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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
Newsguyone said:
Oh for crying out loud.
Name one team Stanley Cup team that was based on the size of the owner's wallet.

Detroit? Only the most recent cup featured any major UFA signings. ANd even Hull and Robitaille were two UFAs who were no longer wanted by their old teams.
Detroit's payroll is high because jackasses like Pete Karmanos went and offered Fedorov the sun and the moon as an RFA.
So if Fedorov was worth $5M, then what was Yzerman, SHanahan and Lidstrom worth?
Everybody else was drafted, or came in trades of significant cost.

New Jersey? How many big UFA signings can you peg on big Lou?

Colorado? Look at their cup wins. They've got Sakic (draft) Forsberg (Lindros trade), Roy (Montreal meltdown). Yeah, they had some major deadline deals (Ray Bourque comes to mind), but these guys, like Detroit, aren't responsible for the high salaries all over the league.


I can understand small market fans who are upset because they've watched their best players leave, year after year. I was an expos fan until 1987, when the owners colluded against the players.

But a salary cap isn't going to help much. Fact is, Jarome Iginla is still going to get big offers from teams that don't mind maxing out their cap.

See, the salary cap means no team in the league will have consistent lineups.
You know why Detroit fans and Colorado fans love their hockey?
Because they've had the same core for a decade.
What does Steve Yzerman mean in Detroit.
What does Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic mean in Colorado?

If a team drafts three great players, like Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom, will there be room to keep them with a salary cap?

My fear is that there will not be with this new system.

You guys will whine and whine "Now you know how it feels to be an Oilers fan"

Well, if you wanna fix the NHL, you don't want everybody to feel like an Oilers fan.
You want everyone to feel like a Wings fan.

Unfortunately, a salary cap accomplishes more of the former than the latter.
Good points. A capped reality may mean more nomadic players, it certainly seems that way for the NFL.
 

habfan4

Registered User
Jul 16, 2002
8,423
0
Deus Amat Pretzel
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
If the Bill f***ing Wirtz and his Chicago f***ing Blackhawks are getting a f***ing penny from Mike Illitch, I'm gonna throw a fit.

Can you imagine the nerve of that ***hole?
The guy operates an Original 6 market in one of the biggest tv markets in the WORLD, home to dozens of major corporations, playing in a brand new arena, and he wants help???

He's the reason why the NHL is bush league.

The Hawks were in the top 15 in terms of revenue for the 2003/2004 season (if Forbes is to be believed). Who knows, it may turn out that only a few teams (bottom 5 in revenue) qualify for any revenue sharing.
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
If the Bill f***ing Wirtz and his Chicago f***ing Blackhawks are getting a f***ing penny from Mike Illitch, I'm gonna throw a fit.

Can you imagine the nerve of that ***hole?
The guy operates an Original 6 market in one of the biggest tv markets in the WORLD, home to dozens of major corporations, playing in a brand new arena, and he wants help???

He's the reason why the NHL is bush league.

Of course he's going to be under $29 mil. Imagine getting a multi-million dollar check each year for being cheap. This will only encourage him.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Good points. A capped reality may mean more nomadic players, it certainly seems that way for the NFL.

How could there be any more nomadic players than there already were the last 5 years in an uncapped NHL?
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
ScottyBowman said:
Of course he's going to be under $29 mil. Imagine getting a multi-million dollar check each year for being cheap. This will only encourage him.


Bill Wirtz must have some unflattering pictures of Bettman in his possession.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
zeke said:
How could there be any more nomadic players than there already were the last 5 years in an uncapped NHL?
Because now every team runs into a problem when they need to resign players, and every team will need to clear cap space for a player they want to sign. How could there not be more nomadic players. It's kind of common sense.
 

habfan4

Registered User
Jul 16, 2002
8,423
0
Deus Amat Pretzel
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
Of course he's going to be under $29 mil. Imagine getting a multi-million dollar check each year for being cheap. This will only encourage him.

It's not the payroll numbers that matter, it's the teams revenues. So while Wirtz may be a cheap souless *******, the Hawks still bring in too much revenue to qualify for any revenue sharing (at least I hope).
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
zeke said:
How could there be any more nomadic players than there already were the last 5 years in an uncapped NHL?
Oh, that's easy. Out of a 23 player roster, let's say the average turnover each year (end of one season to end of the next) is 8 players a team. That's 5 new guys in the starting line up. Some cities it's smaller, some cities it's bigger.

My guess is with the new cap, that'll jump up to 9-11 players leaving each teams on average each year. There will be less mid-season trades, but there will be a lot more off-season moves as teams try to restructure their salary structure to re-sign "core" guys. And my guess is there will be more superstar movemnt under this cap as well, as guys like Modano, Iginla, Lecavilier and so forth, once they reach UFA age, will be looking to sign with the teams with the most cap space, which may or may not be the team that developed them.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
nyr7andcounting said:
Because now every team runs into a problem when they need to resign players, and every team will need to clear cap space for a player they want to sign. How could there not be more nomadic players. It's kind of common sense.

By having the market so out of whack that teams need to dump players to clear budget space for a player they want to sign.

It's been happening for years in the non-cap NHL.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
You guys do remember the last few years in the NHL, right?

Where each team was overhauling at least 1/3 of their roster every year?

it's not going to be any worse than that under a cap.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Boltsfan2029 said:
By having the market so out of whack that teams need to dump players to clear budget space for a player they want to sign.

It's been happening for years in the non-cap NHL.
Well, only in some markets...and now it will happen a lot more. It's one of the negatives of a cap.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
nd my guess is there will be more superstar movemnt under this cap as well, as guys like Modano, Iginla, Lecavilier and so forth, once they reach UFA age, will be looking to sign with the teams with the most cap space, which may or may not be the team that developed them.

