Salary cap good or bad?

[Dado]

The NHL should be fighting to have the same deal that NFL teams have. Outright release.

IMO, a hard cap without the ability to void contracts is a recipe for disaster. It will doom teams to long stretches of outright suckage with no hope of escape.

 

[Butch 19]

There was a year long lockout due to the owners insistence on a cap and so called cost certainty.

... and the players' insistence that they should remain being paid more average salary per year than NFL players.

When you make any major purchase, say a house or a car, do you want cost certainty?

The NHLPA had the players believing that Bobby Holik was worth $9m a year

again:

The cap is the best thing to happen to the NHL in a long, long time.

 

[Butch 19]

I don't like the cap, and I don't like the mediocre "champions" it has created.

Please, list the mediocore "champions" that have been created by the cap.

What other team(s) should have won these "championships?"

Seriously.

 

[Dado]

Please, list the mediocore "champions" that have been created by the cap.

All of them, since the cap went into effect.

As a specific current example, the Detroit of pre-cap was a better, deeper champion than the Detroit post-cap. And they had better, deeper primary competitors to add spice to the stew.

What other team(s) should have won these "championships?"

None. The also-rans are even more mediocre.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is that to say the middle-range teams have gotten a lot better? All this top-shelf talent had to go somewhere, right?

I certainly don't think the bottom-dwellers are any better than they used to be. So it had to go toward the middle, right?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Is that to say the middle-range teams have gotten a lot better? All this top-shelf talent had to go somewhere, right?

I certainly don't think the bottom-dwellers are any better than they used to be. So it had to go toward the middle, right?

Everything used to be better!


Hockey was better in the (pick the poster's favorite decade by when they grew up).

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't believe for a second that every team has an equal ability to bury contracts, but that's kinda beside the point anyway.

Burying contracts is simply a bad practice. It gives GMs a "parachute" for reckless contracts, stifles the career of players based on the size of their paycheck, and inflates salaries for everybody else. It needs to be done away with regardless of parity arguments.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

IMO, a hard cap without the ability to void contracts is a recipe for disaster. It will doom teams to long stretches of outright suckage with no hope of escape.

I think it's pretty safe to guess the NHLPA will fight very hard to keep guaranteed contracts. That may be one of their least negotiable points.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Dude, his cap hit is less than Havlat's, who he replaced.

Because it's a cap-circumventing type deal. Either way, any GM with any sort of foresight would have seen that Hossa was an unneeded luxury.

 

[wickedwitch]

Since when is a level playing field good in competition? If you are a failure as a franchise we will change the rules to accommodate your incompetence? Maybe we should just let the good teams put together their rosters and then have a "special draft" where all the failing teams take their players.

Because it's best for the league to have as many teams as feasible. TV contracts, which are a huge source of revenue, are based on fans from as many markets as possible watching the sport.

 

[Dado]

TV contracts, which are a huge source of revenue, are based on fans from as many markets as possible watching the sport.

The NFL got its first national TV contract when there were only 13 teams in the league. The NHL could lose a half-dozen teams and still have more than enough "geographic footprint" for a lucrative TV deal -- if it actually generated ratings.

 

[wickedwitch]

The NFL got its first national TV contract when there were only 13 teams in the league. The NHL could lose a half-dozen teams and still have more than enough "geographic footprint" for a lucrative TV deal -- if it actually generated ratings.

Do you think that if the NFL had 13 teams today that the TV contract would be even 1/2 as big as it is?

 

[WheatiesHockey]

NHL teams are privately held businesses and their financial records are not really open to outside financial scrutiny by independent analysts. For that matter most NHL teams do not have major tangible assets. Even the Forbes guesstimates could be wildly inaccurate. In the absence of transparency there is a whole lot of speculation about franchise worth and revenues.
Matters like joint tenancy in arenas for certain teams cloud the picture even further.
The Edmonton Oilers are a stand alone business for example, compared to teams like the Rangers and Leafs.
Attempting to buy a champion is not as easy as it might seem. Miscalculation can, needless to say, result in significant financial losses with an early playoff exit. It can also results in teams keeping over priced duds around or keeping players around simply because they fit in with the salary cap structure.
Every other business in the world in a competitive market knows how much it can pay it employees. With respect to the NHL, the league is the MARKET for professional hockey players. If some owner wants to pay $100 million a year for salaries and figures he can still make a buck let him do it and conversely if some owner wants 21 players signed at the league minimum player salary and figures he can make a buck he should be able to it also.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

... and the players' insistence that they should remain being paid more average salary per year than NFL players.

When you make any major purchase, say a house or a car, do you want cost certainty?

The NHLPA had the players believing that Bobby Holik was worth $9m a year

again:

The cap is the best thing to happen to the NHL in a long, long time.

And some owner was ready to pay the 9M.

 

[Dado]

Do you think that if the NFL had 13 teams today that the TV contract would be even 1/2 as big as it is?

Dunno. MNF was getting *massive* ratings when the league was half the current size, so it's hard to say.

I am, however, quite confident that a 13-team NFL tv deal would still be a lot bigger than a 30-team NHL tv deal.

So it's clearly not an issue of "geographic footprint"....

 

[Crazy_Ike]

When the Capitals buried Nylander they freed $4.8M, allowing them to pursue a player like Scott Hannan ($4.5M) and increase their odds of winning a Cup.

How is that not a competitive advantage over the teams who are simply forced to live with their mistakes?

Making mistakes has nothing to do with winning the Cup. The Capitals are no differently off between burying Nylander vs never signing him in the first place, and signing a player that is so bad they get banished to minors clearly doesn't advance them towards winning the cup. Nor, unfortunately, is this an example of a lesser team wanting to bury a player but not being able to. No advantage is given and nothing is done that any other team would not have been able to do.

