Question about Cap Ceiling

[Crease]

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed in other threads today..I haven't the time or frankly the patience at the moment to leaf through the threads in search of the answer. But my question is this:

Why are the owners so hard-nosed on the ceiling? It was mentioned by Melrose after the Bettman conference and I was hoping they'd discuss it because I had the same reaction as the two anchors. Bettman explained the vast difference between a 42.5 ceiling and 49 ceiling..and even went as far as saying that 45 might have been stretching an already hyperextended arm that the owners were giving the players with the 42.5 offer. But in reality..isn't it each owner's personal domain as to how much he feels he should spend and still maintain a healthy personal revenue. Each owner knows to a reasonable extent how much they can spend and remain out of the red. By putting a ceiling of 49 or even 45, you reduce the spending power and talent pool of the top 6 teams in the league and make the league more of an equal talent pool. The ceiling doesn't encourage the owners to meet that ceiling, it's a restriction. The same teams that were spending 30 on their rosters are not going to all of the sudden spend another 12.5 because a salary cap is in place. So why was the ceiling such an important negotiating point the last two days, so important that the 6.5 disagreement...or as Bettman called it...the "200 million dollar difference" such a huge deal?

Click to read more...

 

[jcab2000]

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed in other threads today..I haven't the time or frankly the patience at the moment to leaf through the threads in search of the answer. But my question is this:

Why are the owners so hard-nosed on the ceiling? It was mentioned by Melrose after the Bettman conference and I was hoping they'd discuss it because I had the same reaction as the two anchors. Bettman explained the vast difference between a 42.5 ceiling and 49 ceiling..and even went as far as saying that 45 might have been stretching an already hyperextended arm that the owners were giving the players with the 42.5 offer. But in reality..isn't it each owner's personal domain as to how much he feels he should spend and still maintain a healthy personal revenue. Each owner knows to a reasonable extent how much they can spend and remain out of the red. By putting a ceiling of 49 or even 45, you reduce the spending power and talent pool of the top 6 teams in the league and make the league more of an equal talent pool. The ceiling doesn't encourage the owners to meet that ceiling, it's a restriction. The same teams that were spending 30 on their rosters are not going to all of the sudden spend another 12.5 because a salary cap is in place. So why was the ceiling such an important negotiating point the last two days, so important that the 6.5 disagreement...or as Bettman called it...the "200 million dollar difference" such a huge deal?

The thing is, there are some owners who don't know or don't care about being responsible and the rest of the league pay for that because salaries become inflated by the irresponsible ones. You're basically asking what is wrong with the system that they already had.

 

[Crease]

The thing is, there are some owners who don't know or don't care about being responsible and the rest of the league pay for that because salaries become inflated by the irresponsible ones. You're basically asking what is wrong with the system that they already had.

The thing is, now you're acknowledging that the players have to make concessions for the safety of the owners from themselves. To me that logic is neither fair nor right, and another way has to be met. It's easy to now understand why the players are not happy with what is being offered to them. An owner should be his own domain, and if he can't control himself, sell the team to someone who can.

 

[jcab2000]

The thing is, now you're acknowledging that the players have to make concessions for the safety of the owners from themselves. To me that logic is neither fair nor right, and another way has to be met. It's easy to now understand why the players are not happy with what is being offered to them. An owner should be his own domain, and if he can't control himself, sell the team to someone who can.

How do the owners of small market teams control the owners of large market teams? They are 30 individual entities. Large market teams are killing small market teams by driving up salaries and forcing them to decide between getting rid of every good player that is set for a big raise or overpaying for them. If the small market teams act responsibly and let every good player go, their fans are pissed as hell and they lose fan support leading to fewer revenues.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Bettman explained the vast difference between a 42.5 ceiling and 49 ceiling..and even went as far as saying that 45 might have been stretching an already hyperextended arm that the owners were giving the players with the 42.5 offer. But in reality..isn't it each owner's personal domain as to how much he feels he should spend and still maintain a healthy personal revenue. Each owner knows to a reasonable extent how much they can spend and remain out of the red. By putting a ceiling of 49 or even 45, you reduce the spending power and talent pool of the top 6 teams in the league and make the league more of an equal talent pool. The ceiling doesn't encourage the owners to meet that ceiling, it's a restriction. The same teams that were spending 30 on their rosters are not going to all of the sudden spend another 12.5 because a salary cap is in place. So why was the ceiling such an important negotiating point the last two days, so important that the 6.5 disagreement...or as Bettman called it...the "200 million dollar difference" such a huge deal?

