Let's assume a 'hard cap' ....

[Evileye]

Since Bettman wants everyone to believe that a 'hard cap' is the only solution for a healthy NHL and it would benefit the fans....
I would like to explore what I think would be some serious negatives of a hard cap system.

Here's a very likely scenario...
Your fav team is going down the stretch and looks to be a serious contender for the cup, however its blatantly obvious they need a solid defenceman to 'put them over the hump.' However because they are a very good team with very good players, they get paid as such so they have no cap room. Even though the team has a bunch of good prospects they are willing to trade to land that defenceman, and other teams are chomping to make that trade, they can't, even if they had lots of money. So they enter the playoffs and lose a close series in the finals.

As a fan wouldn't you just be cursing the 'hard cap' in that situation?

Now the counter argument is that the team that beat them is operating under the same system so its fair, right?
Not necessarily, if your fav team was a large market team (Detroit, Toronto, Philly) who have tremendous fan support, don't these numerous, loyal fans deserve to have their teams reinvest the money they obviously have to give their team that extra impact player?
Why should these teams be limited by the 'lowest common denominator' just so they can stay financially viable in a market that perhaps can't support hockey.
All you're doing is making the owners of the big market teams a heck of a lot richer.

If the NHL gets its way, the Ontario teachers are going to have great pension fund.
(for those that don't know, the Ontario teacher's pension owns a very big chunk of the Leafs)

Click to read more...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

another negative...

lets say you have a star player who you no longer want on your team. he is being paid like a star as well. however, no team will make you an offer for him because he makes too much. so you keep him while he infects your team with a bad attitude and then leaves you as UFA.

it might not even be so dramatic. you may love the guy, but cant trade him to rebuild your team.

imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for LInden ? VAN would not have Bertuzzi. Imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for Yashin ? OTT would not have Chara. Imagine if DAL did not have cap room for Neiuwendyk ? CGY would not have Iginla.

the list goes on and on.

oh well, its what the owners want. screw the fans.

dr

 

[me2]

If the NHL gets its way, the Ontario teachers are going to have great pension fund.
(for those that don't know, the Ontario teacher's pension owns a very big chunk of the Leafs)

Great news for teachers.

 

[me2]

imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for LInden ? VAN would not have Bertuzzi. Imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for Yashin ? OTT would not have Chara.

NYI fans are dancing in the streets at the thought of it.

Imagine if DAL did not have cap room for Neiuwendyk ? CGY would not have Iginla.

Maybe Dallas loses its cups with Igilna and that is isn't good for Dallas, but then maybe Igilna leads them to a cups and that's good..

the list goes on and on.

oh well, its what the owners want. screw the fans.

dr

Screw what fans? half lose and half win.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

NYI fans are dancing in the streets at the thought of it.

Maybe Dallas loses its cups with Igilna and that is isn't good for Dallas, but then maybe Igilna leads them to a cups and that's good..

Screw what fans? half lose and half win.

i see your point however dont you want your team to have the ability to win some trades ?

i know there are two sides, but lets allow for *some* gamesmenship, ok ? do we feel sorry now for teams that lose trades ? it has gone from feeling sorry for teams that cant sign UFA's to now teams cant lose trades ?

i can think of trades that were money for prospects that worked out for both sides. would you prefer ?

how would the Devils look without Mogilny being a big part of their cup win ? VAN would be minus Morrison. cap = lose / lose for both

can i go on or is the point made ?

dr

 

[PecaFan]

Even though the team has a bunch of good prospects they are willing to trade to land that defenceman, and other teams are chomping to make that trade, they can't, even if they had lots of money. So they enter the playoffs and lose a close series in the finals.

As a fan wouldn't you just be cursing the 'hard cap' in that situation?

Right now, most teams can't even get to that situation under the current system. So just getting close under a cap is already a win.

Also, this presumes so much. If they wanted to add a player later, then they shouldn't have been operating at the cap. A smart team will hold back some room so they can add if needed.

Further, even if they are at the cap, it doesn't mean they can't do anything about it. It just means that some salary has to go back the other way when they deal. If they're so deep at forward, they can move some of that to improve their defence.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

Since Bettman wants everyone to believe that a 'hard cap' is the only solution for a healthy NHL and it would benefit the fans....
I would like to explore what I think would be some serious negatives of a hard cap system.

