Salary cap good or bad?

[achtungbaby]

Actually we did need Campbell as we were in dire need of a PMD

And the Thrashers offered 8 mil so Hawks had to stay competitive in bid

And Hossa deal is good and was a good signing

Huet was awful deal but in the end it didn't kill us cap wise since he was sent into exile thus off the cap for this year

It was a good signing to get them the cup and for the next few years. It's in the latter years of those contracts that'll hurt.

I think what we're all getting at is that it's harder to produce a dynasty type of team that is always in the hunt. Unless you're the Red Wings...

After all, winning multiple cups seems to be the goal here, there, and everywhere these days.

 

[orcawhale]

The cap is good, but teams have too much trouble keeping their cores together. There should be a soft cap, like the NBA, to help clubs retain veterans, franchise players etc.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The cap is good, but teams have too much trouble keeping their cores together. There should be a soft cap, like the NBA, to help clubs retain veterans, franchise players etc.

Disagree. Any mechanism that allows circumvention of a hard cap is an invitation for rich teams to take advantage of the not so rich.

Look at the Lakers, they are perennial contenders with that bad system. Poor teams cannot take advantage of a soft cap becaue they don't spend to the cap anyway, there is no advantage to them. Only rich teams gain by this becaue they can now circumvent the hard cap and spend freely. Again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That all being said, if a team finds itself getting rid of players because they can't meet the cap, that is bad management not a bad economic system. The GM screwed up and must pay the price for his ineptitiude.

Bad idea.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

The cap is good, but teams have too much trouble keeping their cores together. There should be a soft cap, like the NBA, to help clubs retain veterans, franchise players etc.

The NBA's "cap" is terrible. And will be gone following their lockout.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Only mediocre champion was Carolina.

Anaheim had 3 HOF (Selanne, Pronger, Niedermeyer) as well as some of the brightest young stars today (Getzlaf, Perry).

Detroit is Detroit.

Pittsburgh had at the time, 2 of the top 3 players in the world.

Chicago had unreal depth, as well as top-end talent.

Correction - Carolina's been mediocre since we won the Cup (with the exception of the year we made it to the ECF against Pittsburgh and got swept), but in '05-'06, the 'Canes were hardly mediocre. Second seed in the East finishing with 112 points? If that's mediocrity, I'll take it.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Disagree. Any mechanism that allows circumvention of a hard cap is an invitation for rich teams to take advantage of the not so rich.

Look at the perennial conentenders in LA. Poor teams cannot take advantage of a soft cap becaue they don't spend to the cap anyway, there is no advantage to them. Only rich teams gain by this becaue they can now circumvent the hard cap and spend freely. Again, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That all being said, if a team finds itself getting rid of players because they can't meet the cap, that is bad management not a bad economic system. The GM screwed up and must pay the price for his ineptitiude.

Bad idea.

You mean like the current system that allows teams to bury contracts in the KHL/AHL? Small market/not rich teams can't afford to do that. Or front loaded lifetime contracts?

 

[Ogopogo*]

You mean like the current system that allows teams to bury contracts in the KHL/AHL? Small market/not rich teams can't afford to do that. Or front loaded lifetime contracts?

Yes, I agree completely. Those aspects of the current system are BS.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

You mean like the current system that allows teams to bury contracts in the KHL/AHL? Small market/not rich teams can't afford to do that. Or front loaded lifetime contracts?

The NHL closed that loophole this previous summer.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

The NHL closed that loophole this previous summer.

I wouldn't say closed?

 

[cbcwpg]

"Salary Cap... good or bad?"

Depends where your team is and what your definition of good or bad is.

Some teams don't want the cap.

Some teams don't care either way.

Some teams wouldn't exist without it.

There is no one answer.

 

[Shawa666]

Disagree. Champions uses to be great up and down, now champions are simply less-flawed than the rest.

1993 Montreal Habs?

 

[Confucius]

As a Wings fan I feel that the cap punishes teams for being successful. I think parity is a nice word for mediocrity. In my view salary caps water down sports and create inferior product. In the 90s teams like Colorado, NJ, and Detroit were playing the game at an extremely high level albeit defensive. It seems to me that if you want to be good you should market your product as the best franchises in the league do. What do you think? Is it good that Chicago had to dismantle their team after winning a cup? Is it good that a team that drafts well and develops talent has to give up that talent as soon as they become strong NHL players?

I agree, most importantly it punishes a teams fans. The fans support their team which in turn allows the owners the luxury of spending more money on the team. Sort of like paying the fans back. With rev sharing the owners can basically say thanks for the support, love ya but I can't spend anymore. Don't fret though I'm sending your cash out of town to another team so they have more money to spend. End result being you're paying them to kick the crap out of you.

 

[Dado]

I agree, most importantly it punishes a teams fans. The fans support their team which in turn allows the owners the luxury of spending more money on the team.

Yep. It's totally perverse - the bigger and stronger the fan base, the more they are punished.

Completely bass-ackwards.

 

[orcawhale]

Yep. It's totally perverse - the bigger and stronger the fan base, the more they are punished.

