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

[LazRNN]

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

I actually think a hard cap would PENALIZE teams that draft well. I brought up these problems with in an earlier thread that proponents of a hard cap ignored…

It’s not just about “big market†and “small market†teams. It’s also about good teams and bad teams. The fact is a team didn’t need to be in a big market to be successful in the old system (that's not a defense of the old system, but it's a fact). Anyone whining about a competitive imbalance has to deal with the fact that 5 out of 6 Canadian teams made the playoffs last year, and it was almost all 6, and one of them came within one timely goal of winning the Stanley Cup. They also have to deal with the fact that over the last two seasons, Philadelphia is the only big market team to make it as far as the conference finals.

I brought up Tampa, which is as good a counter example as you can find. You can complain about how Detroit won the Cup two and a half years ago, signing Hasek, Hull and Robitaille to free agent contracts in the off season, but Tampa built their team the right way, developing three young MVP caliber players in their system in Richards, Lecavalier, and St. Louis. Two draft picks and one low profile free agent signing who was then developed into something special by Tampa. Under a hard cap, at some point in the near future they will have to give up on one or two of those players. I doubt any fan of a small market team would honestly feel okay about their own team having to break themselves up due to a hard cap, if that team build themselves to competitiveness by making good use of high draft picks it earned through years of mediocrity. But a hard cap WILL penalize teams that draft well… there’s no way around that. It would be easy to come up with a system that includes exemptions for players drafted by the team, or a player that has spent a few years with a team. This would prevent Detroit from doing what they did but allow Tampa to keep those three players as the foundation of their team. If Tampa didn't win game six or seven of the finals last year, don't they deserve to keep having chances with the foundation that they built?

An NFL team can carry 30 more players than an NHL roster, and most of the contracts are non guaranteed, so any NFL team that wants to keep a major player has a couple of dozen second and third tier players they can move or cut to help get them under the cap. The NHL roster has the 18 dressed skaters, two goalies, and basically more active three players who can suit up in case of injury or for a specific match up. That’s simply not enough to be able to move around a hard cap. They use the phrase "salary cap hell" in the NFL, but it will be nothing compared to what NHL teams have to face with their small rosters. It would be easy to foresee a situation in which a team has a player under contract who has suffered injuries, and they can’t trade him and they don’t have cap room to add any players, and they are forced to play with less than 18 skaters. There HAVE to be exemptions made that allow teams to sign people to fill out their roster at the minimum at least, or have injury exemptions so a player out for the season won’t count against the cap. But then you wouldn’t have this “hard†cap Bettman is insisting on.

A soft cap is the obvious solution here, and it drives me nuts that no side has even brought up the possibility.

 

[Freudian]

darkboy, the reason teams gets priced out today is that while the Tampas of this world don't have the salary room eventually, other teams have. The Philadelphias and Detroits of this world can afford to take on extra salary. With a cap in place no team will have unlimited extra room. This keeps salary demands down and keeps drafted players at their team. It is simply much less likely that a tactic where a player with silly demands will force a trade will work.

If I was Tampa I would definately want a cap. Which is why I suspect the owners down in Tampa won't settle for anything less.

 

[LazRNN]

darkboy, the reason teams gets priced out today is that while the Tampas of this world don't have the salary room eventually, other teams have. The Philadelphias and Detroits of this world can afford to take on extra salary. With a cap in place no team will have unlimited extra room. This keeps salary demands down and keeps drafted players at their team. It is simply much less likely that a tactic where a player with silly demands will force a trade will work.

If I was Tampa I would definately want a cap. Which is why I suspect the owners down in Tampa won't settle for anything less.

But again, you have a situation where a team that drafted well is forced to break the team up. I don’t think you can say for certain that Tampa would break up their team on their own if there was no cap… if the lockout doesn’t ruin whatever goodwill they earned by winning the Stanley Cup keeping all three of them would help keep seats full. And I don’t buy that every owner will settle for nothing less than a hard cap. Let me remind you that Mr. Bettman will fine any owner a hefty, undisclosed amount of money if they don’t say what he says they should say. I think Tampa would be thrilled to “settle” for a soft cap that would allow them to sign the core of their team to long term, market value contracts.

But that still doesn’t address the complications of dealing with a hard cap with a relatively small roster. Sure it would spread out competitive balance a little more, though I think it’s pretty obvious that there was already pretty decent competitive balance in the NHL, but it would also trap teams into years of mediocrity, which would not help business in that area. If the owners think a hard cap will solve all the economic problems of the league, they are in for a rude surprise if they get what they want. They really seem to think that insisting on a hard cap is worth shutting down the league for an entire season, but it should be plainly obvious that a hard cap won’t increase interest in the sport around the U.S., especially not considering the interest that will be killed by an extended lockout. The fact is that teams like Carolina, Nashville, Minnesota, Calgary, etc. have had success in recent seasons… Minnesota and Calgary are of course, hockey markets, but how much has having a successful team for one season helped the sport in Carolina and Nashville? Wouldn’t be much different with a hard cap… a team could make a decent run through the post season, then it will be time to tear down the team and rebuild. The owners should be more interested in trying to come up with something that the players will consider so that the league will start again ASAP… if that means dropping the notion of a hard cap so be it.