Here's a very likely scenario...
Your fav team is going down the stretch and looks to be a serious contender for the cup, however its blatantly obvious they need a solid defenceman to 'put them over the hump.' However because they are a very good team with very good players, they get paid as such so they have no cap room. Even though the team has a bunch of good prospects they are willing to trade to land that defenceman, and other teams are chomping to make that trade, they can't, even if they had lots of money. So they enter the playoffs and lose a close series in the finals.

As a fan wouldn't you just be cursing the 'hard cap' in that situation?

Now the counter argument is that the team that beat them is operating under the same system so its fair, right?
Not necessarily, if your fav team was a large market team (Detroit, Toronto, Philly) who have tremendous fan support, don't these numerous, loyal fans deserve to have their teams reinvest the money they obviously have to give their team that extra impact player?
Why should these teams be limited by the 'lowest common denominator' just so they can stay financially viable in a market that perhaps can't support hockey.
All you're doing is making the owners of the big market teams a heck of a lot richer.

If the NHL gets its way, the Ontario teachers are going to have great pension fund.
(for those that don't know, the Ontario teacher's pension owns a very big chunk of the Leafs)

under the old system, chances are that one defenseman that put you over the hump is going to toronto or detroit (leetch, chelios) and you are stuck with bergevin. at least under the nhl proposed system, if you cant get it because you are near the cap, then the rich teams cant get it because they are also near there, the poor teams cant afford him, and the non playoff teams dont want him, so you head to the playoff with the same line up as the regular season and see whos better. in short, you prevent teams from stacking up at the deadline to make a run.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

in short, you prevent teams from stacking up at the deadline to make a run.

i dont know about you, but i think this is one of the best things about the NHL.

dont you love the trade deadline ?

dr

 

[adurn]

You see, your scenario is why a cap is needed. The cap prevents high spending teams from wheeling and dealing before the deadline to stock up on all the talent they can get their hands on - regardless of price.

If your team gets the solid defenseman and goes on to win the Cup, all the small market teams' fans will complain they had less of a chance at the cup due to the other teams' free spending. Why not just keep it even so all the teams have a chance?

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

I'm not set for any one conclusion but to me a cap will really show which teams can manage themselves properly. Trades, drafts, signings....Big teams won't be able to just fix their mistakes or lack of players buy just using money

 

[Evileye]

Right now, most teams can't even get to that situation under the current system. So just getting close under a cap is already a win.

Also, this presumes so much. If they wanted to add a player later, then they shouldn't have been operating at the cap. A smart team will hold back some room so they can add if needed.

Further, even if they are at the cap, it doesn't mean they can't do anything about it. It just means that some salary has to go back the other way when they deal. If they're so deep at forward, they can move some of that to improve their defence.

My main point is that there are teams that have the extra money, the reason they have extra money is because they have a large loyal fanbase. These teams shouldn't be restricted so that teams who don't have the fans can compete.
Again, all you are doing is making the rich, richer. If all teams made close to the same amount of money (as in the NFL with their huge equally shared TV deal) than a cap can work well. I think a luxury tax system done properly can work better than a cap. That way if a team REALLY wants to spend the extra money to get that extra player, they have a choice, it will just cost them more. Then the fans who supported that team loyally putting them in that strong financial position get rewarded as they should.

 

[Evileye]

You see, your scenario is why a cap is needed. The cap prevents high spending teams from wheeling and dealing before the deadline to stock up on all the talent they can get their hands on - regardless of price.

If your team gets the solid defenseman and goes on to win the Cup, all the small market teams' fans will complain they had less of a chance at the cup due to the other teams' free spending. Why not just keep it even so all the teams have a chance?

Deadline deals don't drive salaries up. It may drive an individual teams payroll up temporarily for the rest of the season as most deadline deals are imminent free-agents.
Outrageous free-agent signings drive up salaries.

Here's a comprimise, how about a cap on total salaries payed to free-agents from other teams with players you draft and develop yourself exempt from the cap.

 

[Brodie562]

Wouldn't they just pay a tax if they want to stock up. Example: Detroit is at 38 mill with a 40 mill cap they trade prospect for a 3 mill D-man. They're over by 1 mill, so they pay a tax. then by next season they have to be under the cap again if not then they pay another tax.