This was already the case, without a cap.
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
habfan4 said:
It's not the payroll numbers that matter, it's the teams revenues. So while Wirtz may be a cheap souless *******, the Hawks still bring in too much revenue to qualify for any revenue sharing (at least I hope).

Thats not how it works in the NBA or baseball. Its based on your payroll.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
nyr7andcounting said:
Revenue sharing doesn't go team by team, it's a flat rate divided by 30. A small market can't lower ticket prices and bring in $50M in revenue and than expect the big teams to say 'here you go, here's $15M so you can reach the floor'

All teams put, for example, 30% of their local revenues into revenue sharing. Than you divide the total by 30 teams, and that's how much each team get's back. So small market teams put in less than they take out, big market teams the opposite. But it doesn't mean that a small market can have no revenues and take out more than everyone else because they need it. And, the teams like Vancouver who might be right in the middle as far as revenue, probably get nothing. They will put it the same amount as they take out sometimes.
So by your theory .. Calgary could put in 3 mil and take out 5 as an example ..

Are you counting Luxury tax fines into this revenue sharing pot here ??

Bettman going to teams like Toronto and Philly seeking extra revenue sharing $$ kind of goes agianst this though in that if the model is straight forward based on flat % to team revenue then why the special coaxing ??

What is preventing a team like your NYR from lowering ticket prices thereby lowering team revenue and trying to act more like Vancouver in your example and break even.. They have nothing to gain by charging more if the revenue simply goes to other teams .particularly if they are abusing the system and spending into luxury tax dollars ..

Not saying its so ..

Your example still hold up though if this is in fact the way the league intends to opporate.. Using Vancouver as in your break even example ..

Based on its team revenue in and out as far as sharing goes is a wash .. but that also doesn't mean Vancouver can't spend to the cap ceiling .. However it should not expect to pay for those additional cost from the revenue sharing pot either but from its own resources ..
 
Last edited:

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
By having the market so out of whack that teams need to dump players to clear budget space for a player they want to sign.

It's been happening for years in the non-cap NHL.

No doubt. But I think that the salary is going to make it worse.
Instead of 24 teams with no Steve Yzerman, we'll have 30 teams without a Steve Yzerman.

What would have been far better is a luxury tax/revenue sharing plan with no cap.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Not sure where you guys are getting your impressions of a cap-world.

It couldn't be from the NFL, where teams have easily been able to keep their own superstars, and their core together, for years.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
zeke said:
You guys do remember the last few years in the NHL, right?

Where each team was overhauling at least 1/3 of their roster every year?

it's not going to be any worse than that under a cap.
Yeah, I remember. But I also work in the NFL (which is albeit a little different, given the non-guaranteed nature of the contracts) and I see the huge player movement there.

I think it'll be worse under a cap, and it won't discriminate. Teams with two or more young stars will be hardest hit - Atlanta with Heatley and Kovulchuk, Tampa Bay with Lecavilier and St. Louis, Calgary with Kiprussoff and Iginla, Columbus with Nash and Zherdev, the team that lands Crosby assuming they have another star-quality young player). There's almost no chance any teams could keep a set of two "superstars" like that under a cap with any sort of supporting cast around them.

You'll never see the Pittsburghs of the early 1990s or the Edmontons or Islanders of the 1980s again because it will be impossible, salary wise, to keep that much talent accumulated without pushing the cap or having other teams offer more money.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
When is the last time an NFL team had to get rid of its best player for financial reasons?
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
Newsguyone said:
No doubt. But I think that the salary is going to make it worse.
Instead of 24 teams with no Steve Yzerman, we'll have 30 teams without a Steve Yzerman.

What would have been far better is a luxury tax/revenue sharing plan with no cap.

So, I guess we're all assuming that the league isn't going to prosper and the cap will never go up?
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
So what we're saying, then, is that there are only 30 star players in the NHL, and each team will end up with one of them, and no team will have more than one of them?
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
zeke said:
Not sure where you guys are getting your impressions of a cap-world.

It couldn't be from the NFL, where teams have easily been able to keep their own superstars, and their core together, for years.

The NFL is not really a good example. Most running backs are on washed up by 32 years old where in hockey they can go strong until 36 and up.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
So what's a good example? the NBA?

Same thing there. Teams are always able to keep their core together, if they want to.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
zeke said:
It couldn't be from the NFL, where teams have easily been able to keep their own superstars, and their core together, for years.
Not true. On a roster of 53 players, teams keep 1-2 star players (and even they are expendable. No one blinked when Warner or Owens or Smith or Johnson or a whole other slew of people moved for salary reasons) and about half-2/3 of their roster each year.

The Patriots third championship team had SIX of the same players from their first ring. That's 11 percent of the roster that remained the same over four years. And that's fairly consistant league-wide. I'd guess the NHL's four-year retention rate was in the 50 percent range, maybe 40. But nowhere near 11.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
zeke said:
So what's a good example? the NBA?

Same thing there. Teams are always able to keep their core together, if they want to.
The NBA doesn't apply to this at all because those teams are allowed to re-sign their own players to whatever they choose even if it puts them over the cap/tax limit. Take the Mavericks. Their payroll is in the $90 millions, while the league's "cap" is in the high $40 millions and the tax kicks in the low $50 millions.
 

habfan4

Registered User
Jul 16, 2002
8,423
0
Deus Amat Pretzel
Visit site
ScottyBowman said:
Thats not how it works in the NBA or baseball. Its based on your payroll.

Not sure that's relevant, although time will tell.

IMO revenue sharing will be limited in scope and the requirements to get it will be onerous i.e. like the Canadian equalization funds access to that program came with numerous conditions (attendance levels, beneath a certain amount of revenue etc..).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->