 

[Blane Youngblood]

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?

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread and I'm sure someone has already responded since this is the first thing written, but here it goes:

Many teams can't afford to load up at the trade deadline. The whole reason many people support a salary cap is because it guarantees that teams are playing on level financial terms. It doesn't upset me that teams can load up at the deadline, but it seems almost unfair that some teams can and some teams can't. So there will always be some fans who curse the hard cap and some that don't. Personally, I support a team that made a profit last year but I am confident that my team could compete on a level playing ground and thus I am all for a hard cap.

As far as the rich getting richer, I am personally hoping for some form of revenue sharing in the new CBA. I think the Rangers - because of their shrewed business moves, deserves to make more money then the average team, but also feel that part of their profit is derived from the quality of their opponents, and thus some revenue sharing should take place. I am certain that if there is a hard cap, there will be some sort of minimum salary cap as well, some revenue sharing will need to take place to allow all teams to atleast reach this minimum. Because of this, I don't think it will simply be a case of the rich getting richer, I think it will be each franchise getting relatively richer (and the players will continue to make an average salary of over 1.4 million a year).

As far a revenue sharing goes, I think that a total pot of $1,050 million (35 mil x30 teams) should be contributed to based on each teams percentage of total league revenues, after that, each team should be allowed to keep (or spend) the rest of their gross revenue. I like this system because it's similar to what the owners are doing to the players (making the richer ones contribute more then the poorer ones). Keep in mind this is quickly thought up and some way to adjust for price differences (i.e. rent costs between Carolina and New York) will probably need to be built into the system.

 

[SENSible1*]

Darkboy,

As it stands now, all but a select few franchises will have to break up their team should they draft and develop well enough to form a dominant team when the lineup's cost outgrows their revenues.

At least with the cap, all teams would be playing by the same rules.

Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a league that rewarded all teams equally for the intelligence of their management.

Teams like the Eagles and Patriots can form and maintain dominant teams in the NFL through shrewd management, so why not in the NHL?

 

[Donnie D]

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?

Your right a hard cap doesn't work - the NFL is proof. Oh wait, it works great there.

Never mind.

 

[I.am.ca]

Your right it doesn't work - the NFL is proof. Oh wait, it works great there.

Never mind.

The NHLPA can't even say that the Cap doesn't work, there is alot of proof that a cap helps a league immensely and makes sure the league survives and maintains its balance.

Its only that the NHLPA wants to act like immature idiots and say no we don't want it, we want to be rich, give us money..money money money money money money money.

 

[LazRNN]

Darkboy,

As it stands now, all but a select few franchises will have to break up their team should they draft and develop well enough to form a dominant team when the lineup's cost outgrows their revenues.

At least with the cap, all teams would be playing by the same rules.

Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a league that rewarded all teams equally for the intelligence of their management.

Teams like the Eagles and Patriots can form and maintain dominant teams in the NFL through shrewd management, so why not in the NHL?

Well, like I said, there are some factors that make it easier to do this in the NFL… one is that the roster size is much bigger so it’s easier to shift and shape a roster… second is that most contracts are non guaranteed so you can always cut a player to work around the cap (good luck trying to get the NHLPA to accept wide spread non guaranteed contracts). Plus the NFL doesn’t need to worry about that ramifications of a team going through the rebuilding process. Even if Philadelphia had to go through a rebuilding phase, there will always be a level of interest and profitability. That won't happen in a lot of NHL cities.

I think that there should be a cap of some kind, so that, for example, Detroit couldn’t sign Hasek Hull and Robitaille, or they couldn’t trade prospects and grinders for Lang and Schneider. But I don’t think Tampa should be forced to break up their team if they don’t want to. Drafting and developing talent isn’t something that’s easier for big money teams to do. And a team like Tampa building themselves the way they did is NOT the problem. So don’t come up with a blanket solution that messes with things that shouldn’t be messed with. A soft cap more directly addresses the issues of competitive imbalance. The problem is teams that can afford more high profile players than other teams, not teams that draft and develop more high profile players than others…

I still don’t get why no one is willing to propose a soft cap…

 

[FLYLine27*]

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

In short you prevent teams from doing what the Rangers did this past spring. Rebuild. You cant just look at the teams stacking but the teams getting rid of.

