Since support for a cap seems to be such a "Canadian" thing..

Status
Not open for further replies.

littleHossa

Registered User
Apr 7, 2003
1,753
0
Ottawa
Visit site
It could happen, but when you talk about guys like Iginla, Hossa, Chara and Bertuzzi, more than 1 team have interest in them, and they won't sign to a new team, they'll be traded to that team, and the return will be at least descent.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
littleHossa said:
It could happen, but when you talk about guys like Iginla, Hossa, Chara and Bertuzzi, more than 1 team have interest in them, and they won't sign to a new team, they'll be traded to that team, and the return will be at least descent.
yes but as in the nfl there will be those tough decision's that will result in beloved player's let go for cap reason's - the player movement will be stunning -
 

KingsFan7824

Registered User
Dec 4, 2003
19,356
7,445
Visit site
As opposed to the system that was there? Those players would still end up leaving for the big market teams. Every team has a small window to win, but small market teams have an even smaller window. What's the point of having a team outside of a top 10 market? They might get lucky with one great year as the older teams age, but when those older players retire, the big market teams will sign the best player from the small market teams who had to have a great year to get that small market team to the playoffs in a contract year.

The 30 teams don't compete with each other financially. They can't, since they're in 30 different cities spread all over North America. There's nothing wrong with each team having a chance. You can call it communism, you can call it socialism, but they're not 30 individual corporations. The NHL is the corporation. The teams work within the NHL. They're not independent of it.

There's nothing that says the star players will move from team to team. Some will. But most won't. Most stars in the NFL don't move. Most stars in the NBA don't move. Unless you have a Shaq situation, where the star player wants to get traded. It's the role players that move around. And even if they have to move around a lot, they're making a nice chunk of change. Not everything is perfect.

You can also have dynasties with a cost control system. The Patriots could win 3 out of 4 Super Bowls in the NFL. Basketball is a bit different, since there are only 12 active players, and 7 or 8 usually play. You only need 2 or 3 good players, and you can win. But since their new system came along, the Lakers were the dynasty, and the Spurs have won twice, and been in contention every other year.

Now, a cap won't work alone. You need revenue sharing as well. Along with a cap, there also has to be a salary floor. Without the floor, then you would have some owners that would put the extra money in their pocket.

The players will still make a pretty decent living. The owners will still take home some extra money as well. And the fans in every city can still go and watch a team that at least has some kind of chance to win. They may not know who all the players are with increased player movement, but they'll have a better chance to keep their stars. Edmonton won't have to trade away their best players. The role players will change, but the Weight's and Guerin's will more than likely stay. They won't get $10 million per year, but they won't go hungry either.

An economic system, that may have a cap, but where you can still make hundreds of thousands of dollars at minimum, and millions of dollars at the top(doesn't exactly sound like Soviet Russia). The only difference is that the small market teams will have a better chance to keep their stars for a longer period of time. Doesn't that help the game? It's a gate driven league. There isn't a TV deal, and even when they had one it wasn't very good. If that can draw more people to the arena, it can't hurt.
 

Ismellofhockey

Registered User
Mar 31, 2002
2,843
0
Visit site
Favre managed to spend his entire career in one place, I don't see why Yzerman couldn't in a capped NHL.
I also don't think NFL and NHL player movement would be quite the same, don't NFL teams have way more players?

A team's core will be smaller in a capped system but you could still mange to keep it together, in a non-capped system, the Sens lose their core to high salaries anyway so I don't see a huge difference.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Ismellofhockey said:
Favre managed to spend his entire career in one place, I don't see why Yzerman couldn't in a capped NHL.
I also don't think NFL and NHL player movement would be quite the same, don't NFL teams have way more players?

A team's core will be smaller in a capped system but you could still mange to keep it together, in a non-capped system, the Sens lose their core to high salaries anyway so I don't see a huge difference.

Favre is the exception not the rule. Green Bay sacrifice a lot of good players to keep him also.

Indianapolis put a budget with 60-70% on offense , that means their defense is always weak. Exciting team of course but when it comes to play well managed team defensive , it collapse. They can't get any better because they put all their assets on offense.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
Gee Wally said:
the downfall is having a "stupid" GM....

