One set of boundaries - Parity on the Ice - Close but no Cigar

[GSC2k2*]

Why not player dollars ..

The luxury tax fines will go to small markets likely to be used on players for their team ..

Now you're just screwing around. Stop it.

The point I was trying to get accross was that when say a big UFA like Forsberg or Pronger hits the market .. Big market teams have that extra $7 mil in cap space to accomdate them, and the use of buyouts this summer anyways that don't count towards a Cap even more.

Nashville has to fit in Prongers 5 to 6 mil reguest below $29 mil and NYR below $ 36 mil.

Well, "has to" is of course not accurate. EVen assuming revenue sharing is disqualified for contributors (which is a large assumption), the option is open for the team to spend up to $36 million and become a luxury tax contributor instead of a recipient is that team's choice. As their revenues increase, every small market team makes that choice sooner or later.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I'm with Mess on this one. Leave the stupid formatting out of the discussion and focus on the poster's really lame attempts at making this disaster worthwhile for the PA.

 

[Mess]

It looks good and fair for both sides (I mean small and large market teams) and also thanks for info, now I understand it a bit

No problem ..

A lot of posters here I think without realizing it think the its a Hard Cap equal for all and it really isn't.

The competitive advantage is much smaller then the huge $20-30 mil differences of before ..

But even in a hard cap world Big markets still have an advantage is the point in was trying to make.

It also mean that young teams with numerous strong core players will be harder to keep together if you are a small market and receive revenue sharing money as a result ..

 

[Pepper]

I'm with Mess on this one. Leave the stupid formatting out of the discussion and focus on the poster's really lame attempts at making this disaster worthwhile for the PA.

Good point. Actually the formatting just makes it easier to break up his arguments.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

.........
It also mean that young teams with numerous strong core players will be harder to keep together if you are a small market and receive revenue sharing money as a result ..

Nice try . . . but riddle me this Batman . . . how are less financially blessed teams not better able to keep talent under a system where player costs are fixed at 54% than under a system where markets with 5 times the revenue they bring in can spend whatever they want on a player? And btw, not have to share a dime of that 5 times more like they do not? I am not complaining about the NHL not going far enough, to do so would be very ungracious. I am thankful that they were as forward thinking as they were. I think that this may become a role model for other sports . . . the CBA I mean, not the year lost to the lockout.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Good Lord, the Stanley Cup stayed in Montreal, Long Island and Edmondton for 12 of 13 years.

The parity of the the last decade looks positively communist next to that.

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

 

[Mess]

But as I understand for Nashville (if they can do it) Pronger will cost 5 mil but for NYR he will cost X mil (before 29) and 2 * (5-X) after 29. Am I right ?

Correct ..

So it will be the big markets that can afford that .. because every $1 spent above $29 mil the luxury tax floor its actually $2 dollars cost to the team.

If you put that in perspective ..

So NYR and LA are sitting at $30 mil going into UFA (basically saying each team has 6 mil remaining in cap space to max out).

Then If a Pronger comes along and request $6 mil .. Both teams have cap room .. but do both teams have the budget and revenue coming in to actually pay out $12 million ..because that is what it costs the team .. $6 mil to the player and $6 mil in luxuary tax ??..

According to Forbes NYR brought in over 100 mil in total team revenue and LA only 80 mil ..

 

[GirardIsStupid]

I think its a little worse than that. the cap ceiling for each team will apparently differ (thus helping to ensure the players only receive 54% of league revenues). on top of that, I've heard the cap ceiling for the big market teams will actually be a bit higher than 36 M. so, by your analogy, TM, the buying power of the big market teams could be closer to 20 M. this makes these teams mroe attractive because they consequently have better chances at going the extra mile to compete for the cup. as well, this ability to compete will have been enhanced by money used to buy better coaches, scouts, etc...so congrats...we're back to 1998 where detroit, dallas, colorado and NJ dominated the league.

 

[Pepper]

It also mean that young teams with numerous strong core players will be harder to keep together if you are a small market and receive revenue sharing money as a result ..

