is because the owners are willing to sacrifice the restricted free agency system in order to get it. Under today's NHL players are tied to a team until they are 31 years old which means that by the time they have reached their peak earning power they have already given most of the best years of their hockey lives and will soon decline. What this does is allow for teams to become competitive despite large payroll differences. Bill Guerin isn't 3 times the hockey player that Marian Hossa is even though Guerin makes about 3 times as much. This isn't a function of isolated negotiations but rather a function of the fact that Hossa signed his contract just after his entry level contract and Guerin signed his contract as an UFA. If we had a salary cap and Unrestricted Free Agency at age 27 then Marian Hossa would become a much more expensive player by the time he turns 27.

I read your post with respect to baseball. I agree that baseball does have a competitve balance problem but I disagree that the NHL is headed in that direction for the reasons I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Baseball's free agency system is not nearly as rigid as hockey's is. The Yankees truely can buy the best players while the Rangers have had to use their extra money to buy players that have already given some of their best years. Not only has a the NHL seen a variety of teams in the conference finals over the past three years, the last 10 years this CBA has existed has provided more competive balance that has existed during the 1980s when the Islanders and Oilers won 4 cups each or during the 1970s and 1950s when the Canadiens won 5 cups.

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

I completely understand your view of the cap. I completely understand that it will mathematically assure that the league doesn't lose any money, ...

A salary cap will not mathematically ensure that the league doesn't lose money. If revenues crash as a result of the lockout as many predict, the percentage of revenues that go towards operating costs will spike and the league will still potentially lose money.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

A salary cap will not mathematically ensure that the league doesn't lose money. If revenues crash as a result of the lockout as many predict, the percentage of revenues that go towards operating costs will spike and the league will still potentially lose money.

Well the idea would be to have the cap at a % of the net revenue rather than a straight up number. Of course for any given seasn that number is enforced by a million dollar salary cap, but if the revenues of the nhl change for better or for worse the idea is that the salary cap number would change with it.

 

[arnie]

Well said. And absent the times when Baldwin was running the show Pittsburgh had hall of fame level management, up until today (Craig Patrick) so the bad management argument does not wash. Actually CP has positioned the Pens very well for a future run and moved to shed salaries before the Cap environment showing why he is in the hall of fame.

Giving away your top players for nothing hardly makes you a great GM. The fact is that Patrick is one of the worst in the NHL, as his trade record, abysmal dradting and dreadful choice of coaches (Hlinka, EJ, etc) proves.

Patrick should have realized 4 years earlier that the Pens could not afford to pay high octane offensive players. Instead, he continued on with same run and gun hockey. Sure, he finally work up. But it was 4 years too late to do the Pens much good.

 

[Digger12]

A salary cap will not mathematically ensure that the league doesn't lose money. If revenues crash as a result of the lockout as many predict, the percentage of revenues that go towards operating costs will spike and the league will still potentially lose money.

...and the owners respond to crashed revenue by markedly lowering the cap level they're willing to negotiate.

That's one of the main pressure points vs. the players...the approx. 38 million cap that's negotiable right now could turn into a 28 million cap that's jammed down their throats come next January.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

the owner and GM of Tampa Bay have both come out and stated they will lose less money this year ( a year with no hockey) than they would if hockey was played

he also stated that they didn't even break even until they reached the finals last year

therefore Tampa would not be keeping their players either way unless the owners want to take major losses...you would see Tampa trade their players like Edmonton, Pittsburgh and many others

if Tampa didn't break even until the finals last year, they give everyone 10% raises who gets one along with signing just their UFA's...they would not be able to make a profit or break even at all next season and the seasons after

if they would get bounced from the playoffs early or have an injury filled season and fan fare dies out some they would lose a ton

the owners take to big of a risk right now with small market teams

why should owners have to take on personal dept to run a hockey franchise?????

while I agree with revenue sharing to some extent, total revenue sharing would not change the percentage the players are being asked to take

so I am not sure why pro NHLPA people use this as a battle cry

either way the percentage is 54-57% of revenue

so even with total revenue sharing that percentage would not change.....thats the amount the players are going to get

Because the idea that you have if you support a $30-something million hard cap is that all the teams need to be on the same level. All team must spend within about $6 million of each other no matter what. A cap does put all 30 teams at the same level on the ice, unfortunetly. But what it doesn't solve is the problem of revenues. Wether you have a cap or not, Carolina isn't going to pull a profit because they don't have that much revenue. Any team that's payroll last year was below $38 million and still lost money, is still going to lose that money even with a hard cap. The small market NHL teams just don't have the revenue streams.

Because of that, you need extensive revenue sharing in the NHL. And when you the owners agree to do this, they will essentially put every team almost on the same footing. Extensive revenue sharing will flatten out the revenues across the league and essentially do exactly what you want a cap to do... make sure all teams spend about the same amount. But with the a revenue sharing system you don't need that hard cap to bunch all the payrolls together and a different system could work just as well as far as keeping salaries at a certain point.

I guess in a way having a good revenue sharing system and a luxury tax system, like the one I posted in this thread, is equal to having a low hard cap, it would have the same effects.