You must be a fan of a big market team, arn't you?

 

[Phanuthier*]

The thing is, now you're acknowledging that the players have to make concessions for the safety of the owners from themselves.

Thats EXACTLY what I believe.

Owners are out of control. Look at Karmonus vs. Illith (sp??? Hurricanes owner vs. Wings). To "get Illith" back for the Primeau signing, Karmounus thinks it would be a good idea to stick it to the Wings and give Sergei Fedorov $26 million to play 22 regular season games and playoffs.

What the owners need is a cap to protect them from themselves. This the ONLY way of ensuring more then 12 teams stay in the league.

 

[Crease]

You must be a fan of a big market team, arn't you?

Yes...yes...I'm a Ranger fan unfortunately. Don't worry though, I'm nt worried that a cap is going to decrease their chances of being a top-tier organization, they already suck. I'm more of a "It's the principle of the matter..." kinda guy. I didn't buy Bettman's reasoning behind the importance of a ceiling that was so close to being negotiable.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Yes...yes...I'm a Ranger fan unfortunately. Don't worry though, I'm nt worried that a cap is going to decrease their chances of being a top-tier organization, they already suck. I'm more of a "It's the principle of the matter..." kinda guy. I didn't buy Bettman's reasoning behind the importance of a ceiling that was so close to being negotiable.

That wasn't what I was trying to insinute.

It just seems that you don't really understand the urgancy of fans such as the Flames (myself), Oilers, Sens, Preds, Lighting, ect ect

6.5 is ALOT. To put things into prospective... thats almost Jarome Iginla for the Calgary Flames.

See my post above and the other thread about how a lower cap limits the spending on big contracts - the major cause to the massive inflation the league was/is experiancing.

 

[bling]

That wasn't what I was trying to insinute.

It just seems that you don't really understand the urgancy of fans such as the Flames (myself), Oilers, Sens, Preds, Lighting, ect ect

6.5 is ALOT. To put things into prospective... thats almost Jarome Iginla for the Calgary Flames.

See my post above and the other thread about how a lower cap limits the spending on big contracts - the major cause to the massive inflation the league was/is experiancing.

What part of "They do not have to spend up to the maximum allowed" do you not understand? That is the only way the imaginary $6.5 million comes onto play.

So many small minded, small market, lackey's seem to misunderstand what a salary cap is. It sounds like you are in fact confusing it with a salary floor.

Oh nevermind..I see you are amongst those poor misguided souls who believe the players have to sacrifice to save the moronic owners from themselves. There really is no reasoning with those who follow that logic.

 

[Phanuthier*]

What part of "They do not have to spend up to the maximum allowed" do you not understand? That is the only way the imaginary $6.5 million comes onto play.

So many small minded, small market, lackey's seem to misunderstand what a salary cap is. It sounds like you are in fact confusing it with a salary floor.

Oh nevermind..I see you are amongst those poor misguided souls who believe the players have to sacrifice to save the moronic owners from themselves. There really is no reasoning with those who follow that logic.

Right

Did you miss every one of my arguments about
a) The extra 6.5 being used to drive up large contracts (by large markets) thus raising the bar higher for smaller markets teams
b) Teams hovering around the cap (see other thread)
c) The fact that extra money from the rollback and luxery tax will be used to go on a shopping spree on an already flooded UFA market
d) Medium markets helping drive up to the cap, furthur setting the bar higher.

Yes I'll admit that a system needs to be put into place to protect the owners from themselves. Maybe its just me, but I'd rather see the NHL be more then a 12 team league, and have 5/6 Canadian franchises fold because the New York Rangers decide to pay a 3rd liner 9 million a year - higher then any player on the affermentinoed 5 Canadian franchieses.

