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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jamiebez

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
4,025
327
Ottawa
This whole argument is kind of flimsy.

First of all, the assumption that luxury tax can't be used to spend over the $29M limit is flawed... the PA is not that stupid. The ideal situation for them is for all teams to spend right up to the cap - that's how they maximize salaries league-wide. Granted, that's an extreme example, but I can't see them signing off on a deal that forces teams that are collecting revenue sharing or luxury tax payments to be under $29M. The whole idea of revenue sharing from a PA perspective is to allow as many teams to spend as much money as possible. Why would they want to limit the number of teams that can spend over $29M in any way, shape or form?

Secondly, we have no idea what form revenue sharing will take. Will it be a pool that all teams pay a portion of their revenues into that is split 30 ways or will richer teams be required to pay more into the pool and poorer teams not pay at all? Will the luxury tax be added to the common revenue sharing pool, or will it be disbursed seperately somehow?

We can't say what kind of effect any of this will have on parity until we know all the facts.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
The Messenger said:
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 ??

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 ..
Exactly, revenue sharing and luxury taxes are two different things. Bettman was asking Philly and Toronto for more revenue sharing, as in an increased % of local revenues. Because the higher the % is, the more Philly is going to lose through the revenue sharing process because they will always be taking out less than they put in. He wasn't necesarily asking them to put in a higher % than everyone else.

When that is done, than teams have to decide how much luxury tax they can/want to pay, if any at all. Where the luxury tax goes is anybody's guess, but it could go back in to the pot for the next year.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Boltsfan2029 said:
So, I guess we're all assuming that the league isn't going to prosper and the cap will never go up?

I have a few concerns.
1) WHat incentive is there for the big spending teams to get better? They've got AUTOMATIC profits now.
2) Poorly located teams will always struggle. Carolina might compete once in a blue moon. But it might take 20 years before they have a real fan base.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
zeke said:
When is the last time an NFL team had to get rid of its best player for financial reasons?
They don't have to get rid of their best player...they have to get rid of 3 veterans and replace them with rookies in order to create the cap space to keep their star. It happens all the time on every team. That's why a cap creates more movement.

Do you think the Rangers cut 2 players when they traded for Jagr, because they had to clear cap space? No way, but with a cap teams are going to have to do this a lot.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Newsguyone said:
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.

It's not a fact, it's product of your bitter pro-PA imagination.

The teams that can afford to have $43M payroll are maxed out already 90% of the time so the amount of teams who can both afford Iginla and fit his salary inside the cap are very small compared to the previous CBA where it was only about being able to afford it.

If a big team offers more than Flames can afford, they will most likely compromise the rest of their team because of the cap, that also prevents some of the potential big teams from going after Iginla.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
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.
I don't remember the Canucks shifting 8 players/year. Adding a few temp players to cover injuries or suspensions (dumb@ss Bertuzzi) but the Nucks have kept thier core. As players like the Sedins and Cooke develop that means letting go a big contract or shifting a bunch of little ones.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Pepper said:
It's not a fact, it's product of your bitter pro-PA imagination.

The teams that can afford to have $43M payroll are maxed out already 90% of the time so the amount of teams who can both afford Iginla and fit his salary inside the cap are very small compared to the previous CBA where it was only about being able to afford it.

If a big team offers more than Flames can afford, they will most likely compromise the rest of their team because of the cap, that also prevents some of the potential big teams from going after Iginla.
So let's say Carolina offers Iginla $8 million and Calgary can only offer $5 with the cap. Or Florida comes in with a $6.5 million offer.

Teams will still pick off players. A cap just means it will be harder for Calgary (or any teams) to keep a group of very talented players together. They'll have to choose between him and Kiprusoff/Ference (pick a young player here, I'm not really familiar with Calgary's roster right now). But the "one-team" players, which still exist, even with the smaller market/cheaper teams (Ray Bourque could have been one, he wasn't moved for salary reasons) will be much, much rarer.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Kritter471 said:
So let's say Carolina offers Iginla $8 million and Calgary can only offer $5 with the cap. Or Florida comes in with a $6.5 million offer.
.

That's entirely possible but consider this:

why on earth would 2 small-market teams offer Iginla that kind of money which would strangle the rest of the team?? It just doesn't make any sense.
 

Tra La La

Registered User
Feb 13, 2003
4,707
0
Buffalo, New York
I think there is a distinction. Between revenue sharing,and recieving a Share of the Luxury tax.

Revenue Sharing should automatically be a 30 team split.

The Luxury tax money will be going from the teams over 29 mil, to the teams under 29 mil.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
ScottyBowman said:
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.