That is a problem... Since teams just can't throw money at a problem, they must know personnel and prospects much better than they do now.


case in point..The New England Patriots.. arguably a *starless* team depending on who is making the judgement.. but they do seem to be successful.

Having a "stupid" GM has always been the downfall... and more or less $ for the GM to work with doesn't solve this problem...

To achieve success, implementation of a strategy is much more important than the strategy itself... If someone ever wondered why so much 'self help' education, research, books, and articles produce so few changes in actual practice - this is why... Implementation matters most of all... Everybody can easily access information for the correct strategy to lose weight or stop smoking, but if not implemented properly, the correct or best strategy isn't important... Whereas, if I decide the strategy I will use to stop smoking is to cut it down one cigarette a month, and implement this 'incorrect' strategy perfectly (or good enough to achieve success), I'll quit smoking (I did it this way) - even though the educational material said that this is the wrong (or far from optimal) strategy to use... Did I do it the best way? Probably not according to what I've read... Did it work? So far so good... It's been about a year since I've had a cigarette - although I do like to still stand next to people who smoke...

In hockey, the "buy" or "properly build the core" strategy in itself doesn't play the determining role in team success or failure, but it's how the GM implements the strategy that does... $ doesn't determine success or failure...

Best Results (i.e. to reach the 'elite' level of a Colorodo or Detroit), can only be achieved by the 'proper team building strategy', and more importantly, have excellent implementation of this strategy...

But this isn't to say that good results couldn't be achieved by both the "buy" and "build the core" strategies - as long as the GM has good to great implementation of the strategy... One of the strategies (the buy strategy) may have a negative impact on NHL economics - so for this reason alone, I'm willing to support a soft salary cap... I don't like what may be needed to get a hard cap implemented - 1+ year of no hockey? break the union? etc.? I also don't like taking current skills away from the GMs (not as strictly through a hard cap, but I would personally accept it through a soft cap)... IMHO, the gap between the haves and the have nots has more to do with the GM competence gap than the money gap... The money gap, IMO, is largely a by-product of a spectrum of GM competence in the NHL (How do some of these guys get hired? He won a Stanley Cup with the team, and was a fan favourite, so we'll make him GM!)... Lou in NJ may as well be playing chess against a four-year old... It's as challenging to him as operating with some of the other GM's around the league...

IMHO, Edmonton will still be a mediocre team even with a salary cap (same with the Islanders)... Their GMs have proven to be incompetent, IMO... I also think that Colorodo and NJ will still be one of the best teams in the league... IMO, their GMs have proven time and again to make excellent strategy implementation decisions... The strategies that they have at their disposal to build their teams may be different with a cap, but their competent ability to implement strategy is the same...
 
Last edited:

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
mr gib said:
no kidding - you hit the nail on the head - i wish someone can explain to me where the 11 teams below the cap will get the money to meet the cap floor - also if the player's agree to a cap the free agency situation will be off the mat - player's will be moving yearly -

I don't know why you don't think that the NHL isn't planning on revenue sharing. In their last proposal, they said meaningful revenue sharing would be a part of it. Also with a even playing field the owners will gladly spend that money with more hopes of being successful, thus maximizing profits through hopefully playoffs and more fans coming to watch the games. And if not, then its too bad. If they cannot run a successful team under a cap, they should sell it.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
They brought instability to every franchise. Don't mistake that football is very popular not because of a cap but because it's extremely popular in the country (NCAA, High school).

Pro-owner claim that Carolina , Anaheim, Calgary making the finals is a 1-year wonder but what about the Carolina Panthers ? New York Giants ? It's exactly the same thing.

Losing players on their prime hurt way more that paying someone a little more than expected.

Atlanta lost Kovalchuk at 27 years old
Ottawa lost Hossa at 27 years old
Columbus lost Nash at 27 years old

I think this is the new NHL coming in.

Some people prefer the jersey before the players but to me, I like having a player for a long time. No more Yzerman full career in Detroit , Joe Sakic in Colorado & etc....