 

[membleypeg]

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.

All teams will have the revenues made public record with the fans. If your Leafs team is making a huge profit, you will know. That knowledge will give the fans leverage in demanding a reduction in ticket prices in Toronto. Who knows, you may even get a beer for a buck less.

 

[Buffaloed]

Well, like I said, there are some factors that make it easier to do this in the NFL… one is that the roster size is much bigger so it’s easier to shift and shape a roster… second is that most contracts are non guaranteed so you can always cut a player to work around the cap (good luck trying to get the NHLPA to accept wide spread non guaranteed contracts).

Guaranteed contracts become a minor issue if they negotiate a more reasonable buyout rate. If they don't include it in the CBA, buyout clauses can be inserted into individual contracts. There's also nothing to prevent clubs from only offering 1 year deals which seem to be the norm anyways.

 

[SENSible1*]

Well, like I said, there are some factors that make it easier to do this in the NFL… one is that the roster size is much bigger so it’s easier to shift and shape a roster… second is that most contracts are non guaranteed so you can always cut a player to work around the cap (good luck trying to get the NHLPA to accept wide spread non guaranteed contracts). Plus the NFL doesn’t need to worry about that ramifications of a team going through the rebuilding process. Even if Philadelphia had to go through a rebuilding phase, there will always be a level of interest and profitability. That won't happen in a lot of NHL cities.

I think that there should be a cap of some kind, so that, for example, Detroit couldn’t sign Hasek Hull and Robitaille, or they couldn’t trade prospects and grinders for Lang and Schneider. But I don’t think Tampa should be forced to break up their team if they don’t want to. Drafting and developing talent isn’t something that’s easier for big money teams to do. And a team like Tampa building themselves the way they did is NOT the problem. So don’t come up with a blanket solution that messes with things that shouldn’t be messed with. A soft cap more directly addresses the issues of competitive imbalance. The problem is teams that can afford more high profile players than other teams, not teams that draft and develop more high profile players than others…

I still don’t get why no one is willing to propose a soft cap…

So its harder on NHL GM's, big deal. The smarter organizations will still rise to the top, as they should.

 

[LazRNN]

So its harder on NHL GM's, big deal. The smarter organizations will still rise to the top, as they should.

You’re missing my point. Yes, smarter organizations will rise to the top… for a season or two… then they’ll be forced to break themselves up and go back to the pack and build themselves to the top again. No one is addressing why a team like Tampa or Ottawa should have to do this. Yeah, we all understand why it’s unfair that only the Rangers, the Leafs, the Red Wings, the Avs, the Stars etc. can afford to sign free agents in the off season, but that can be addressed without a hard cap.

Again, what is wrong with a soft cap that has exemptions that allows teams to go over the cap to sign their own players?

 

[Buffaloed]

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

It's one of the worst things about the NHL. Sure, it's fun and exciting, but it makes a mockery of the game when a team can radically change it's composition for the playoffs with 75% of the season gone. It's one of the reasons people don't take the NHL seriously. It operates like a fantasy league in that respect. It destroys the integrity of the team-building process. What's the point of following the regular season when the whole thing can be turned upside down in mid-March? I'll be glad if a cap brings some sanity to the process. I'd be even happier if the trade deadline was moved back to December 1st.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

All teams will have the revenues made public record with the fans. If your Leafs team is making a huge profit, you will know. That knowledge will give the fans leverage in demanding a reduction in ticket prices in Toronto. Who knows, you may even get a beer for a buck less.

????

how do you figure ? first of all if hte players are expected to take a cut of the pie, the owners have an obligation to make the pie as big as possible. why would they reduce ticket prices ?

second, private companies such as MLSE does not need to make their revenues public. they will declare their hockey designated income through the league URO. who knows if its accurate or not.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It's one of the worst things about the NHL. Sure, it's fun and exciting, but it makes a mockery of the game when a team can radically change it's composition for the playoffs with 75% of the season gone. It's one of the reasons people don't take the NHL seriously. It operates like a fantasy league in that respect. It destroys the integrity of the team-building process. What's the point of following the regular season when the whole thing can be turned upside down in mid-March? I'll be glad if a cap brings some sanity to the process. I'd be even happier if the trade deadline was moved back to December 1st.

i dont share that view at all. i think the late trade deadline is one of the best things about the NHL.

i see no problem with teams adding or shuffling talent around that late.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

You’re missing my point. Yes, smarter organizations will rise to the top… for a season or two… then they’ll be forced to break themselves up and go back to the pack and build themselves to the top again. No one is addressing why a team like Tampa or Ottawa should have to do this. Yeah, we all understand why it’s unfair that only the Rangers, the Leafs, the Red Wings, the Avs, the Stars etc. can afford to sign free agents in the off season, but that can be addressed without a hard cap.