As tmg already addressed, the point system has changed, so you can't compare teams above .500. Also, the playoff system was totally different back then, with four teams in a division guaranteed to make the playoffs. It didn't matter if you had 20 points for the season, as long as somebody else had less than 20, you were in. Which is why all those pathetic teams you listed made the playoffs.

Don't confuse number of different champions with parity. When folks talk about parity, they really mean parity of opportunity. In the 80's, *everyone* had a shot at it. If they all would have been as smart as Montreal, the Isles and Edmonton, drafted as well, coached as well, developed their players as well, traded as well, every team in the league could have been a dynasty.

That is what is different. Under the last CBA, teams could be well run and do all those things, but ultimately money held them back from getting to the top. A team like Ottawa is the perfect example, they did everything right, but just didn't have the cash to go out and acquire the Bourques, Blakes, and Haseks of the league to get over the hump. Until they got a sugar daddy of course.

The Messenger said:
Those teams that are collecting Revenue Sharing money will not be able to spend into Luxury tax range.

it would make not sense to give them money and then fine them to give it right back again.

I'll admit I'm not a big fan of yours, but this is a good point. It does make no sense for a team to be receiving help, and paying it out at the same time.

Just another reason that there should be no revenue sharing. It's inflationary, forces teams to spend more on players than they can actually afford, and is simply not needed with a hard cap.

Oh, and cut the font and colour crap, it makes it impossible to quote you. Can't even see what you wrote. Try and reply to your first post, and you'll see.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Pepper said:
That's entirely possible but consider this:

why on earth would 2 small-market teams offer Iginla that kind of money which would strangle the rest of the team?? It just doesn't make any sense.
If the rest of their payroll is small enough (say Carolina is at the floor with 19 players - so you have $24 million plus one high budget guy up to $32 million and you still have $4 million to sign three-smaller time guys to round out their roster (sign at the minimun so you're at $33.5) and you still have tons of room to make trades.

If the rest of the team has been carefully planned, it's not a huge stretch to sign one superstar for huge amounts of money. That's why I used Carolina and Florida as examples. They seem to be in perfect position to do this.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
I agree that teams who receive revenue sharing money shouldn't be able to go over $29M, it's not fair IMHO.

One possible scenario to share revenues:

All teams between $22M and $29M get one 'share' for every $500K they are under the $29M meaning that a team with exactly $22M payroll would get 14 "shares" and a team with $28.5M payroll would get one share.

Let's assume the luxury tax pool is $40M and there were a total of 100 shares from teams under $29M cap, that means every share is worth $400K meaning a team with $22M cap would get 14x400=$5.6M revenue sharing money.

Or then again they could reward every team under $29M with equal share so if there are 15 teams under the $29M limit, each team would get 40/15 = ~$2.8M

Lots of possibilities, it's only math & politics.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
Pepper said:
It's not a fact, it's product of your bitter pro-PA imagination.

The teams that can afford to have $43M payroll are maxed out already 90% of the time so the amount of teams who can both afford Iginla and fit his salary inside the cap are very small compared to the previous CBA where it was only about being able to afford it.

If a big team offers more than Flames can afford, they will most likely compromise the rest of their team because of the cap, that also prevents some of the potential big teams from going after Iginla.
A player of the calibre of Iginla will always receive a high rate of compensation, a cap won't keep him in Calgary.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
Newsguyone said:
I have a few concerns.
1) WHat incentive is there for the big spending teams to get better? They've got AUTOMATIC profits now.

Stanley Cup?

In MLB, George Steinbrenner has more money than God and two or three of his players combined make more than the entire Devil Rays roster. He has no regard for spending restrictions, makes obscene profits but flips out completely if his team isn't in the running for the World Series.

Making a profit doesn't negate the desire to win.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Kritter471 said:
If the rest of their payroll is small enough (say Carolina is at the floor with 19 players - so you have $24 million plus one high budget guy up to $32 million and you still have $4 million to sign three-smaller time guys to round out their roster (sign at the minimun so you're at $33.5) and you still have tons of room to make trades.

If the rest of the team has been carefully planned, it's not a huge stretch to sign one superstar for huge amounts of money. That's why I used Carolina and Florida as examples. They seem to be in perfect position to do this.

In theory possible but consider this:

1) Would Iginla want to play in a team full of no-names simply because of higher salary? Not necessarily. I think cup chances are a factor too

2) It's incredibly difficult for team like Canes to build a competetive team with 1 superstar and lots of nobodies.