To me it's just sad, Saku Koivu won't have a full career in Montreal, Joe Thornton in Boston & on & on & on.

I can understand that people try to take the best argument possible to support ''if it's working in the NFL , it's should work in the NHL'' & it's gonna work but even if the NFL is extremely popular , there's a DARK SIDE.

- Fans complain that every year they don't even know the starting line-up because 30 to 40% of the team change every year.

Is that what I want for the NHL ? Certainly not but I have the feeling that it will happen because they want so much those cost certainty.

I'm not a pro-player but i'm certainly anti-owner. Please don't paint me on 1 side because I hate the other one.

The difference with football and hockey right now having one hit wonders......is that the NFL teams have a chance to keep their team together that they had success with in the previous year, because they cannot demand huge contract raises.

And I completely disagree with your opinion on players not being able to have long careers in one place. The NFL has alot of players who have only played for one team. But there will be a difference now. The NHL teams will have to pick one player to build a team around now, instead of having anywhere 3 to 5 players that you can build around on certain teams. There is plenty of room to keep the players you need without going overboard.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
Favre is the exception not the rule. Green Bay sacrifice a lot of good players to keep him also.

Indianapolis put a budget with 60-70% on offense , that means their defense is always weak. Exciting team of course but when it comes to play well managed team defensive , it collapse. They can't get any better because they put all their assets on offense.

So what, thats where smart managerial work comes in. The teams that will be the most successful in the NHL with a cap consistently will be the teams with the best GM's. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'd rather my teams success ride on something we can control rather than something we can not.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
kerrly said:
So what, thats where smart managerial work comes in. The teams that will be the most successful in the NHL with a cap consistently will be the teams with the best GM's. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'd rather my teams success ride on something we can control rather than something we can not.


Then why just change the GM's instead of having a 1-2 year lockout ? You just blame the GM of not being smart ? & it's exactly what happen in the last CBA. Bobby Clarke is tight with Leclair's contract that prevent him from having a Ziggy Palffy. Glen Sather is tight with Holik's contract, Boston is tight with Lapointe's contract that prevent him to get better. Same thing with some leafs players contract, some Wings contract & on & on.

I'm NOT saying that the last CBA was perfect , it need somes changes THAT'S FOR SURE but it punish team of giving ludicrous contract for a lot of years & the guy didn't perform , he can't get rid of the contract !
 

Jaysfanatic*

Guest
Well, here's the thing, why are two Americans in charge of this thing? Now that we've got the two Canadian's hotchkiss and linden talking, maybe we'll get something done.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
kerrly said:
The difference with football and hockey right now having one hit wonders......is that the NFL teams have a chance to keep their team together that they had success with in the previous year, because they cannot demand huge contract raises.

And I completely disagree with your opinion on players not being able to have long careers in one place. The NFL has alot of players who have only played for one team. But there will be a difference now. The NHL teams will have to pick one player to build a team around now, instead of having anywhere 3 to 5 players that you can build around on certain teams. There is plenty of room to keep the players you need without going overboard.


I just don't see the difference between the Carolina Panthers & the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Both go to the finals & both players on each team ask for a significant raise. That's the challenge of any GM when a team is going to the final. Many players thinks they play an important role in it & they want a share of respect for what they have done.

Both team's GM had to make decision to keep some & to lose some because mostly everyone with the contract expire , ask for a raise.
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
kerrly said:
I don't know why you don't think that the NHL isn't planning on revenue sharing. In their last proposal, they said meaningful revenue sharing would be a part of it. Also with a even playing field the owners will gladly spend that money with more hopes of being successful, thus maximizing profits through hopefully playoffs and more fans coming to watch the games. And if not, then its too bad. If they cannot run a successful team under a cap, they should sell it.
we'll see -
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
I in the Eye said:
IMHO, Edmonton will still be a mediocre team even with a salary cap (same with the Islanders)... Their GMs have proven to be incompetent, IMO... I also think that Colorodo and NJ will still be one of the best teams in the league... IMO, their GMs have proven time and again to make excellent strategy implementation decisions... The strategies that they have at their disposal to build their teams may be different with a cap, but their competent ability to implement strategy is the same...