If its gonna be big market teams then they have the money to make the moves to stock up. what the cap does is even the playing field and my example would just make it so we dont see all these trades that people hated like the Kov or Jagr deals with Pit. unless teams like New York, Detroit, Toronto are willling to pay the price

 

[Brodie562]

I'm not set for any one conclusion but to me a cap will really show which teams can manage themselves properly. Trades, drafts, signings....Big teams won't be able to just fix their mistakes or lack of players buy just using money

Agreed, this will be fun to watch in my opinion

 

[sabresfan65]

My main point is that there are teams that have the extra money, the reason they have extra money is because they have a large loyal fanbase. These teams shouldn't be restricted so that teams who don't have the fans can compete.
Again, all you are doing is making the rich, richer. If all teams made close to the same amount of money (as in the NFL with their huge equally shared TV deal) than a cap can work well. I think a luxury tax system done properly can work better than a cap. That way if a team REALLY wants to spend the extra money to get that extra player, they have a choice, it will just cost them more. Then the fans who supported that team loyally putting them in that strong financial position get rewarded as they should.

The problem with some of your logic is that it is the size of the fan base that is directly related to the ability of a team to make money. This is not entirely true. It is not the size of the fan base but the size of the fan bases wallet that allows a team to make more money than the rest. The economic climate of the city that team is in has much to do with it. The Rangers has average "attendance" last year of around 18,000, but a fan said he was at many games and doesn't remember there being more than 15,000on most nights. Lots of empty seats most nights. But those tickets were sold to people with much disposable income. At this time, Buffalo has the lowest ticket prices in the league, after they were lowered this off season. They were 20th in the league in attendance last year but were very close to those teams up to about 12th or so. There revenues are hurt by the fact that the economic climate of Buffalo cannot handle an average ticket price that the people of NY, Toronto, Denver or LA can. It's not that the fans care less, it's that the disposable income of the blue collar workers won't allow them to spend $125 per seat to take their families to a game. Therefore the Sabres must sell their tickets for less money so that they can fill the seats as best as they can.

Now I won't discount that there are probably more Ranger fans than Sabres fans, but the same probably can't be said about some of the other teams. Does anyone really care about any sport in LA or do they just want to be seen at the game?

 

[Evileye]

I'm not set for any one conclusion but to me a cap will really show which teams can manage themselves properly. Trades, drafts, signings....Big teams won't be able to just fix their mistakes or lack of players buy just using money

What will they do with all their extra money then? (because they will have lots of it)

What if they spent it on all the best scouts, coaches, training gear, minor league affiliates, etc. so all the best scouts and coaches wanted more money and only wanted to work for them?

Will the small market teams complain about that then?

 

[Brodie562]

Now I won't discount that there are probably more Ranger fans than Sabres fans, but the same probably can't be said about some of the other teams. Does anyone really care about any sport in LA or do they just want to be seen at the game?

we have a strong fan base (Kings), look up last years numbers. but about just wanting to be seen there its true with the Lakers, in the Kings case the team has to win in order for you to look cool there

 

[me2]

under the old system, chances are that one defenseman that put you over the hump is going to toronto or detroit (leetch, chelios) and you are stuck with bergevin. at least under the nhl proposed system, if you cant get it because you are near the cap, then the rich teams cant get it because they are also near there, the poor teams cant afford him, and the non playoff teams dont want him, so you head to the playoff with the same line up as the regular season and see whos better. in short, you prevent teams from stacking up at the deadline to make a run.

I know this is quite Un-North American (as regards pro sports) but I really don't mind locked rosters. Who you go into the season with, you finish the season with. Injuries, well that's just too bad luck and you'll have to make do with some farm kid or some unsigned guy in the minors. It'd be nice for the players too, they could settle into one spot for a year without having to worry about being traded.

You can always think of the odd exceptional circumstance but I think the players might like it.

 

[Brodie562]

What will they do with all their extra money then? (because they will have lots of it)

What if they spent it on all the best scouts, coaches, training gear, minor league affiliates, etc. so all the best scouts and coaches wanted more money and only wanted to work for them?

Will the small market teams complain about that then?