If you're a small market team you can't afford those players anyway. Look at Oilers in the last 5 years, they had to deal Weight, Guerin, Carter, Mironov, Hamrlik, Niinimaa, CuJo etc. simply because they couldn't afford them. Under the new CBA, big teams will most likely be maxed out cap-wise all the time so they can't afford to steal to-be-UFAs from smaller teams.

Wake up already, this new CBA is better for small teams in every possible scenario.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Why do small markets have to stop spending at $29M? I think you are forgetting how low these numbers really are. Almost every team in the league spent that much last year...the only ones that were close are now getting a lot more revenue sharing and some tax money. If Nashville is at $29M and there is a player they want, they will go get him.

Honestly, at this point, what is even the point of this luxury tax? A ton of teams are going to have to pay it, meaning teams under $29M are going to get a ton of money...they'll end up increasing their payrolls a bit and paying some tax themselves anyway. The cap is low enough, the range is small enough, and small markets will get enough in revenue sharing to spend what they need to spend. The only teams that this might stop are small market teams looking to spend $32M or something. So that luxury tax just seems like more of a pain in the ass than anything.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

..........

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

1. This was never about parity. It was about giving each team similar tools to compete. Hell, and it was only about that to the fans. To the owners it was only about dollars.

2. This was not so much about where the NHL was, but where it was heading. Though in a bad place financially, it was not in a bad place competitive wise . . . so many in the playoffs assured that upsets inevitably would happen each year. But this was more about where it was heading. Unchecked the NHL would have become a joke where all of the stars were on 3 or 4 teams and the rest were feeder teams to those teams. Try selling tickets outside of those 3 or 4 markets if that is what kind of league you have.

 

[Pepper]

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

In the 80's there was disparity because others had better managements than others, everyone could build a contender with the right management. In the 2000 only top15 salary teams had any chance of winning the Cup and only 5 teams had a real chance of winning the Cup.

Under the new CBA, EVERYONE can build a contender with proper management.

 

[Timmy]

I think its a little worse than that. the cap ceiling for each team will apparently differ (thus helping to ensure the players only receive 54% of league revenues). on top of that, I've heard the cap ceiling for the big market teams will actually be a bit higher than 36 M. so, by your analogy, TM, the buying power of the big market teams could be closer to 20 M. this makes these teams mroe attractive because they consequently have better chances at going the extra mile to compete for the cup. as well, this ability to compete will have been enhanced by money used to buy better coaches, scouts, etc...so congrats...we're back to 1998 where detroit, dallas, colorado and NJ dominated the league.

I'm not an overly bright individual, but I vaguely recall that that team-by-team cap has been completely shot down.

And Mess, are you suggesting in your reply to my post that teams will be forced to accept revenue sharing and thus have a lower (ie, 29m) cap? How would such teams be defined? Nobody knows what's going to happen, but I'm pretty sure that teams aren't going to be earmarked as tier 2 or small market teams and have their cap room reduced, as you seem to be suggesting.

What would be the parameters for making that decision? Revenue of the team, size of the city, of the metro, of the province/state? I just don't think that a "label" will be imposed on any teams, and they will choose whether they want to spend over 29m and not receive revenue sharing, or spend less in order to get it.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

Wake up already, this new CBA is better for small teams in every possible scenario.

But it's far better for the big market teams IMO...which is why I'm kind of excited by its possibilities. This new CBA only guarantees the smaller revenue clubs have the ability to make some money. further, the UFA age dropping to 28 greatly enhances the risks of players leaving small market clubs in their prime. i'm already anticipating that when sakic/forsberg/blake retire, the avs nab a very good player off free agency during his best years...not some old fart who'd be overpaid which lacroix would never go for. that's why in the past the avs never pursued a high priced free agent in the old system unless that player(s) came knocking on his door making a deal even he couldn't refuse.

 

[HSHS]

That is my point. Their was more parity during the last decade in hockey than there ever was. To judge parity, I look at the standings and look at how many teams were under 60 pts and what the difference in pts was between the top playoff team and the bottom playoff team.

For example in 83-84, the Detroit Red Wings were in the playoffs with 69 pts.

84-85 Detroit made it in with 66 pts

85-86 Toronto made it with 70 pts

Fast forward it to 2000

The bottom seed had 84 pts

My point is that teams are much closer right now than they were back in the 80's record wise. I don't get the argument about parity when we have 16 teams finishing with above .500 records.