Completely bass-ackwards.

if the only successful teams were the ones with strong fan bases, non-traditional markets would really suffer. nobody wants to cheer for a crappy team, but at least up north they'll tolerate it. the salary cap helps those non-traditional market teams be competitive, and helps convince the public that their hockey teams just might be worth watching.

 

[Dado]

if the only successful teams were the ones with strong fan bases, non-traditional markets would really suffer.

I'm ok with that. I feel the league is about six teams to big as is, anyway.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I wouldn't say closed?

What do you mean?

They made it so that you can no longer have lifetime contracts with big money and low cap hit.

I would call that closed.

(I'll look up the specifics later when I actually have time)

 

[CC Chiefs*]

What do you mean?

They made it so that you can no longer have lifetime contracts with big money and low cap hit.

I would call that closed.

(I'll look up the specifics later when I actually have time)

Go look at Kovalchuk's approved contract. It's still a 15-year, $100 million and the one that was rejected was a 17-year, $102 million contract. Not too much difference.

 

[The Right Price]

The Salary Cap is good. The best organization wins the cup. I always like good asset management.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Go look at Kovalchuk's approved contract. It's still a 15-year, $100 million and the one that was rejected was a 17-year, $102 million contract. Not too much difference.

They allowed the Kovalchuk contract, as well as the Hossa, Luongo and Zetterberg contracts to pass through provided the NHLPA approved of the initiative (don't know the proper word) to close the loophole. If the NHLPA had not approved, they would have to go back to court (and this time, prove that the contracts mentioned above did violate the cap).

I agree that the Kovalchuk contract is complete BS, but the loophole that allowed these contracts is closed.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

They allowed the Kovalchuk contract, as well as the Hossa, Luongo and Zetterberg contracts to pass through provided the NHLPA approved of the initiative (don't know the proper word) to close the loophole. If the NHLPA had not approved, they would have to go back to court (and this time, prove that the contracts mentioned above did violate the cap).

I agree that the Kovalchuk contract is complete BS, but the loophole that allowed these contracts is closed.

Time will tell. I don't believe it's completely closed, just managed a LITTLE tighter.

 

[Confound]

Of course the cap is good, I would rather have a league where there is a hard cap and any team has a shot at making the playoffs and winning the cup while in the NBA it has been the same story these past few years, Lakers, Celtics, Spurs and Magic.

In the NBA there is no competitive balance really, just look in the NHL, the Western conference is tight and has been exciting to watch. Just look at the NBA standings this year, pathetic.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

The Cap is a good thing. The NHL is a sports league not solely a business. In a sports league there are certain rules required to make the league entertaining and competitive, the rules of the game and the rules of the league in signing and retaining players. These include holding a draft. You might argue that a draft is unfair along the same lines as you could argue against the cap. I mean why should there be a draft? You are only rewarding teams for poor performance. You are restricting player movement. Why shouldn't the teams just try to compete against each other to sign players once they are eligible to play in the NHL. So, for example, last year every team could try to sign Taylor Hall and Hall would go to the highest bidder. That wouldn't really be great for the league. You could also argue the league should get rid of restricted status of players and everyone would be a free agent after their contact is up. It is for similar reasons that the Cap is good. The NHL is a game and games need certain rules to make the competition reasonable. Would you want to play Monopoly if everyone started out with vastly different sums of money? That's what MLB is like.

GHOST

 

[Confound]

Also to point out unlike the NFL the NHL doesn't pay their high end prospects millions and millions of dollars, not knowing whether they are going to be a bust or not, at least in the NHL it's 875K is the maximum (not including bonuses). It just balances everything out, makes the rookies work harder for their money unlike some NFL rookies (see Jamarcus Russell).

 

[WheatiesHockey]

The cap is popular because it offers a simplistic solution. Implement a cap and every team has a chance to win every year or so the argument goes.
Prior to the cap through the 80's and 90's there were all types of boogie men GM's trying to buy a Cup, for example St Louis, New York, Toronto, Philly etc. etc.
If the playing field needs to be levelled maybe poor teams should ask for complete revenue equalisation league wide as well. That would not go over terribly well, no doubt.
Different teams, different corporate structures, different arena deals, different media deals. different concession deals, different parking lot deals and so on.
The cap realistically was of benefit to the middle pack teams at best.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

The cap is popular because it offers a simplistic solution. Implement a cap and every team has a chance to win every year or so the argument goes.
Prior to the cap through the 80's and 90's there were all types of boogie men GM's trying to buy a Cup, for example St Louis, New York, Toronto, Philly etc. etc.
If the playing field needs to be levelled maybe poor teams should ask for complete revenue equalisation league wide as well. That would not go over terribly well, no doubt.
Different teams, different corporate structures, different arena deals, different media deals. different concession deals, different parking lot deals and so on.
The cap realistically was of benefit to the middle pack teams at best.

Yes, I think you've identified the problem with excessive revenue sharing very well. You have a team, for example, like the Montreal Canadiens that had to finance and pay for their own arena and have a huge property tax burden sending revenue sharing cheques to teams that got free arenas with sweetheart leases and which pay no property tax. A cap is a more acceptable than trying to share revenues in such circumstances.

GHOST