Comparing Lowe and Milbury is a complete joke. Lowe isn't even close to incompetent. And if you want to state some reasons why, I will be here to show you why he isn't. He added tons of depth to the organization. He hasn't always had the most money to work with, and other teams new that he was trading players away because of financial reasons. That usually doesn't help the situation, but Lowe has usually walked away from the trade breaking even or coming out on top. The only place I can even comprehend where you see Lowe as being incompetent is in the Doug Weight trade. Other than that, there are far worse GM's in the league.
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
Russian Fan said:
I just don't see the difference between the Carolina Panthers & the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Both go to the finals & both players on each team ask for a significant raise. That's the challenge of any GM when a team is going to the final. Many players thinks they play an important role in it & they want a share of respect for what they have done.

Both team's GM had to make decision to keep some & to lose some because mostly everyone with the contract expire , ask for a raise.

Agreed, example.....the Lightning won the Cup with salaries at approx. $32 Million, the team is already at $40 Million now, we lost UFA Cullimore to Chicago and St. Louis isn't even signed yet.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
Then why just change the GM's instead of having a 1-2 year lockout ? You just blame the GM of not being smart ? & it's exactly what happen in the last CBA. Bobby Clarke is tight with Leclair's contract that prevent him from having a Ziggy Palffy. Glen Sather is tight with Holik's contract, Boston is tight with Lapointe's contract that prevent him to get better. Same thing with some leafs players contract, some Wings contract & on & on.

I'm NOT saying that the last CBA was perfect , it need somes changes THAT'S FOR SURE but it punish team of giving ludicrous contract for a lot of years & the guy didn't perform , he can't get rid of the contract !

I agree with you partially. But with big market teams, they can spend more money to offset some of those bad contracts by adding more players. And in some circumstances these contracts effect other contracts in the league creating inflation.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
missK said:
Agreed, example.....the Lightning won the Cup with salaries at approx. $32 Million, the team is already at $40 Million now, we lost UFA Cullimore to Chicago and St. Louis isn't even signed yet.

Would you rather have the Lightning with just as much money to spend on players as every other team, creating less open room within other teams to accept big money players. Or the free market system where the stars on your team will be able to demand bigger coin and be traded away or sign as a free agent with many other teams. I think that Lightning would benefit under a cap. At least most of their team won't be dismantled. It would keep players salaries alot lower, eventhough I'm sure they will have to get rid of a player here or there, they won't have to get rid of all the main guys after their salaries increase by huge margins in the free market system.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
kerrly said:
I agree with you partially. But with big market teams, they can spend more money to offset some of those bad contracts by adding more players. And in some circumstances these contracts effect other contracts in the league creating inflation.

Is philly better with or without John Leclair ?

If Philly could get rid of Leclair's contract, would they take that 9M$ & get 1 & maybe 2 better players ?

I think Philly is stuck with Leclair right now & they can't get any better because of it.

say can be said with Lapointe in Boston, Holik in NY & on & on.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
I just don't see the difference between the Carolina Panthers & the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Both go to the finals & both players on each team ask for a significant raise. That's the challenge of any GM when a team is going to the final. Many players thinks they play an important role in it & they want a share of respect for what they have done.

Both team's GM had to make decision to keep some & to lose some because mostly everyone with the contract expire , ask for a raise.

There would be less oppurtunity for these players to get the raise they look for in the market of other teams. Every team is under the same cap and with a cap floor it doesn't leave alot of room for other teams to accept big contracts. Of course trades could be worked out, but at least that team is getting something in return. With no room for teams to accept bigger contracts, it will keep the contracts at a minimum thus allowing teams to keep more of their players. As far as I know, there is no cap floor in the NFL, and its not very often that you see the big names in the NFL swap teams, unless they ask for it. It will be a team building thing for every team around one or maybe two stars players.
 

missK

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
2,136
0
Lightning country
Visit site
kerrly said:
Would you rather have the Lightning with just as much money to spend on players as every other team, creating less open room within other teams to accept big money players. Or the free market system where the stars on your team will be able to demand bigger coin and be traded away or sign as a free agent with many other teams. I think that Lightning would benefit under a cap. At least most of their team won't be dismantled. It would keep players salaries alot lower, eventhough I'm sure they will have to get rid of a player here or there, they won't have to get rid of all the main guys after their salaries increase by huge margins in the free market system.