The response you'll get is two-fold:
1. More defensive-minded coaching for the last 10 years = unskilled/cheap teams can compete.

2. Someone will post the Stanley Cup winners verses payroll (ie something like top 5 payrolls win x%) over the last CBA to show that economic advantage removed parity. After all, the point is to win the Cup. So since the economic advantage was not as prevalent in the 80s, every team had the ability to win, they just didn't.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

And once more. Every team I would think, under this new system, will at some point be paying a luxury tax. Some teams will do it every year, but some may rebuild and splurge for a year or two if they think that they are close to a cup. Take any small market you wish, and I can easily see this happening.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

First off, I guess we're all just guessing here...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The first thing that has to be done, I would imagine, is define "small market." My team has classically been tagged non-traditional, small market. However, we did turn a profit, unlike many large market teams. It would seem a bit... odd to stick us with the "small market" label as far as a lower cap (if that is, indeed, the case) and forbid us to spend within our means, while allowing a larger market team which loses money to spend more. Perhaps the "ranking" would be based on profitability (or whatever the correct accounting-type term is, but I think you all know what I mean), meaning the teams that are losing money have to go with the lower cap, and those that make money are rewarded with the higher cap. Seems fair to me, although I can only imagine the protests from some of the large market teams that will be stuck with the lower cap!

 

[Mess]

I think its a little worse than that. the cap ceiling for each team will apparently differ (thus helping to ensure the players only receive 54% of league revenues). on top of that, I've heard the cap ceiling for the big market teams will actually be a bit higher than 36 M. so, by your analogy, TM, the buying power of the big market teams could be closer to 20 M. this makes these teams mroe attractive because they consequently have better chances at going the extra mile to compete for the cup. as well, this ability to compete will have been enhanced by money used to buy better coaches, scouts, etc...so congrats...we're back to 1998 where detroit, dallas, colorado and NJ dominated the league.

Thank you for your post .. as that is exactly the kind of conversation is was intended to bring out ..

Agreed .. If you see my previous post even at 29 lux tax floor to 36 mil hard cap ceiling that is actually 14 mil spending advantage alone ..

Also if you look at it from a small team perspective that gets revenue sharing say Calgary .. The notion is that this new CBA protects them and allows them to keep its players longer .

For Calgary and Iginla lets say they need to fit his market salary say $ 7 mil below the luxury tax line of 29 mil .. So to keep Jerome the flames would be forced to constantly cut players and find cheaper players below Iginla on the team ..

$29 mil - $7 mil for Ingila = 22 mil cap space and 22 players to fill the team .. Average $1.0 mil per player.

If you have a large portion of your team at that level are you a serious CUP contender each year or do you still need a hot goalie and lots of luck to repeat last year ??

Are you attractive to a UFA over 30 that wants to win a cup before they retire ??

At what point does it make sense to let Iginla walk inorder to bring the rest of your team up perhaps and making it stronger by dividing the $7 mil among the rest of the team to field a more balanced and perhaps competitive team ??

 

[Boltsfan2029]

But it's far better for the big market teams IMO...which is why I'm kind of excited by its possibilities. This new CBA only guarantees the smaller revenue clubs have the ability to make some money. further, the UFA age dropping to 28 greatly enhances the risks of players leaving small market clubs in their prime. i'm already anticipating that when sakic/forsberg/blake retire, the avs nab a very good player off free agency during his best years...not some old fart who'd be overpaid.

You make this sound like the day the CBA is announced they will designate certain teams small market and others large market and this will never change. I don't think that's the goal of this CBA -- seems to me if they have this class distinction, it will be allowed to change as teams improve. If a small market team has a better financial performance than some large market teams, why should it be stuck at the "small market" level forever?

 

[Timmy]

First off, I guess we're all just guessing here...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The first thing that has to be done, I would imagine, is define "small market." My team has classically been tagged non-traditional, small market. However, we did turn a profit, unlike many large market teams. It would seem a bit... odd to stick us with the "small market" label as far as a lower cap (if that is, indeed, the case) and forbid us to spend within our means, while allowing a larger market team which loses money to spend more. Perhaps the "ranking" would be based on profitability (or whatever the correct accounting-type term is, but I think you all know what I mean), meaning the teams that are losing money have to go with the lower cap, and those that make money are rewarded with the higher cap. Seems fair to me, although I can only imagine the protests from some of the large market teams that will be stuck with the lower cap!