3) Carolina most likely won't go over the $29M cap as they are one of the teams that make huge losses. Ditto for Florida.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Hoss said:
A player of the calibre of Iginla will always receive a high rate of compensation, a cap won't keep him in Calgary.

Possible but it keeps him there longer than a no-cap CBA like we had earlier.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
ScottyBowman said:
How does it keep him in Calgary longer?

Can't we just bring up the old thread about this?

With teams having cap room problems of their own, the usual suspects won't be able to outbid Calgary for their star player just because of their bank accounts.

Furthermore, if he did leave, the team he went to may have to dump salary, which could cause a ripple effect enabling Calgary to bring on new talent. Thus, there is now a disincentive for a team to snag Iginla for the price he would have gotten under the old CBA.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
Pepper said:
In theory possible but consider this:

1) Would Iginla want to play in a team full of no-names simply because of higher salary? Not necessarily. I think cup chances are a factor too
Iginla does play with a bunch of no-names. I think it's more likely players would take a cut to play with Iginla then vice versa.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Timmy said:
Can't we just bring up the old thread about this?

With teams having cap room problems of their own, the usual suspects won't be able to outbid Calgary for their star player just because of their bank accounts.

Furthermore, if he did leave, the team he went to may have to dump salary, which could cause a ripple effect enabling Calgary to bring on new talent. Thus, there is now a disincentive for a team to snag Iginla for the price he would have gotten under the old CBA.
I agree with you about the ripple affect.

But I don't think it keeps him there longer. He hits UFA when he hits UFA. You very, very rarely saw teams try to take very talented guys on the RFA market (the biggest exceptions being the Sakic offer sheet and the Fedorov offer sheet).
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
ScottyBowman said:
How does it keep him in Calgary longer?

For the love of god, don't you read anything but your own posts?? Read back few pages of this thread.

Sheesh!
 

ScottyBowman

Registered User
Mar 10, 2003
2,361
0
Detroit
Visit site
Timmy said:
Can't we just bring up the old thread about this?

With teams having cap room problems of their own, the usual suspects won't be able to outbid Calgary for their star player just because of their bank accounts.

Furthermore, if he did leave, the team he went to may have to dump salary, which could cause a ripple effect enabling Calgary to bring on new talent. Thus, there is now a disincentive for a team to snag Iginla for the price he would have gotten under the old CBA.

I disagree. First thing is the UFA age will drop to 28 or 29 from 31. Secondly, their won't be the usual suspects anymore. A team like the Blackhawks who could have $19 mil in salaries might go crazy and spend $7 mil and still be under the cap and get revenue sharing.

Think of it this way, their will be many more teams that will have the money to buy him and will plan accordingly by having contracts expire the year a certain player is a UFA. I bet that you'll have at least 10 teams that are in the $22 mil range every year that would blow $6 mil to sign Iginla.
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
still have your head in the sand?

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.

Its not just the teams that buy players.

The NHL is competative, when big payroll teams buy other teams players. It makes the ***** team weaker. Making all the lower payroll teams less competative. So making it more likely that a high payroll team will win. So even if a team dosnt buy players, if they have the payroll to afford to keep their stars, they are reaping the rewards of other pirates.

Not that I think you have to make an obscure arguement to make the point. I'm just pointing out, that you are wrong, even assuming the best possible light for your arguement.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Pepper said:
I agree that teams who receive revenue sharing money shouldn't be able to go over $29M, it's not fair IMHO.
Then why didn't you just say that and join in on the conversation rather the attack the post starter or the format of the post.

It needed a little expanation and background info or it wouldn't explain the point.

Now 10 pages into the thread we are at the same point finally.

That what I am sayin that it makes the $29 mil a boundary of sorts to teams that collect revenue sharing money and while you called it not fair .. Perhaps its not even allowed as per the new CBA is what I am suggesting.

A team like Boston and Jacobs will be the first one to cry foul when his luxury tax fines are going to his competitors to abuse the system ..

Now you are making a solid contribution to the topic here :handclap:
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
ScottyBowman said:
Think of it this way, their will be many more teams that will have the money to buy him and will plan accordingly by having contracts expire the year a certain player is a UFA. I bet that you'll have at least 10 teams that are in the $22 mil range every year that would blow $6 mil to sign Iginla.

Possible in theory but very unlikely and in every case the league is COMPETITIVE all the way, under the previous CBA only 5-7 teams could have lured Iginla from Flames.

Also teams with low payrolls currently have lots of young players, if they tie their hands with a 3-year $7M contract to Iginla, they might not have the money to sign all their young stars in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->