You have confused "not falling backwards more than otherwise would have" with "advancing forwards". This is a logical fallacy and your premise does not hold water. Feel free to attempt again.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Because it's a cap-circumventing type deal. Either way, any GM with any sort of foresight would have seen that Hossa was an unneeded luxury.

The Hawks won the Cup with Hossa. Any claim that they would have without him is nothing more than conjecture that simply doesn't stand up to the fact that they did win it with him. This invalidates "unneeded".

Despite what some people seem to think, the overall goal of every team in the league is not to have a fantastically managed cap, it is to win the Cup. Try not to forget that.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Making mistakes has nothing to do with winning the Cup. The Capitals are no differently off between burying Nylander vs never signing him in the first place, and signing a player that is so bad they get banished to minors clearly doesn't advance them towards winning the cup. Nor, unfortunately, is this an example of a lesser team wanting to bury a player but not being able to. No advantage is given and nothing is done that any other team would not have been able to do.

You have confused "not falling backwards more than otherwise would have" with "advancing forwards". This is a logical fallacy and your premise does not hold water. Feel free to attempt again.

This from a fan who's team has taken advantage of a loophole. Could/would Nashville, Atlanta, NYI, Carolina, Colorado or any other team with self imposed cap do the same thing. Or Chicago 5 years ago? The answer is NO.

 

[Dado]

This from a fan who's team has taken advantage of a loophole.

I don't think you're gonna get anywhere with this argument. If someone can't see that having the financial wherewithall to take enormous risks with players they wouldn't otherwise pursue is a big advantage, there isn't likely to be enough common ground for meaningful discourse.

IMO, etc.

 

[Faltorvo]

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.

Lets not forget the fact that many fans get to go watch live games at a much lower cost.

The fans impact in big markets has been neutered and their wallets get no relief.

Frankly, this cap and profit sharing can kiss my arse.

 

[Faltorvo]

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

If it cost you $25 to sit down and play that game of monopoly and for the chair beside you it cost me $175 , then we have a problem, no? Oh and $7 came out of my pocket to help subsidies your $25 cost.

 

[Faltorvo]

So do you think if a team like the NYR can afford to burying a guy in the AHL isn't a clear advantage that say a Nashville can't do? You seem to want things to be fair, but yet those salaries that hidden aren't figured into the equation when figuring player expenses as far as the CBA goes. That is huge advantage to the big market teams. But you can ignore that if you want to.

Like the HUGE advantage fans in Nashville get by not having to pay the same ticket prices they do in NY?

 

[TaketheCannoli]

If it cost you $25 to sit down and play that game of monopoly and for the chair beside you it cost me $175 , then we have a problem, no? Oh and $7 came out of my pocket to help subsidies your $25 cost.

The price you pay is dictated by market forces, not costs. Paying more doesn't mean the team will spend more on salaries in an uncapped system. The Leafs spent less than the Rangers and Red Wings pre-lockout, yet had higher revenues than either of them.

On the other hand, there are some pretty low budget teams like Colorado, Phoenix and Nashville that are outperforming cap teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flames, Oilers etc. There is no substitute for a well run hockey operations department.

On the other hand, perhaps you prefer a dynasty like the 70s Habs, 80s Islanders and Oilers. What the hell, wouldn't it be great for fans of 29 teams to know before the season even started their team had no chance of winning a Cup.

Those were the days...

 

[tarheelhockey]

You have confused "not falling backwards more than otherwise would have" with "advancing forwards". This is a logical fallacy and your premise does not hold water. Feel free to attempt again.

Why be so smarmy about it?

Your contention that no "lesser" team has ever had to keep a player rather than bury him is, itself, a fallacy. You have no idea what goes into personnel decisions and no grounds to say what has or has not happened in that regard. I can say that the Carolina Hurricanes would have preferred to bury Sergei Samsonov in the minors, and bring exactly the same amount of evidence (none) to the table that you have.

Insert dismissive, condescending comment here.

 

[Faltorvo]

The price you pay is dictated by market forces, not costs. Paying more doesn't mean the team will spend more on salaries in an uncapped system. The Leafs spent less than the Rangers and Red Wings pre-lockout, yet had higher revenues than either of them.

On the other hand, there are some pretty low budget teams like Colorado, Phoenix and Nashville that are outperforming cap teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flames, Oilers etc. There is no substitute for a well run hockey operations department.

On the other hand, perhaps you prefer a dynasty like the 70s Habs, 80s Islanders and Oilers. What the hell, wouldn't it be great for fans of 29 teams to know before the season even started their team had no chance of winning a Cup.

Those were the days...

Thanks for the economics lesson, i had no idea. So whats the fans options then ?

Not show up to live events and force a lower ticket price, in time?

While i agree that a well run team is vital , i do not agree that fans in big markets that do pay these high prices have to suffer with these handicaps.


Market forces can also pressure a team to spend more to correct their mistakes and short comings.

When you take into account the currency exchange that TO had to deal with , they were right up there with Det/Rags.

I have no issues against dynasty's what so ever , those are the type of things that become a big part of a leagues lore and legend.

It's funny that the only ones left out of all this equality and parody are the fans stepping up to pay the big bucks in the big markets.

But it's easy to not give a sht about those folks. Right?

What is it these days, $1,700 for 4 glass seats on a Mon night against Caro? It is in TO.

$360 for four seats 15 rows from the roof? It is in TO.

Why should i give a sht about struggling small markets who's fan pay a fraction of what i am forced to?

When they obviously don't give a sht about us and we get the added kick in the teeth by being financially abused?