It says here Players talking of $60 million luxury tax threshold

[garry1221]

Except the only argument people are giving me is that a cap is equally fair(or unfair) for everyone.

a world with no cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil as he has been arguably the best dman in the last 5 - 10 years

only only a handful of teams could afford him right? does that make it unfair to the rest of the league?, i'd say so, wouldn't you?

a world with a cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil, but has a counter offer of 6 - 7 mil as there's a whole team to be concerned about because cap space is limited

now, at least 15 teams could feasably afford that contract, the only things that could change would be bonuses and length of contract, either way that would keep 15 or more teams in the running for him. he still gets paid like a star, but salaries would be brought back to earth

another good dman who would ask for 7 mil would be told 'you're no lidstrom we'll give you x million, so on and so forth, a cap would still allow stars to be paid like stars, it would just stop some of the stupid offers made by GM's, while yes it does put a small limit to what each player can make, so what, if these players are playing for strictly monetary reasons then screw em, if more players would play for the love of the game then the fans would be treated to a better game night in and night out

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Let's look at the Cup champions for the past 10 years:
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning - not a big hockey market
2003 New Jersey Devils - East Rutherford a big hockey market ?
2002 Detroit Red Wings - an owner who invested in his team
2001 Colorado Avalanche - how is Denver any bigger or better a hockey market than Calgary ?
2000 New Jersey Devils - how is East Rutherford a bigger hockey market than Ottawa ?
1999 Dallas Stars - Texas !!! ya, hockey market hotbed
1998 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1995 New Jersey Devils
1994 New York Rangers - ok, this is a big market.

how many finals (or final four) apperances combined do NYR, PHI and TOR have in this period ? compare that to OTT, TBY, CGY, VAN, CRL, ANA, BUF, WSH

seems to me that the small market teams are competing just fine.

dr

 

[Winger98]

Yeah, but Kariya and Selanne are worth more than 7 mil combined. That's an unhealthy side effect of our flawed system we have now. Teams with huge budgets can afford stacked teams, essentially created a system of "have" and "have not" teams. Players will obviously want to flock to the "have" teams for a better chance of winning a Cup, even to the point of reducing their value for these teams. Kariya didn't want to sign with Anaheim for millions but he offered to sign with a stacked team for peanuts. That's not right.

You think players wouldn't still do that under a cap? Look at the Lakers of the NBA. Payton and Malone could have gotten far more individually from other teams, but they took a lot less to take a better shot at a championship. of course, it didn't work out for them in LA, but it didn't work out too well in Colorado, either (or Detroit, NYR, Philly, Toronto...).

 

[hockeytown9321]

a world with no cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil as he has been arguably the best dman in the last 5 - 10 years

only only a handful of teams could afford him right? does that make it unfair to the rest of the league?, i'd say so, wouldn't you?

a world with a cap:
Niklas Lidstrom asks for 10 mil, but has a counter offer of 6 - 7 mil as there's a whole team to be concerned about because cap space is limited

now, at least 15 teams could feasably afford that contract, the only things that could change would be bonuses and length of contract, either way that would keep 15 or more teams in the running for him. he still gets paid like a star, but salaries would be brought back to earth

another good dman who would ask for 7 mil would be told 'you're no lidstrom we'll give you x million, so on and so forth, a cap would still allow stars to be paid like stars, it would just stop some of the stupid offers made by GM's, while yes it does put a small limit to what each player can make, so what, if these players are playing for strictly monetary reasons then screw em, if more players would play for the love of the game then the fans would be treated to a better game night in and night out

if you read my posts, you'd know i never said they should keep the current system, or that it was 100% fair.

My point is that small payroll teams claim they can't keep thier players now, and a salary cap will not change that.

I'm sure there will be lots of players willing to take less to stay woth their team, but the question is how much? What if one team can offer $2-3 million more? If a player leaves, how could you blame them?