I would think that they would keep if for themselfs. After all is is a business, are they supposed to spend every dollar on players or scouts, are they not allowed to make money off the teams they own

 

[me2]

What will they do with all their extra money then? (because they will have lots of it)

What if they spent it on all the best scouts, coaches, training gear, minor league affiliates, etc. so all the best scouts and coaches wanted more money and only wanted to work for them?

Will the small market teams complain about that then?

They will. The difference though is its a very diminishing return. Pumping $10m into scouts isn't going to produce much difference than pumping $1m into scouts. And there are no shortages of guys qualified to be scouts. About 10-15 guys good enough to be scouts retire from the NHL every year, and lots more from other places, and there aren't that many needed.

They'll have an advantage spending on the minor leagues teams and coaches, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe coaches should be counted as player expenses, yeah the players would love that.

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

i dont know about you, but i think this is one of the best things about the NHL.

dont you love the trade deadline ?

dr

love the excitement of the deadline, but usually hate the result. every year i cheer for the same 2 teams (canucks, senators), every year (well the last few years anyways) i think they are in good shape. then the deadline comes and colorado get a blake, toronto get a leetch, and vancouver get a bergevin, ottawa get a ray, and suddenly my teams dont look so good anymore.

Evileye- im not sure how many people you can convince that edmonton cant compete because their fans arent loyal enough.

me2- locking players is a little too extreme for me, because i think you should be able to make moves that are "hockey decisions". if the canucks wait till the offseason to acquire linden, then they might've miss the playoff in the 02/03 season.

 

[I.am.ca]

another negative...

lets say you have a star player who you no longer want on your team. he is being paid like a star as well. however, no team will make you an offer for him because he makes too much. so you keep him while he infects your team with a bad attitude and then leaves you as UFA.

it might not even be so dramatic. you may love the guy, but cant trade him to rebuild your team.

imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for LInden ? VAN would not have Bertuzzi. Imagine if NYI didnt have the cap room for Yashin ? OTT would not have Chara. Imagine if DAL did not have cap room for Neiuwendyk ? CGY would not have Iginla.

the list goes on and on.

oh well, its what the owners want. screw the fans.

dr

Lots of Ifs in any situation but hey if you pay a star lots of money and he doesn't perform your stuck with him. Only way the teams can deal with him is buy his contract out and show him the door. But that sorta pisses me off because alot of stars do this, they land the big deal and totally disappear and i think they should be penalized for that, if they don't perform at the level they are expected to according to their prior stats and on the basis they were signed the big deal for they shuold be allowed to be fired no compensation.

If a company hires me because i've done a great job elsewhere, they aren't hiring me just for the sake of hiring me, they are hiring me based on my prior performance, if i don't perform to that level i should be fired, plain and simple.

I don't think there should be a hard cap, but there should be some sort of cap, and if your team can't draft proper to provide you with the talent to be a strong team then too bad and better luck next year.

 

[I.am.ca]

The thing i thought about the rollback was that the 24% would be cut from their contract and their contract would then stay like that till the end of it then the teams can figure out how to deal with the RFA's and UFA's with new contracts.

But it was a onetime rollback and well thats a stupid proposal from the NHLPA and some fans think its bs that the NHL rejected it, why the hell shouldn't they reject it, it doesn't solve anything, the players are set to lose money this year anyway because of the lockout and next year they would get their full pay, they need to fix this problem and as much as i don't like Bob or Gary, these 2 idiots need to solve the situation and then both need to be fired and replaced with better people for the sake of the NHL and NHLPA.

These 2 clowns have made a fool of themselves firing back at each other and don't seem to be able to control the guys they are leaders of. When you can't control the people that put you there, you replace that person with someone that can.

 

[Freudian]

I don't see where unfairness come into the picture. So they can't add top players to a team already filled with top players? They actually have to use the team they decided to build. Any team who would like to be able to bring in some player that get them over the hump have to leave some room in their budget to do so. Hardly rocket science.

This sounds like a system where teams who draft well and develop players well will be rewarded. Sound pretty good to me.

 

[I.am.ca]

I don't see where unfairness come into the picture. So they can't add top players to a team already filled with top players? They actually have to use the team they decided to build. Any team who would like to be able to bring in some player that get them over the hump have to leave some room in their budget to do so. Hardly rocket science.

This sounds like a system where teams who draft well and develop players well will be rewarded. Sound pretty good to me.

Which is pretty much my point, u can't draft well, too bad.