Yeah, thanks for attacking the argument there, bud. Good job.

 

[Crease]

Thank you Bling.

If an owner has the money available to spend, why should he not be allowed to spend it. His team is his investment and he's free to make decisions on a whim if he feels his investment will improve accordingly. If the same owner feels the decision to sign so-and-so to a contract will be deterimental to his investment, he doesn't have to make it. Plain and simple.

 

[Phanuthier*]

If an owner has the money available to spend, why should he not be allowed to spend it. His team is his investment and he's free to make decisions on a whim if he feels his investment will improve accordingly. If the same owner feels the decision to sign so-and-so to a contract will be deterimental to his investment, he doesn't have to make it. Plain and simple.

Again, big market fan attitude.

Not giving a damn about the fans of the other 10-12 NHL franchineses.

 

[Crease]

Yes I'll admit that a system needs to be put into place to protect the owners from themselves. Maybe its just me, but I'd rather see the NHL be more then a 12 team league, and have 5/6 Canadian franchises fold because the New York Rangers decide to pay a 3rd liner 9 million a year - higher then any player on the affermentinoed 5 Canadian franchieses.

I believe the Rangers were involved in a bidding war over this 3rd line player with one of your affermentioned canadien franchises. Again, that's what the market price was set for Holik because both owners felt he was worth that amount of money, thus making their investment justified. Do you believe at any time during the bidding war between NY and Toronto did either owner say to themselves, "Gee, this is really going to screw my buddies down in Atlanta and Pittsburgh." Absolutely not. The owners say they want a system that supports all 30 teams competively, but in reality, they want a system that allows them to make thoughtless judgements and still secure money in their own pockets.

 

[Tawnos]

If an owner makes money, he should be punished for it then by not being allowed to put it back into his investment?

 

[Phanuthier*]

I believe the Rangers were involved in a bidding war over this 3rd line player with one of your affermentioned canadien franchises. Again, that's what the market price was set for Holik because both owners felt he was worth that amount of money, thus making their investment justified. Do you believe at any time during the bidding war between NY and Toronto did either owner say to themselves, "Gee, this is really going to screw my buddies down in Atlanta and Pittsburgh." Absolutely not. The owners say they want a system that supports all 30 teams competively, but in reality, they want a system that allows them to make thoughtless judgements and still secure money in their own pockets.

Exactly. That cap really isn't to put a limit on smaller markets, its to control the big markets so teams like Toronto and New York don't screw the pooch for the Flames and Oilers.

No, I don't believe either team give a dick what Atlanta adn Pittsburg was thinking. Which is WHY I think a system needs to be in place to control them. But you know what? With Bettman's 75% veto power, things will swing in favour of the smaller markets.

Otherwise... TO and NY will get to do all the bidding they want. The Flames, Oilers, Sens, Preds, Thrashers, Sabres, Hawks and Canes won't be there to rag on you.

 

[Phanuthier*]

If an owner makes money, he should be punished for it then by not being allowed to put it back into his investment?

Oh big punishement

Again... big-market fan attitude.

 

[Crease]

Thats exactly my point though. During the season, owners and general managers aren't looking out for the other teams in the league. They're looking out for themselves. They make decisions based on what their team needs to do in order to be successful and thus generate revenue. Do you think that owners that were making money under the old CBA are happy with the idea of allowing the teams that can't survive otherwise climb out of the cellar, compete, and ultimately decrease their own teams chance of winning and generating the revenue that comes with that? No, they're still looking out for number one.

And don't give me the small market excuse. If your team can't stay afloat unless they are competitive, they're aren't in the right market. I have no sympathy for fair-weather fans, even though I'm sure they have their die-hards like yourself. That brings up my beef about Bettman's expansion project, but thats another thread entirely.

 

[bling]

Exactly. That cap really isn't to put a limit on smaller markets, its to control the big markets so teams like Toronto and New York don't screw the pooch for the Flames and Oilers.