 

[NYIsles1*]

Let's look at the Cup champions for the past 10 years:
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning
2003 New Jersey Devils
2002 Detroit Red Wings
2001 Colorado Avalanche
2000 New Jersey Devils
1999 Dallas Stars
1998 Detroit Red Wings
1997 Detroit Red Wings
1996 Colorado Avalanche
1995 New Jersey Devils
1994 New York Rangers


I think the point here is that everyone knows that a big budget doesn't equal success - just look at Toronto and New York. But everyone also knows that all other things being equal, a big budget gives you a big advantage.

And worst of all most of these so-called big makets are losing money and made this problem. Toronto reportedly makes a profit. The NY Post and Washington Post reported the Rangers lose millions and have for years, so do the Blackhawks, Blues and Kings, Wings, Flyers and Stars.

Lot's of big markets on paper only.

 

[hockeytown9321]

And worst of all most of these so-called big makets are losing money and made this problem. Toronto reportedly makes a profit. The NY Post and Washington Post reported the Rangers lose millions and have for years, so do the Blackhawks, Blues and Kings, Wings, Flyers and Stars.

Lot's of big markets on paper only.

First of all, I wouldn't beleive the NY post on anything.

Second, the Red Wings have not lost millions for years. They generally need to go to the third round to make a profit. So yeah, they've probably lost some money in last couple years, but its not like they're in dire straits.

 

[NYIsles1*]

First of all, I wouldn't beleive the NY post on anything.

Second, the Red Wings have not lost millions for years. They generally need to go to the third round to make a profit. So yeah, they've probably lost some money in last couple years, but its not like they're in dire straits.

Actually the Wings owner claims he must make the finals for his team to break even, at some point a year ago he could not make payroll with the Tigers but kept spending on the Wings. But the point is the Wings overspending and banking on going to a final drove up the player market while the franchise on the whole is not producing revenue. They are a big part of the problem and cannot charge any more for tickets.

If your not going to accept the Rangers own life-long fan and beatwriter Larry Brooks in the Post, perhaps the Washington Post or the Garden's own financial statement. (posted a page or two back)

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20040910-124222-3766r.htm</FONT>

NHL owners reject players' proposal

But union officials say more than two-thirds of a listed $224 million loss for the 2003-04 season was because of six teams and about a third arose from just New York-area teams. Saskin declined to identify those teams, but both the Rangers and Islanders have sustained heavy losses in recent years.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Actually the Wings owner claims he must make the finals for his team to break even, at some point a year ago he could not make payroll with the Tigers but kept spending on the Wings. But the point is the Wings overspending and banking on going to a final drove up the player market while the franchise on the whole is not producing revenue. They are a big part of the problem and cannot charge any more for tickets.

If your not going to accept the Rangers own life-long fan and beatwriter Larry Brooks in the Post, perhaps the Washington Post or the Garden's own financial statement. (posted a page or two back)

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20040910-124222-3766r.htm</FONT>

NHL owners reject players' proposal

But union officials say more than two-thirds of a listed $224 million loss for the 2003-04 season was because of six teams and about a third arose from just New York-area teams. Saskin declined to identify those teams, but both the Rangers and Islanders have sustained heavy losses in recent years.

The Red Wings don't generate revenue? They are the Dallas Cowboys of hockey, at least in the US. They have sold out every game since December of 1996. They consistently sell more jerseys than any other team in the league. They are on national TV as much as anybody. And they draw more on the road than any other team, which puts money into others owner's pockets.

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Red Wings don't generate revenue? They are the Dallas Cowboys of hockey, at least in the US. They have sold out every game since December of 1996. They consistently sell more jerseys than any other team in the league. They are on national TV as much as anybody. And they draw more on the road than any other team, which puts money into others owner's pockets.

There is no Dallas Cowboys of hockey. Hockey is not football not in any way shape or form. Detroit has a popular team of name players and has to overspend and lose revenue to list many of the things you wrote above but it does not translate into a
successful business. Generating revenue and making money do not necessarily go hand in hand. Your owner claims he must make the finals to make money, that is not a success.

This is just a rich man spending more on his toys, it drove up the salaries and created an impossible standard for the league to maintain, he's not alone.

Which is why the game is where it is today with contracts so high most teams cannot bid for them and those that do in the end lose revenue.