Again, what is wrong with a soft cap that has exemptions that allows teams to go over the cap to sign their own players?

I have no problem with a soft cap that has those exemptions. In fact, as a Sens fan I highly favour them.

However, I'd rather have a hard cap than watch my team be dissassembled for economic reasons that don't affect all teams equally and have to watch my favourites end up playing for the big market teams.

The league has made it clear that once the players agree to a link between salaries and revenues, the form it takes is negotiable.

 

[I.am.ca]

It's one of the worst things about the NHL. Sure, it's fun and exciting, but it makes a mockery of the game when a team can radically change it's composition for the playoffs with 75% of the season gone. It's one of the reasons people don't take the NHL seriously. It operates like a fantasy league in that respect. It destroys the integrity of the team-building process. What's the point of following the regular season when the whole thing can be turned upside down in mid-March? I'll be glad if a cap brings some sanity to the process. I'd be even happier if the trade deadline was moved back to December 1st.

I agree, the deadline is a joke because its soo late in the season, the deadline should be pushed back to an earlier date.

 

[Buffaloed]

Again, what is wrong with a soft cap that has exemptions that allows teams to go over the cap to sign their own players?

I'd like to see some accomodation made for that if it's done within reason. I'd give cap discounts off the salaries of players with continuous service on the same team, starting with 5 years.

Example:
[pre]
Years Service %Salary Applied to Cap
5 90
6 85
7 80
8 75
9 70
10 65
>10 50
[/pre]

 

[Donnie D]

I'd like to see some accomodation made for that if it's done within reason. I'd give cap discounts off the salaries of players with continuous service on the same team, starting with 5 years.

Example:
[pre]
Years Service %Salary Applied to Cap
5 90
6 85
7 80
8 75
9 70
10 65
>10 50
[/pre]

The NFL and the players association worked out a deal to address this. A vet has a minimum salary of $750,000. Rookies less. If you sign a vet with a signing bonus of $25,000 or less, you only count the rookie salary against the cap. It was designed to prevent teams from dumping older players for rookies to save cap space.

You know when the players really decide to be part of the solution, it is possible to develop a working system. ARE YOU LISTENING BOB?

 

[LazRNN]

I have no problem with a soft cap that has those exemptions. In fact, as a Sens fan I highly favour them.

However, I'd rather have a hard cap than watch my team be dissassembled for economic reasons that don't affect all teams equally and have to watch my favourites end up playing for the big market teams.

The league has made it clear that once the players agree to a link between salaries and revenues, the form it takes is negotiable.

Well, we don’t disagree much then. I still can’t side with the owners (I’m siding with no one) until they make a meaningful proposal to the PA. All their proposals have had a hard cap, and all the players proposals have included no cap. Seems to me that both sides are deliberately making proposals they know the other won’t listen to. If the NHL actually proposed the soft cap then I might have reason to believe they weren’t angling for an impasse so they could start the league up in a year or two with non union players. To me, if that’s what they actually want, it’s unforgivable. The players, meanwhile, could do themselves some good by proposing a soft cap… at this point there is no chance that the NHL will resume with no cap of any kind. Right now they could propose a soft cap plan tweaked so that it would still allow open competition for FAs. If they don’t make a move in this direction soon the owners will go through with their plan to break the union. I can understand if they were dead set against a hard cap, but being that adamant about a soft cap when the NBA has one is ridiculous. But again, until one side proposes a soft cap, how do we know how they really feel about it.

 

[Buffaloed]

The NFL and the players association worked out a deal to address this. A vet has a minimum salary of $750,000. Rookies less. If you sign a vet with a signing bonus of $25,000 or less, you only count the rookie salary against the cap. It was designed to prevent teams from dumping older players for rookies to save cap space.

You know when the players really decide to be part of the solution, it is possible to develop a working system. ARE YOU LISTENING BOB?

It's works slightly different than you described it, and really hasn't benefited the quality of NFL or its veteran players.
Priced out: Depth problems can be traced to minimum salaries
Basically the NFL veteran minimum system deals with backup or depth players. It doesn't offer any cap relief for retaining core players. They make quite a bit more than the veteran minimum so this rule doesn't apply. It's also applies to all veterans rather than continuous service on the same team. I'd like to see something in the NHL CBA that allows teams to develop players and gives them an advantage to retain them longterm. The NFL system doesn't go far enough and the NBA system goes too far.

A veteran minimum system like the NFL has is something that ought to be considered in conjunction with something like I proposed. An NFL-style veteran minimum would give the teams with more cash an advantage in signing veteran depth players, but that's fine with me.