No, I don't believe either team give a dick what Atlanta adn Pittsburg was thinking. Which is WHY I think a system needs to be in place to control them. But you know what? With Bettman's 75% veto power, things will swing in favour of the smaller markets.

Otherwise... TO and NY will get to do all the bidding they want. The Flames, Oilers, Sens, Preds, Thrashers, Sabres, Hawks and Canes won't be there to rag on you.

Oh, small "market" fan attitude.

 

[bling]

Right

Did you miss every one of my arguments about
a) The extra 6.5 being used to drive up large contracts (by large markets) thus raising the bar higher for smaller markets teams
b) Teams hovering around the cap (see other thread)
c) The fact that extra money from the rollback and luxery tax will be used to go on a shopping spree on an already flooded UFA market
d) Medium markets helping drive up to the cap, furthur setting the bar higher.

Yes I'll admit that a system needs to be put into place to protect the owners from themselves. Maybe its just me, but I'd rather see the NHL be more then a 12 team league, and have 5/6 Canadian franchises fold because the New York Rangers decide to pay a 3rd liner 9 million a year - higher then any player on the affermentinoed 5 Canadian franchieses.

Yeah, thanks for attacking the argument there, bud. Good job.

Oh, more "small market" fan attitude.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Thats exactly my point though. During the season, owners and general managers aren't looking out for the other teams in the league. They're looking out for themselves. They make decisions based on what their team needs to do in order to be successful and thus generate revenue.
Isn't that the whole point if the new system? To fix this problem?

Do you think that owners that were making money under the old CBA are happy with the idea of allowing the teams that can't survive otherwise climb out of the cellar, compete, and ultimately decrease their own teams chance of winning and generating the revenue that comes with that? No, they're still looking out for number one.
I won't lie to you. This type of system does nothing for your team or the Rangers. However, you should realize that if the CBA resembles the last one, audit's performed said that more then half of the league would permanently close its doors. Do you want to see a 30 team NHL or a 12 team NHL? Bottum line.

Oh, and I thought it was interesting that one of the 8 owners pushing the hardest for a cap was Hicks, owner of the Dallas Stars.

If your team can't stay afloat unless they are competitive, they're aren't in the right market.
Thats great. 12 team NHL is what you want then? If thats what you believe in, then there's reallyl nothing to discuss here.

I'm debating on the premise of keeping 30 NHL teams healthy and competitive in the league. If your debating a 12-team league or a tier-2 league, then we're not even on the same page here.

Oh, small "market" fan attitude.
I'm not going to deny it. I'm a small market fan with the attitude that I want to see my Calgary Flames stay in Calgary.

 

[Crease]

Ok so you're argument is based upon the idealogy of creating a healthy 30 team league. I'm saying that the sport is not popular enough nor generates enough revenue as a whole to support 30 teams, especially in some markets that they are in. When the league is forced to create an even playing field in order to keep a good number of teams afloat, then you know immediately those teams shouldn't have been in the league to begin with.

You can't frown upon the big-market fan mentality without understanding the owners and general managers of those teams share the same ideals.

 

[Tawnos]

Your Flames can stay in Calgary without significantly punishing the Maple Leafs for being successful.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Ok so you're argument is based upon the idealogy of creating a healthy 30 team league. I'm saying that the sport is not popular enough nor generates enough revenue as a whole to support 30 teams, especially in some markets that they are in. When the league is forced to create an even playing field in order to keep a good number of teams afloat, then you know immediately those teams shouldn't have been in the league to begin with.

You can't frown upon the big-market fan mentality without understanding the owners and general managers of those teams share the same ideals.

In other words, we're on different pages.

When you start to see light from my POV, let me know. Until then, this is really useless.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Your Flames can stay in Calgary without significantly punishing the Maple Leafs for being successful.

The Flames will likely fold along with at least 12 other teams who have threatened to close their doors. And you can be assured that with Cal Nicholas's comments about folding the Oilers if there's no cap, the Flames arn't far behind.

 

[Tawnos]

Who's talking no cap?