Can you imagine how far down interest in the Wings will drop with a 31 million product. But the owner will likely make more just from the payroll savings, even if some bandwagon fans lose interest.

And the Wings can still compete for free agents, they are just going to have to pick their spots, so will every team.

 

[me2]

It wouldn't matter how much cap room you'd have in a year or two. A player is not going to sit for a year and wait. If another team has the cap room to sign him, he's gone.

So they lose Igilna. Big deal, they move on with the5 first rounders they get as compensation. That is pure gold in cap system where cheap is extra important. The Flames then take their cap space and go after Palffy or Demitra or both. Palffy + 5 1st rounders + cheaper payroll for Igilna.... Choices choices.

 

[me2]

It does not come down to how well a team drafts. The argument that its fair because every team is under the same restraints is not valid, because they're not. Teams that draft well are invariably going to be punished, while teams that don't draft well are going to have their choice of superstars.

Maybe the current system is unfair, maybe its not, that's not the argument I'm having. I'm showing you why a hard cap is not fair.

HYPOTHETICALLY: Under a $30 million cap, lets say the average salary for a superstar is $4 million. Calgary has two superstars on their team, both of whom they drafted and developed. They both become free agents the same year. Because Calgary has been well run, they also have lots of other good players signed. But because they have alot of good players, they only have $5 million in cap room, even though they have the revenue to sign both. They only have enough room to sign one of the superstars, unless they both agree to take alot less than the league average. So they sign superstar "A" for $3 million, who takes less becuase he wants to stay. But, now they only have $2 million to sign supestar "B". At the same time, Detroit has been terribly run for some time, is devoid of superstars and only has a few marginally good players. They've drafted terribly, but they have $4 million in cap room, and offer Calgary's superstar "B" the $4 million he deserves, based on league average. Superstar "B" now has to decide between loyalty and a $2 million difference. I think its safe to assume most professional atheletes would take the extra $2 million, so lets assume superstar "B" does in this case. Now I ask you, if you were a Calgary fan would you be upset over this? Would you feel this is fair? Your team did the drafting and developing, had the revenue to sign both, but were unable to while, a poorly run team his been rewarded.

Now lets say there's a luxury tax at around $40 million. Salaries will come down under this system as well. Lets take the two superstars from my example above, and say a luxury tax has lowered the average superstar salary to $5 million. Calgary has the revenue to pay each $4 million, but they both want $5. Calgary then takes the extra money they received from the teams paying a luxury tax and is able to give both what they want. Calgary has not been punished for drafing well, and they're not paying any more of their money for those players than they would have under a cap.

So, if you were a Calgary fan, which situation would you prefer? The cap, which took one of your superstars away? Or the luxury tax which allowed you to keep both without spending anything more than you would have under a cap?

Considering Calgary have a payroll well under $40m as it is, they don't have to worry about $40m luxury taxes because they can't afford to resign those players anyway. I think they would be happier to retain 3 out of 4 stars under at cap, than 1 or 0 under the current system where that star is getting $7-9m. 3 stars or no stars, which is better for Calgary????

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

So they lose Igilna. Big deal, they move on with the5 first rounders they get as compensation. That is pure gold in cap system where cheap is extra important. The Flames then take their cap space and go after Palffy or Demitra or both. Palffy + 5 1st rounders + cheaper payroll for Igilna.... Choices choices.

ok, lets say magically the players agree to a cap of whatever the owners demand. just say.

ok, just say. you dont think the RFA compensation rule will be lowered ? I mean, the players wont want to negotiate that in return for the cap ? You bet they will demand consessions in RFA compensation (to not restrict movement as much as it is today) and lower UFA.

so, just like in the NBA, players leave their teams at real young ages for ZERO compemsation.

like i said many times, be careful what you wish for.