You're preaching to the choir, I never said I don't believe in some sort of a cap or revenue sharing. I happen to think the Lightning GM has built our team the right way, and hopefully will be able to keep our core team together for a long time. But I worry that Khabibulin will ask for $8-9 Million Cujo/Hasek money for next season (he will be UFA) and our team won't be able to pay it. Under a new system, hopefully that will not happen.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
Is philly better with or without John Leclair ?

If Philly could get rid of Leclair's contract, would they take that 9M$ & get 1 & maybe 2 better players ?

I think Philly is stuck with Leclair right now & they can't get any better because of it.

say can be said with Lapointe in Boston, Holik in NY & on & on.

I totally agree with that.....but I'm not even sure what we're trying to argue about anymore? This prevents the league from needing a cap? I don't think so.

Is the league better off having these contracts, absolutely not. These are the contracts that have helped create such an inflationary system.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
missK said:
You're preaching to the choir, I never said I don't believe in some sort of a cap or revenue sharing. I happen to think the Lightning GM has built our team the right way, and hopefully will be able to keep our core team together for a long time. But I worry that Khabibulin will ask for $8-9 Million Cujo/Hasek money for next season (he will be UFA) and our team won't be able to pay it. Under a new system, hopefully that will not happen.

Sorry, I misunderstood your response. And teams like Tampa are exactly why we need a new system. Went to great lengths to build an outstanding team, and I think they deserve the chance to keep their competitiveness alive.
 

I in the Eye

Drop a ball it falls
Dec 14, 2002
6,371
2,327
kerrly said:
Comparing Lowe and Milbury is a complete joke. Lowe isn't even close to incompetent. And if you want to state some reasons why, I will be here to show you why he isn't. He added tons of depth to the organization. He hasn't always had the most money to work with, and other teams new that he was trading players away because of financial reasons. That usually doesn't help the situation, but Lowe has usually walked away from the trade breaking even or coming out on top. The only place I can even comprehend where you see Lowe as being incompetent is in the Doug Weight trade. Other than that, there are far worse GM's in the league.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion... I agree that Lowe is a more competent GM than Milbury, IMO... but this doesn't mean Lowe is a competent GM...

I stand by my opinion... If you don't agree, fair enough... You and I both choose to believe whatever we want for both rational and irrational reasons... Nothing I say will change your mind, and likewise, nothing you say will change mine... So go ahead and think that Lowe is a great GM, and I'll go ahead and think that he's not...
 
Last edited:

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
Iconoclast - I agree with you that $10MM salaries are a thing of the past. That was happening on its own. However, regardless of whether there's a cap or not, the salaries made by revenue generating players will continue to dwarf the salaries made by less valuable players.

Ismellofhockey - My statement that support for the cap is a "canadian" thing is based on the general feel I get visiting message boards, results of polls, comments on TSN's your call, and the words of GB himself.. (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=106456)

I agree entirely with RussianFan. When given the opportunity, some fans base their loyalty on the jersey, some fans base their loyalty on the players. The best solution will capture both of those crowds.

So far, everything in the negotiations has been about how to divide up the pie. The CBA needs to be written in a way that helps to grow the pie. The league's cap-based stance is to move competitiveness from the 'big' teams to the 'small' teams. A cap makes the 'big' teams smaller, and the 'small' teams bigger. Why not build a solution that makes the small teams big, and keeps the big teams big?

Big markets are built over time. The formula is simple: Notable players achieving success on ice over time. A cap causes more player movement. It does distribute notable players around the league, but it won't allow those players enough time to develop a fan following in that market. It stunts the growth of all markets and results in a smaller pie for everyone.

A meaningful (not MLB) soft cap/lux tax can contain spending while at the same time allowing the big teams enough flexibility to keep the players that their fans have become attached to. It also distributes money to teams that are trying to build that fan following.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->