No need for a cap if NHLPA accepts three things.

[speeds]

Not if the dollars are going to pour in the door anyway. Can you imagine what Toronto, Philly and Detroit will make with a $28MM US payroll? It'd be nuts. Ticket prices aren't going down in any of those cities.

I don't disagree that a hard cap isn't bad at all for the big markets, in a financial sense.

but if they can still spend more than some other teams in a luxury tax world, that can't help but be an advantage as well, not as tangible (because that advantage is in a competition sense, in getting higher priced players who may/may not help them perform better on the ice) as the extra dollars they'd get from a hard cap though.

 

[mudcrutch79]

And I've explained what's wrong with your theory, which is based on a host of assumptions that may or may not be true. Taking shots at a poster with whom you disagree doesn't make your argument any better.

What assumptions? That teams are spending the amount on players that makes sense for them in their market? Your argument that my assumption is false seems to be predicated on the idea that the big market teams are raking in so much money right now that it makes economic sense for them to spend even more to chase the prize.

If that's true, doesn't that really bolster the player's position that they shouldn't have to accept a salary cap?

 

[Jobu]

Clearly, Racki has decided that the laws of economics don't apply here.

Don't be alarmed. He's perhaps the most ignorant poster of all. I'd suggest ignoring him, but his lack of any sense or reason is hilarious.

 

[membleypeg]

Free Agency still the key

Three of the factors for increased salaries have all been eliminated in this latest NHL proposal.

1) Salary arbitration has its teeth kicked in and made, IMO, fairer to both sides.

2) No more hold-outs. The "hold out" or "holding of breath" as I like to call it was one of the major reasons salaries have sky-rocketed. It is easy for the agents and players to say: "well you didn't have to pay me all that money" but that is baloney. The owners and GM's would be creamed in their local town if they were not able to keep their star players - it always is a PR nightmare for teams who let their star players go to other teams.

3) Nice hard cap on entry level salaries.

IMO, with these three things in place there is no need for a cap or a luxury cap. If I were the NHLPA I would agree to these three points, toss in the 24% roll backs and we have a deal.

I hate to be repetitive on this issue however, all of the fixes that you and the NHL are trying to make revolve around one central issue Free Agency. All that has to be done to make the system work is to change the Free Agency age to 35 years old. If the owners stuck this to the players, then they would have control to pay their drafted or traded players whatever they wanted. Any player over 35 would have his best years long behind him.

The only other bargaining tool that the owners would need is getting rid of salary arbitration. This is the avenue to stop players from receiving more money than the owner wants to pay. If the player wants to hold out for more money let him, he can rot until he is 35.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I really don,t like that. Clubs with big TV contracts got them because they spend A LOT in marketing. Montreal does not have such a huge fan base for nothing: they have it because of their rich history, and because of their marketing. Everyone in town knows them, everyone hears about them all the time, that,S how they got and maintain their popularity.

Now if a team, let's say nashville, does not want to invest in marketing, they won't be as known and as popular, and wont get a big TV contract. Does that make them a better target for money giving? I don't think so. You manage your environment to help out your club,s popularity, you should not be penalised for it.

I didn't say contracts, I said markets. Chicago because they choose not to televise their games has a small TV contract, but because they live in a big market (city) they won't receive revenue sharing.

Going by population Montreal is one of the NHL's biggest markets. I wasn't basing it upon current size of the TV contract. All based on population.


Also my above idea wasn't one I thought of on my own. It it one proposed by the NHL. It was done primarily because some of the big market owners wanted to make sure that not a dime of revenue sharing went to Bill Wirtz.

Now the cities I named above might not be exactly accurate, but very close.

 

[CarlRacki]

What assumptions? That teams are spending the amount on players that makes sense for them in their market? Your argument that my assumption is false seems to be predicated on the idea that the big market teams are raking in so much money right now that it makes economic sense for them to spend even more to chase the prize.

If that's true, doesn't that really bolster the player's position that they shouldn't have to accept a salary cap?

What assumptions? The assumption that teams are spending the amount on players that makes sense for their market.
Does it make sense for Detroit to have a $70 million payroll if, as you agree above, they're losing already losing millions and millions?
Does it make sense for the team in the Chicago market to have a smaller payroll than Edmonton, Calgary and Buffalo?

Your arguments relies on a theory that all teams are currently spending what makes sense for them. That's obviously not true or the league wouldn't be more than $90 million in the hole (per Forbes). If teams spent what made sense, they'd all be making money or at least close to even.

I'm just stunned that you don't see the economic truth that more money in the labor pool equals higher salaries. If you want to argue that the tax's negative effects on big spenders will offset that, then do it, but don't try to claim what's obviously true is not. But your argument is based on assumption that teams won't blow right through the tax, which is based upon another assumption that teams are already spending what their market dictates.

 

[CarlRacki]

Don't be alarmed. He's perhaps the most ignorant poster of all. I'd suggest ignoring him, but his lack of any sense or reason is hilarious.

Gee, coming from a well-respected, intelligent person like yourself ... that really doesn't hurt at all.

But keep it up. You've added a lot to these boards.

 

[PecaFan]

It's not quite that simple. A team receiving tax dollars doesn't have to overspend for it to inflate the labor pool. They just have to spend. As much as it may act as a salary deflator for the higher-spending teams, it acts as a salary inflator for the lower-spending teams.

Yup. This is exactly why I'm against a tax system. It's giving a handout to a team, simply so they can spend it on players that they actually can't afford on their own. Raising a low budget team's salary to $38 million, when they can only afford $33 simply isn't wise.

The only way a tax is defensible is if it's *prohibited* to spend it on players. And of course, the PA would veto that.