DR

 

[RangerBlues]

I have no problem with creating a competitive cap, with a tax system for going over the top. The system must favor teams in retaining their own players.
Taking what I would consider a fair cap of 40million, and useing Jerome Iglinia as an example of a free agent. He's the Flames player for say 5+ years and they want to retain him. The Flames are allready at say 38million in salary without him, obviously 2mil aint gonna do it, so they give him 8 mil, the 6 million over the cap you have to pay a 10% tax on that money over the cap. If he was on the team less than 5 years its 10% for every year under 5 years (on the team 2 years via a trade you would pay a 30% tax the first year, 20% the second ect, untill the player reached 5 years) Now say he doesent want to return to the Flames and he takes a contract from the RedWings, the Wings are also at 38 mil but they want him really bad. so they give him 9mil it puts the wings at 47 mil, the wings pay 50% the first year, 40% the second ect,ect. The tax applys to players with the least tenure first. if the wings stayed under the cap in the signing they would pay a one time 10% tax on the toatle of the contract. If at anytime they went over the cap, the players with the least tenure are taxed accordingly. It's not the 7 million thats taxed, it's the players salary, over the cap is over the cap PERIOD, if you have 20 freeagents under 2 years on the team, tuff, your gonna pay alot of taxes on those salarys. Your own players say under the age of 22 with rookie 2way contracs don't count tword the cap.
Of course there should be injury exceptions(insurance, if any, pays the salary, not the team)
Now the trickey part, the owners want a salary cap, fine, but the owners must spend the money and compete. If your management stinks, if you can't markett your team, you can't sell tickets or sell merchandise, TUFF! If ya can't make enough money Move the team, sell the team or close up shop.
This makes just as much sense as anything else I've heard from both sides.
The owners want cost certinty, fine, but they must also create a system that the players can be paid fairly, tax money should not be going back to the owners, but into promoting the game. A new direction must be taken into promoting the sport, exactly what baseball did after the last strike. If hockey cant find ways to sell itself better it wont matter what kind of salary cap is put into place.

Also
Garry Bettman is bad for the NHL, he does not represent the sport or the leauge, he should be replaced, new leadership is what is needed, not a yes man for the owners. The players should be demanding that because it's in their best intrest to have sombody to drag the old ownership kicking and screaming into the 21'st century.

 

[me2]

ok, lets say magically the players agree to a cap of whatever the owners demand. just say.

ok, just say. you dont think the RFA compensation rule will be lowered ? I mean, the players wont want to negotiate that in return for the cap ? You bet they will demand consessions in RFA compensation (to not restrict movement as much as it is today) and lower UFA.

so, just like in the NBA, players leave their teams at real young ages for ZERO compemsation.

like i said many times, be careful what you wish for.

DR

So they trade him instead.

They are struggling to sign him now and they only have one star. The cap isn't an issue for them and won't be if its introduced. The Flames are not likely to lose out under a cap for many years and may gain.

A team like Ottawa would be in cap trouble sooner than the Flames. They don't have the money to retain their core long term under the current CBA, so a cap isn't going to hurt them. I think they too would rather have costs come down that much they can retain the majority of their stars rather than have salaries continue to blow out and lose them anyway. What would Ottawa rather do, lose 2 stars and have a $60m payroll or lose 2 stars and have a $40m payroll.

If a team like NYR had Ottawa's talent they would be damaged long term because they would have the $ to retain the stars. Its NYR so m'eh.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So they trade him instead.

They are struggling to sign him now and they only have one star. The cap isn't an issue for them and won't be if its introduced. The Flames are not likely to lose out under a cap for many years and may gain.

A team like Ottawa would be in cap trouble sooner than the Flames. They don't have the money to retain their core long term under the current CBA, so a cap isn't going to hurt them. I think they too would rather have costs come down that much they can retain the majority of their stars rather than have salaries continue to blow out and lose them anyway. What would Ottawa rather do, lose 2 stars and have a $60m payroll or lose 2 stars and have a $40m payroll.

If a team like NYR had Ottawa's talent they would be damaged long term because they would have the $ to retain the stars. Its NYR so m'eh.

What about Detroit? Are they in the same boat as the Rangers? Shouldn't the impact be looked at for every team? Shouldn't every team have an equal say so?

 

[me2]

What about Detroit? Are they in the same boat as the Rangers? Shouldn't the impact be looked at for every team? Shouldn't every team have an equal say so?

Equal say, absolutely. Every team should get 1 vote out. Detroit has 1 vote out of 30, they can cast it for no salary restrictions if they want.