None of the above will happen. The luxury tax (if there is one) will be at threshold each team will decide to go over or not on a voluntary basis. Nobody's going to go to Nashville and say, "You're small market, you spend this."

Their fans would be rioting in the streets.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Thank you for your post .. as that is exactly the kind of conversation is was intended to bring out ..

............

What, another big market fan deluding himself that this new CBA will make the Toronto's of the world king of the world is 'exactly the kind of conversation is was intended to bring out?'

I wonder why all the fans of teams who you are saying will be killed by this new CBA are not all up in arms as you, the big market fan all worried for us, are in this thread though?

 

[GirardIsStupid]

You make this sound like the day the CBA is announced they will designate certain teams small market and others large market and this will never change. I don't think that's the goal of this CBA -- seems to me if they have this class distinction, it will be allowed to change as teams improve. If a small market team has a better financial performance than some large market teams, why should it be stuck at the "small market" level forever?

I don't make the distinctions between the small and big market teams. The revneues they generate usually do that for me. This will show when it comes to buying power for UFAs, coaches, scouts, GMs, minor league affiliates, medical therapies, capologists...

You also must keep in mind that a team like the Avalanche will now have an extra 20 M in profits...much of which can be alotted to management. toronto may even make 40 M. meanwhile, small market clubs like nashville and carolina will continue to struggle by working in a non-traditional hockey market. the preds alone have never had a payroll exceeding 25 M.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

No problem ..

A lot of posters here I think without realizing it think the its a Hard Cap equal for all and it really isn't.

The competitive advantage is much smaller then the huge $20-30 mil differences of before ..

But even in a hard cap world Big markets still have an advantage is the point in was trying to make.

It also mean that young teams with numerous strong core players will be harder to keep together if you are a small market and receive revenue sharing money as a result ..

Wow! You have spun yourself into the ground! ANY team has the option of spending to the cap limit. The thing about this limit is it is a ceiling that pretty well everyone can reach. Last season the Flames were at it based on the numbers floating around. But if the old system were still in play there is no way that the Flames would have had the economic resources to support a $77 million payroll like the Red Wings. No way. This flattens the field dramatically. I suspect that every team in the league (save the Rangers and Wings) are going to enjoy being able to spend to within $7 million of the biggest spenders and take that advantage away. Time to head back to the pencil sharpener and try to bone up on those "world class" accounting skills because you are sorely wanting in that regard. You sure don't have a head for numbers.

 

[Epsilon]

First off, I guess we're all just guessing here...

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The first thing that has to be done, I would imagine, is define "small market." My team has classically been tagged non-traditional, small market. However, we did turn a profit, unlike many large market teams. It would seem a bit... odd to stick us with the "small market" label as far as a lower cap (if that is, indeed, the case) and forbid us to spend within our means, while allowing a larger market team which loses money to spend more. Perhaps the "ranking" would be based on profitability (or whatever the correct accounting-type term is, but I think you all know what I mean), meaning the teams that are losing money have to go with the lower cap, and those that make money are rewarded with the higher cap. Seems fair to me, although I can only imagine the protests from some of the large market teams that will be stuck with the lower cap!

That is absurd. It's really quite easy:

small market - you collect luxury tax revenue

big market - you don't

As I've said before, "small market" is just a euphemism for "cheap owner".

 

[shakes]

None of the above will happen. The luxury tax (if there is one) will be at threshold each team will decide to go over or not on a voluntary basis. Nobody's going to go to Nashville and say, "You're small market, you spend this."

Their fans would be rioting in the streets.

No but it will be up to the owners to decide if they want that slice of the luxury pie or not. And apparently since most of the teams spend over the tax there will be a lot of money going to those under the penalty.

It has to be one or the other regarding who gets paid luxury money, and common sense would dictate that its those who didn't hit the luxury window. If teams over the luxury window got it then what would be the point in paying it if they are just getting it back again?